UC Davis moved to downgrade its NCAA Division I women’s equestrian team to club status and then attempted to justify the decision with data and explanations that supporters say are inconsistent, misleading and, in some cases, outright fabricated.
Parents, athletes and outside advocates now contend that the university’s third-party report — released more than a month after the Jan. 9 announcement — relies on inflated budget figures, flawed comparisons and post hoc reasoning that does not withstand scrutiny.
In a Zoom interview this week with the Vanguard, supporters of the program laid out what they describe as financial discrepancies exceeding $1 million annually, Title IX compliance concerns and a pattern of treatment they view as dismissive toward women’s athletics.
The controversy began Jan. 9, when Athletic Director John “Rocko” DeLuca informed coaches and athletes that the Division I equestrian team would be transitioned to club status beginning in the 2026-27 academic year.
According to the interview, DeLuca told the team the decision was based on budgetary concerns and a third-party analysis, and that it was final.
In a press release issued that day and again on Feb. 17, the university stated the move followed a review of “the competitive landscape, evolving NCAA opportunities, finances, long-range athletics strategy, and gender equity obligations.”
But parents and athletes say those explanations do not withstand scrutiny.
During the Zoom interview on Thursday, Stanford aerospace engineering professor Sigrid Elschot, whose daughter is on the team, laid out detailed objections to the report’s financial and methodological claims.
“Why this investigation began is because when the team was cut, they were two-time conference champion winners,” Elschot said. “They had really one of the highest GPAs of all the athletic teams. They were the women’s team of the year. And so there were a lot of questions about why they would cut this team and what little information they had conveyed during those first couple days were shown to be incorrect.”
Elschot demonstrated during the interview that a number of initial statements were false, including claims about the number of teams competing at nationals and the status of the ECAC conference.
For example, “NCEA continues to host 8 teams in dual-discipline and 4 teams in single-discipline, for a total of 12 teams,” contradicting the university’s suggestion that the competitive field had shrunk.
Elschot also noted that the ECAC conference “is D1,” disputing references that suggested otherwise .
Recruiting realities form a central part of the athletes’ argument that the demotion effectively ends their competitive careers. Raegan Bennett, who runs a business helping high school riders navigate Division I recruiting and who competed at Texas Christian University, said roster spots are typically filled far in advance.
“The recruiting process begins junior year of high school,” Bennett said. “The dual discipline teams primarily fill up the recruiting roster by the end of junior year.”
When the announcement came Jan. 9, Bennett said, most seniors in the 2026 class had already committed elsewhere or had no viable options.
“So they couldn’t have been recruited to a different dual discipline school,” she said .
For current team members, transferring is no simple solution. “The Roster Cap for Equestrian is 50 across all dual discipline schools,” Bennett said. “Even if a school wanted to take a couple of girls from Davis, they may not be allowed to because of the roster cap.”
The parents’ lawsuit, filed Feb. 9 by one current athlete and two recruits, alleges fraud and misrepresentation. The university has cited the pending litigation as a reason for declining to meet with parents, though the presentation notes that repeated requests for dialogue preceded the filing.
At the core of the dispute are sharply conflicting budget numbers.
The third-party report lists equestrian operating costs in the range of $1.35 million to $1.8 million, according to the parents’ summary. By contrast, they point to figures reported through the U.S. Department of Education’s Equity in Athletics Data Analysis program showing an operating budget of $861,053 and assert that internal public documents suggest expenses closer to $500,000.
In the Zoom interview, Elschot said, “Once the third party report was finally released last week, we found over a million dollars annually, $1.3 million annually that’s being attributed to the equestrian team that does not align with the underlying data.”
Supporters say a close review of the third-party report shows that more than $1 million in annual operating costs have been attributed to the equestrian team in ways they contend are unsupported, particularly in the categories labeled “equipment,” “admin,” and “other.”
They argue the disparities become more pronounced when compared with peer institutions. According to their analysis, UC Davis’ reported “equipment” costs are roughly 10 times higher than those at Fresno State and South Dakota State, while spending categorized as “other” is approximately 23 times higher than Fresno State and 78 times higher than South Dakota State.
Elschot described the disparities as shocking.
“These numbers are so far off, so egregious, it’s hard to understand how anyone could look at these and not question them,” she said .
Parents also raise concerns about fundraising practices.
A December 2025 event was advertised to “further the future of the equestrian team,” according to the slide deck, and the athletics department was “soliciting parents’ credit card and bank information up until moments before the team was cut.”
Elschot said, “What was happening literally the week of them canceling the team is we were all getting a bunch of calls from the athletics department, ‘Please give us your credit card information, please give us your bank information.’”
She added that the fundraising revenue “was never even reflected anywhere in the budget,” though “the team was however penalized for the cost to hold the fundraiser.”
Beyond finances, supporters argue the decision exacerbates gender inequities.
Supporters also argue that the university’s Title IX calculations mask a deeper imbalance. They contend that women remain underrepresented in athletics overall and point to federal Equity in Athletics Data Analysis reports that count male practice players on women’s teams as female participants for reporting purposes. Removing those male practice players from the totals, they say, lowers the percentage of female athletes by nearly a full percentage point.
They further argue that participation numbers are inflated through duplicated counts in sports such as track and field. Because women compete in both indoor and outdoor track while men compete only in outdoor, they say, female athletes are counted multiple times. Their analysis estimates an average of 58 duplicated women compared with 12 duplicated men across multiple sports.
Facility disparities are also highlighted.
For example, they document a $50 million football stadium upgrade and private charters for men’s teams with equestrian athletes who, it states, “have no locker room,” share “one very old bathroom,” and have flown on itineraries requiring early departures and same-day competition .
Social media coverage is cited as another indicator of imbalance.
Elschot notes, “Men’s sports at UC Davis have historically received significantly more social media attention than women’s sports” and that the only mention of equestrian for two consecutive years on Facebook was in a Valentine’s post, with “no reference to accomplishments.”
Athletes also describe feeling intimidated during and after the announcement.
“At the January 9th meeting, the AD told the athletes and coaches that the decision was ‘final’ and that things would go ‘better/smoother/easier’ for them if they did not fight it,” Elschot stated, adding that the comment “made the athletes feel despondent, helpless, and intimidated.”
Following the announcement, the university restricted the team’s access to its social media account and deployed police to a Feb. 6 home meet, actions the parents’ document describes as “psychologically intimidating.”
Supporters are calling for interim protection, reinstatement of Division I status during review, an independent investigation into financial discrepancies, and an equity audit.
They added that their effort is not directed against other women’s sports. A slide entitled “Women Support Women” quotes NCAA President Charlie Baker’s statement that the addition of STUNT as a championship sport reflects efforts to “grow and elevate women’s athletics,” and asserts that expansion “is intended as expansion, not replacement.”
For now, the coalition known as Reinstate UC Davis Equestrian says it will continue pressing for dialogue and reversal. Tags: UC Davis, women’s sports, Title IX, college athletics, equestrian, gender equity.