Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 60 of 60

Thread: WOW: We are F'ed

  1. #46
    Memorial Stadium is an historical preservation site and cannot be torn down. Plus, expanding Edwards to seat 50K+ would be a nightmare. Thirdly, the fight with PHA was nothing compared with what would happen with the city of Berkeley if we put 50-60K fans next to downtown.

  2. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by GoCalBears View Post
    I wondered why FB couldn't move to Edward Field --with all the upgrades as SAHPC-- given all the geographic advantages (closer to downtown business districts, access major public transit systems = less parking demand and traffic, proximity to other sport venues, not having to climb a hill, less exposure risk if the big one hit the fault during game day) over Memorial Stadium. Was the history/tradition, Bay views, and tightwad hill the over riding consideration?
    I don't think that works as the footprint at Edwards would be REALLY tiny. After going through the football wars in San Diego I can tell you it is just AWFULLY hard to fit football into space less than X. Chargers SORTA did it but it really didn't work and would have been a nightmare.

    I just think the better choice would have been to unbundle. Do the ABSOLUTE minimum at CMS that doesn't trigger Alquist (sp/terminology) concerning seismic safety to address that you are playing in a near 100 year old stadium. Then address the lack of training facilities in much cheaper in the long run "green field" solution.

    Or....

    Raise the money first. If folks are committed than see how committed. And if not...and no other options, play at the Colosseum. UCLA plays off campus. Sucks but they do and it hasn't killed THEIR program.

  3. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by UrsaMajor View Post
    Memorial Stadium is an historical preservation site and cannot be torn down. Plus, expanding Edwards to seat 50K+ would be a nightmare. Thirdly, the fight with PHA was nothing compared with what would happen with the city of Berkeley if we put 50-60K fans next to downtown.
    Memorial Stadium could remain, just reprogrammed to host other sports that doesn't require 50-60k fans to trek up the hill on game days. City of Berk would still have to manage 50-60K fans already coming to the city regardless where they go during game day, but from a city traffic management perspective, it would be easier to manage if the game venue is closer to major public transit, access to major street arterials / freeway access, and more parking garages near downtown. Currently during game days I've seen, golf carts, trolley shuttles, and AC Transit buses transporting fans to/from downtown to the stadium, probably a traffic mitigation requirement imposed by the city.

    Expanding Edward seating capacity probably wouldn't be as costly as Memorial b/c there is no fault line to engineer for. According to Wiki, Edward has 22K capacity and in 2014 Memorial avg 48K fans (http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/footba...dance/2014.pdf).

  4. #49
    True Blue Golden Bear FiatSlug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    city named for a Bishop of Cloyne
    Posts
    8,854
    Quote Originally Posted by socaltownie View Post
    Bah.

    Huge Investment built on the cheap (i.e. you didn't have all the money lined up so you could call it Mr. XX's California Memorial Stadium)

    Didn't translate to more wins
    Didn't translate to more seats being sold
    Definitely required a quantum degrading of "game day experience" with every break using piped in music and ads to maximize every minute of potential revenue
    Meant that the AD operated in the red and means that as other schools have been able to invest in BB we are basically "stuck"

    Look, I LIKE the new CMS but in retrospect it was a horrifically bad decision because it didn't take into account how shared revenue would be used by other programs. They didn't stand still or blow their proceeds at the craps table at the Sands. They took it and invested in THEIR programs. So the right decision by Sandy would have been to ask "What is the biggest bang I can get for this windfall to the AD over the long term (10-20 years)? Building a palace at CMS seems not the proper investment as opposed to, for example.....

    A) Set aside X for ongoing maintenance at CMS. Repaint and refurbish the benches on a more regular basis
    B) Build a weight room someplace on Campus with a joint use film room/lecture hall
    C) Invest in BB
    D) Invest in coaching staff Salaries


    There. Those are much better ways to spend the money because as we pretty much have shown - winning takes care of incremental attendance. Pretty buildings? Not so much.
    And whose fault was that? Show me where Sandy said "Full speed ahead!" without letting Cal's Administration what the deal would be.

    She did her due diligence and she shared the results with the Cal campus Administration. Sandy Barbour's primary task was to get a plan together to build the SAHPC and renovate Cal Memorial.

    Nathan Brostrom knew what was involved and he signed off on it. Brostrom was Cal's Vice-Chancellor for Administration; he was responsible for advising the Chancellor, the Executive VC and Provost on "...all budget and resource management, health and human services, and fiscal planning matters." starting in 2006. See Brostrom's bio at this link: http://www.ucop.edu/finance-office/staff/bios/nathan-brostrom.html

    Why isn't this Brostrom's Folly?
    Last edited by FiatSlug; 03-20-2017 at 10:43 AM.

  5. #50
    As we say in Yiddish translation, done-is-done. While I agree in 20/20 hindsight we should have done something different, we didn't and we're stuck with the costs.

  6. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by UrsaMajor View Post
    Memorial Stadium is an historical preservation site and cannot be torn down.
    That seems incorrect. Historical designation does not give a building any special status in terms of remodeling, tearing down, or doing anything to it. Local laws (ie City of Berkeley or state laws) put limits on what people can do to historically registered sites, but UC is not subject to COB laws (and actually had state laws changed to get CMS remodeled). Chicago basically tore down Soldier Field and rebuilt - the only thing that happened was that it was removed from National Register of Historic Places. If UC tore down CMS, I think that's all that would have happened.

    Tearing down CMS and moving off campus could have been a cheaper option... at least one that required a fraction of the $$$ up front. An offsite location could have been the Oakland Coliseum (really only viable IF the Raiders built a FB only facility, which the city of Oakland is NOT going to pay), Levis Stadium (which was not approved at the time of the discussion), or ATT (woefully poor for football, plus so incredible disruptive to baseball that the Giants might not even want the small incremental extra money from CFB).

    The Bay will always have one NFL team (well as long as football is being played).... So raze CMS, build 2-3 fields in it's place for practice and a less expensive athletic center that isn't shoehorned in underground next to a stadium. Much less up front $$ for sure, at the cost of fewer game day dollars for years to come (rent, reduced attendance, less student involvement drying up the pool of future donors).

    I agree in that I don't see any other on-campus options. Would guess Edwards would have cost at least as much since it would be from scratch (so would have to rebuild 1/3 of the seats that weren't touched) and Cal would have to remove the RSF and baseball field to get a footprint of appropriate size. On top of that, CMS actually has a very small footprint for a stadium its size - outside of the ESP seats, the others are basically the smallest in CFB. It's 8-9 stories tall as it is, and that would mean something that tall the length of a football field.
    Last edited by ColoradoBear1; 03-20-2017 at 12:37 PM.

  7. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by socaltownie View Post
    I don't think that works as the footprint at Edwards would be REALLY tiny. After going through the football wars in San Diego I can tell you it is just AWFULLY hard to fit football into space less than X. Chargers SORTA did it but it really didn't work and would have been a nightmare.

    I just think the better choice would have been to unbundle. Do the ABSOLUTE minimum at CMS that doesn't trigger Alquist (sp/terminology) concerning seismic safety to address that you are playing in a near 100 year old stadium. Then address the lack of training facilities in much cheaper in the long run "green field" solution.
    Just look at google maps satellite and it's obvious Cal would have to take down the RSF and get rid of Evans Diamond. Still would be tight. Cal could do a second deck to save sq ft- at the expense of height. Building something tall there would be so out of place that the COB would go nuts.

    The sad thing is that other than the press box structure, CMS is pretty much a minimum cost remodel. 1/3 of CMS wasn't touched, and there are no luxuries outside of the Clubs. The donor chairback seats are pretty cramped and uncomfortable compared to similar seats at other CFb stadiums. And it's not like the Field Club and Stadium Club were that costly - the interior space had to be build anyway and all they had to make it a club do was slap some wood trim on the walls, throw in some couches, and serve Cal Dining food.

  8. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by GB54 View Post
    Stevens had consecutive final fours with a mid major. All these guys are bubble coaches
    According to many on this board, the next Brad Stevens cannot be hired because he has no HC experience (Stevens' first HC job was Butler).

  9. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by socaltownie View Post
    I don't think that works as the footprint at Edwards would be REALLY tiny. After going through the football wars in San Diego I can tell you it is just AWFULLY hard to fit football into space less than X. Chargers SORTA did it but it really didn't work and would have been a nightmare.

    I just think the better choice would have been to unbundle. Do the ABSOLUTE minimum at CMS that doesn't trigger Alquist (sp/terminology) concerning seismic safety to address that you are playing in a near 100 year old stadium. Then address the lack of training facilities in much cheaper in the long run "green field" solution.

    Or....

    Raise the money first. If folks are committed than see how committed. And if not...and no other options, play at the Colosseum. UCLA plays off campus. Sucks but they do and it hasn't killed THEIR program.
    Lots of people assumed it was an easy fix to just simply go to the O.co to play our games..... The Oakland Coliseum was not ever an option.
    The A's are the primary tenants, followed by the Raiders.
    Cal would not have been able to confirm any dates until after Baseball season due (October) to uncertainty of the playoffs. If the A's were to get into the playoffs, that stadium is at the whim of MLB. In fact, when the Raiders played at Cal, it was specifically due to the A's being in a playoff series.

    Candlestick is gone. Cal would be playing in Santa Clara. How's that for "off campus"?
    Last edited by Alkiadt; 03-20-2017 at 01:05 PM.

  10. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Big C_Cal View Post
    His main upside seems to be that he is connected with the right people.
    If a check for the basketball practice facility get written if and only if Cal hires Pasternak, I'd say that's major upside.

    But I would think the funding of the building could happen for a lot of hires.

  11. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by socaltownie View Post
    Bah.

    Huge Investment built on the cheap (i.e. you didn't have all the money lined up so you could call it Mr. XX's California Memorial Stadium)

    Didn't translate to more wins
    Didn't translate to more seats being sold
    Definitely required a quantum degrading of "game day experience" with every break using piped in music and ads to maximize every minute of potential revenue
    Meant that the AD operated in the red and means that as other schools have been able to invest in BB we are basically "stuck"

    Look, I LIKE the new CMS but in retrospect it was a horrifically bad decision because it didn't take into account how shared revenue would be used by other programs. They didn't stand still or blow their proceeds at the craps table at the Sands. They took it and invested in THEIR programs. So the right decision by Sandy would have been to ask "What is the biggest bang I can get for this windfall to the AD over the long term (10-20 years)? Building a palace at CMS seems not the proper investment as opposed to, for example.....

    A) Set aside X for ongoing maintenance at CMS. Repaint and refurbish the benches on a more regular basis
    B) Build a weight room someplace on Campus with a joint use film room/lecture hall
    C) Invest in BB
    D) Invest in coaching staff Salaries


    There. Those are much better ways to spend the money because as we pretty much have shown - winning takes care of incremental attendance. Pretty buildings? Not so much.
    CMS had to be done. I think it was done pretty well. The problem was bad luck with the timing, what with the economy and the football program heading south. Oh well...

    If we were going to stay in big-time football, we had to do it. I'm glad we got it done. If Wilcox can win 65-70% of his games over the next decade, including a Rose Bowl (or equivalent), we'll all be happy. We had to take our best shot.

  12. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by bluesaxe View Post
    And the expenses?
    http://www.calbears.com/documents/20...te.pdf?id=8467

    Cal FB:

    Total revenue- 43.4 (all in $ millions)
    operating expenses - 24.0
    Stadium Debt - 10.5
    -----------------------
    Revenue - Expenses: 8.9

    Cal BB:

    Total revenue: 9.5
    operating expenses: 9.9
    ---------------------------------
    Revenue - Expenses: (0.4)

    A couple things to note:

    Cal assigns media rights money 80% to football, 20% to basketball.
    So football gets ~ $21.6 million for just being a member of the P12 (TV, bowl games/playoff payments)
    Basketball gets ~ $4.7 million for being a member of the p12 (TV, NCAA tourney)

    That means that the 'variable' funds (contributions, ticket sales, royalties, etc) each program raises per year is:
    FB: $16.8 million
    BB: $5.2 million

    Also, the department is assigning only 80% of CMS's debt service to FB and 0% of the SAHPC. I might argue that 100% of CMS + 50% of the SAPHC could be a more proper breakdown. So if that counted against FB, it would turn a profit of ~ $4.5 million.

    However, Cal also counts the IMG and Nike money as 'non program specific'. While the IMG and Nike money was in the low millions, the new Learfield and Under Armor money is going to be a lot greater. IMO the CASH part of those deals should be split between football and basketball 80/20 like in other media deals. They wouldn't be paying Cal if it weren't for the FB and BB teams.

    That might bump up FB's profits by $3-4 million and BB by $1 million or so.

    Finally note the $4.35 million assigned to BB salaries. Either that is an anomaly due to unequal payments in CM's contract, or we paid our assistants very well. Either way, the money is there to to hire a very decent staff and still break even.

  13. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Alkiadt View Post

    Candlestick is gone. Cal would be playing in Santa Clara. How's that for "off campus"?
    Agree on the off campus location eventually being Levis, if that were the choice instead of CMS. For the up front savings, Cal FB might see a $5-10 million drop in yearly revenues due to lack of interest, sterile environment w/ no connection to the campus and donors not wanting to pay huge ESP prices for said off-campus experience. Plus Levis (49ers) would retain club and concession money and might charge rent even. Might have been able to get better terms if Cal had partnered with one of the NFL teams to start with, but probably not by much.

    UCLA gets an amazing deal from Pasadena because that stadium is otherwise used once a year. In a strange way, ESPN money goes to the Rose Bowl, who are Pasadena for the bulk of luxury box and general improvements.... so the Rose Bowl/CFB playoff system profits are somewhat covering the cost of UCLA playing there.
    Last edited by ColoradoBear1; 03-20-2017 at 01:52 PM.

  14. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Looperbear View Post
    According to many on this board, the next Brad Stevens cannot be hired because he has no HC experience (Stevens' first HC job was Butler).
    Not quite the same. Perhaps if we were talking about hiring Wyking Jones to be the coach, the Stevens analogy could be accurate, but Wyking doesn't seem to be a serious candidate for the job. Butler was a mid-major (not anymore since they're in the Big East) and very successful one. They had promoted assistants before Stevens--Todd Lickliter and Thad Matta were his predecessors and got the Butler job the same way. Butler hired Stevens' assistant, Brandon Miller to succeed him. Miller didn't pan out as expected and took a medical leave and Chris Holtmann, their current coach, who Miller hired as an assistant, took over for him.

    Perhaps Pasternack and Gates could be the next Stevens (doubtful as Stevens, IMO, is as close to a unicorn as it gets). Should they be the top options? That's what we're debating right now.
    Last edited by tsubamoto2001; 03-20-2017 at 02:01 PM.

  15. #60
    True Blue Golden Bear FiatSlug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    city named for a Bishop of Cloyne
    Posts
    8,854
    Quote Originally Posted by ColoradoBear1 View Post
    Just look at google maps satellite and it's obvious Cal would have to take down the RSF and get rid of Evans Diamond. Still would be tight. Cal could do a second deck to save sq ft- at the expense of height. Building something tall there would be so out of place that the COB would go nuts.

    The sad thing is that other than the press box structure, CMS is pretty much a minimum cost remodel. 1/3 of CMS wasn't touched, and there are no luxuries outside of the Clubs. The donor chairback seats are pretty cramped and uncomfortable compared to similar seats at other CFb stadiums. And it's not like the Field Club and Stadium Club were that costly - the interior space had to be build anyway and all they had to make it a club do was slap some wood trim on the walls, throw in some couches, and serve Cal Dining food.
    A double-decker stadium wouldn't necessarily be out of the question. I believe that John Galen Howard had done a preliminary sketch of a double-deck square design for that very site. The Regents were on board with the Edwards Stadium site (known as the Southwest corner of campus) until the Strawberry Canyon site seemed to come out of nowhere.

    But I wanted to comment on the height issue. The profile of a double decker stadium wouldn't have to look nearly as tall as the vertical distance from playing surface to the top of the second deck. Just build the first deck below grade level. Concourse level would then be at street level and the height visible to people on the street would be the height of the second deck.

    Of course, you'd have to tear down Edwards Field to make this happen - the structure has plenty of deferred maintenance that has made some areas unsafe.

    But this was a decision that should have been made in '06 or '07, not ten years later.




Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •