Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 74

Thread: Shocky is SO right on this one (well almost right)

  1. #1

    Shocky is SO right on this one (well almost right)

    Shocky's shot guns at Rugby might be about 10 degrees off.

    There is NO WAY that Cal should be spending one cent "net" on Men's Crew.

    Here is the roster.

    http://www.calbears.com/roster.aspx?path=mcrew

    There is no way you can justify scholarships going to kids from these communities and these HS when they are financed by the young men on the football and basketball team. It is unconciousable.

    61 participants. The news report I saw that number did not break down how many scholarships they have.

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by socaltownie View Post
    Shocky's shot guns at Rugby might be about 10 degrees off.

    There is NO WAY that Cal should be spending one cent "net" on Men's Crew.

    Here is the roster.

    http://www.calbears.com/roster.aspx?path=mcrew

    There is no way you can justify scholarships going to kids from these communities and these HS when they are financed by the young men on the football and basketball team. It is unconciousable.

    61 participants. The news report I saw that number did not break down how many scholarships they have.
    Your last line says it all. What is the marginal cost of a walk-on using already purchased equipment? One reason that steering committee wanted an independent investigation was to get an "honest" cost breakdown by team. My guess is the bad news is that the big money losers are certain required women's sports, not men's crew.
    Last edited by wifeisafurd; 06-16-2017 at 09:54 PM.

  3. #3
    Just curious what you mean by "these communities and these high schools"?

  4. #4
    Virtually none of them are on scholarship if there are any at all and I believe crew's also self-sufficient.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by socaltownie View Post
    Shocky's shot guns at Rugby might be about 10 degrees off.

    There is NO WAY that Cal should be spending one cent "net" on Men's Crew.

    Here is the roster.

    http://www.calbears.com/roster.aspx?path=mcrew

    There is no way you can justify scholarships going to kids from these communities and these HS when they are financed by the young men on the football and basketball team. It is unconciousable.

    61 participants. The news report I saw that number did not break down how many scholarships they have.
    1. Is men's crew costing anything? If so, what is the cost over and above women's crew which is a big benefit to Title IX. And you ask the question yourself - how many scholarships are they giving to men? I'm fine if it makes sense to dump men's crew altogether, and I think the questions are good, but I'd save the pitchforks until I knew it was actually costing.

    2. If your concern about communities that scholarships may be going to is that there are a lot of out of state and foreign students on the team, then as a state tax payer, I can go with that. If it that they are white and from affluent communities, can't say I like that line of reasoning.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by socaltownie View Post
    It is unconciousable.
    The only thing that is "unconciousable" here is socaltownie's complete ignorance.

    Men's Crew is 100% self funded via an annuity Crew alums created.

    If you're going to rant, at least get your facts straight.
    Last edited by Bear19; 06-17-2017 at 01:39 AM.

  7. #7
    Why is this thread about Crew even on the Men's Basketball board? Just asking.

  8. #8
    Diversity move to increase enrollees from private prep schools- more Colins and Bretts

  9. #9
    I guess to the extent that 61 male participants require a corresponding 61 female participants in crew or another sport and those participants are not self-funding then there would be a cost. What that cost is I have no idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by OaktownBear View Post
    1. Is men's crew costing anything? If so, what is the cost over and above women's crew which is a big benefit to Title IX. And you ask the question yourself - how many scholarships are they giving to men? I'm fine if it makes sense to dump men's crew altogether, and I think the questions are good, but I'd save the pitchforks until I knew it was actually costing.

    2. If your concern about communities that scholarships may be going to is that there are a lot of out of state and foreign students on the team, then as a state tax payer, I can go with that. If it that they are white and from affluent communities, can't say I like that line of reasoning.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by wrigley View Post
    Just curious what you mean by "these communities and these high schools"?
    They are from extremely affluent Exurban communities or, in many cases, private prep schools. Thus 1%'ers are being supported by kids like D. Coleman. Yeah - I said it.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Bear19 View Post
    The only thing that is "unconciousable" here is socaltownie's complete ignorance.

    Men's Crew is 100% self funded via an annuity Crew alums created.

    If you're going to rant, at least get your facts straight.
    Fully? You paying your share of the overhead at the AD? Or just the coaches and facilities and travel?

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by socaltownie View Post
    Fully? You paying your share of the overhead at the AD? Or just the coaches and facilities and travel?
    and understand. A 61 slot mens program at Cal means effectively the requirement of a 70 or so womens slot equivelent. Then you add in Title IX and likely the requirements that some of those of those women will need to be offered scholarship.

    And I find "wwe will take anyone" and "we don't offer scholarships" with the fact they have a "recruiting coordinator" on staff. And again, why not simply offer it as a club sport - thus reducing the TITLe IX impacts.

    And it is interesting that it is "we take everyone"....with a roster populated from America's elite prep schools. Things that make you go "hmmmmmm"

  13. #13
    Obviously I'm generalizing here and this doesn't apply to everyone, but the crew kids I encountered at Cal were the biggest dicks. If we had to chop a men's sport that would be my prime choice.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by SFBear2012 View Post
    Obviously I'm generalizing here and this doesn't apply to everyone, but the crew kids I encountered at Cal were the biggest dicks. If we had to chop a men's sport that would be my prime choice.
    I wouldn't care if they were saints.

    Look it is the PUBLIC university of the state of CALIFORNIA. There are very few CIF High schools offering Crew. I know BHS does and I think a handful of others. Indeed, based upon CIF it would be far more reasonsable (still not a good idea but more aligned) to offer Mens and womens Lacross given that it is growing fast at least in SoCal CIF.

    And you look at the roster and it isn't at ALL surprising that I believe >50% of the roster is from out of state kids and a big chunk of foreign students. Great to see OUR tax dollars at work for that (and yes, it is, because absent the sport reduction in overhead and womens' title IX issues and less deficit and less deficit for the campus)

  15. #15
    It's obvious that there is preferential admissions and recruiting else they wouldn't be here but that's true of all sports.

    Lacrosse would be a terrible alternative- at least there is a rich history here with crew.
    Last edited by GB54; 06-17-2017 at 07:35 AM.



Posting Permissions

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