Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 74

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

  1. #16
    Some facts:

    There are very few--if any--crew scholarships for men's crew. The roster is too big. the men's coach has said that he'd prefer a roster of around 35 (essentially twice the # of rowers as there are seats in 2 boats), but the extra rowers cost very little. Crew is self-funded,, but what that means depends on how you define your terms.

  2. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by socaltownie View Post
    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)
    This reminds me of that great Martin Luther King quote:

    I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character...unless they are rich white children in which case, tough crap for them, screw the content of their character. Judge away.
    Quoting from memory. I might have gotten a few of those words wrong. Not sure.

    1. You start off blasting away at giving these guys scholarships. And then you are told they don't have any scholarships, but why let that get in the way of a good rant against kids because of their upbringing. So their education is not supported by Coleman. They are self funded, so their sport is not supported by Coleman. Their men's roster is completely offset by the women's roster, which is self funded so they are not costing on Title IX. Basically, getting rid of crew won't accomplish anything. Not to mention the fact that basketball doesn't make that much money. If you split Coleman's supposed share of revenue up evenly and give it to every athlete of a non-revenue sport, they might be able to buy a Top Dog.

    2. Why pick on crew? Want to look at the demographics of golf, or water polo, or rugby, or tennis or pretty much every sport not named football, basketball, or track. Many of those get scholarships, by the way.

    3. Cal has over a century of a tradition of excellence and Olympians in crew/rowing. I think that means something. It has had demonstrated value to Cal. Now, it could be that because of Title IX or some other factor that this value is not enough to keep it. And that is fine. But that decision should be based on the value of the program to the university vs. the cost. Not on whether people like the demographics of the participants.

    4. The people in crew work their asses off just like Coleman does. He gets a scholarship. They don't. I think Coleman is doing fine in the situation.

    5. The mission of the university was to provide an affordable higher education to the people of California. Specifically the high achieving students. It is not to be the university for the poor.

    6. If you have an issue with the crew team getting the same state subsidized education as the rest of the student population, why stop there. Why provide that education to ANY rich people. They can send their kids to private school.

    7. Many of the Olympic sports at Cal contribute to the medal count of our country and we like to celebrate the "if Cal was a country it would be ranked X in medal count" every 4 years. Almost all of those medals come from rich families because they are unfortunately the ones who can afford to get their kids the top flight training to excel in their sports. The other thing is, they almost all excel in the classroom as well AND graduate. Thankfully the performance of the football and basketball teams are catching up, but that is a very recent phenomenon. In any case, these sports have added to the reputation of Cal. As I said, we may have to cut some (I've been advocating cutting sports for years), but that will be a sad day and it will be made even sadder if it is done on the basis of serving one demographic over another.

    8. I'd like you to meet my hypothetical high school student. His name is Ron Moleman. He is African American and lives in a poor area. He has a 4.0 GPA as he always has. His school is crap and doesn't offer AP classes. His SAT and ACT scores are okay but not great because he can't afford a prep class. Ron Moleman can't afford to not work for four years. Ron Moleman would love to go to Berkeley. But Ron Moleman doesn't dribble a basketball. So you don't give a shyte about Ron Moleman. Why don't you be honest with yourself and admit you wouldn't give a damn about Coleman if he didn't play basketball. I see no righteous indignation for Ron Moleman. And there are a lot of Ron Moleman's out there who have done everything they can do to be competitive in the primary function of the university - an education. What I see is someone who wants to watch guys run up and down the floor real fast and wants to attach some nobility to that where there is none.

    9. I think your stance is bigoted and prejudiced and if that bigotry and prejudice was pointed in the opposite direction your post would have been deleted and you would have been banned. There. I said it.

  3. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by OaktownBear View Post
    This reminds me of that great Martin Luther King quote:



    Quoting from memory. I might have gotten a few of those words wrong. Not sure.

    1. You start off blasting away at giving these guys scholarships. And then you are told they don't have any scholarships, but why let that get in the way of a good rant against kids because of their upbringing. So their education is not supported by Coleman. They are self funded, so their sport is not supported by Coleman. Their men's roster is completely offset by the women's roster, which is self funded so they are not costing on Title IX. Basically, getting rid of crew won't accomplish anything. Not to mention the fact that basketball doesn't make that much money. If you split Coleman's supposed share of revenue up evenly and give it to every athlete of a non-revenue sport, they might be able to buy a Top Dog.

    2. Why pick on crew? Want to look at the demographics of golf, or water polo, or rugby, or tennis or pretty much every sport not named football, basketball, or track. Many of those get scholarships, by the way.

    3. Cal has over a century of a tradition of excellence and Olympians in crew/rowing. I think that means something. It has had demonstrated value to Cal. Now, it could be that because of Title IX or some other factor that this value is not enough to keep it. And that is fine. But that decision should be based on the value of the program to the university vs. the cost. Not on whether people like the demographics of the participants.

    4. The people in crew work their asses off just like Coleman does. He gets a scholarship. They don't. I think Coleman is doing fine in the situation.

    5. The mission of the university was to provide an affordable higher education to the people of California. Specifically the high achieving students. It is not to be the university for the poor.

    6. If you have an issue with the crew team getting the same state subsidized education as the rest of the student population, why stop there. Why provide that education to ANY rich people. They can send their kids to private school.

    7. Many of the Olympic sports at Cal contribute to the medal count of our country and we like to celebrate the "if Cal was a country it would be ranked X in medal count" every 4 years. Almost all of those medals come from rich families because they are unfortunately the ones who can afford to get their kids the top flight training to excel in their sports. The other thing is, they almost all excel in the classroom as well AND graduate. Thankfully the performance of the football and basketball teams are catching up, but that is a very recent phenomenon. In any case, these sports have added to the reputation of Cal. As I said, we may have to cut some (I've been advocating cutting sports for years), but that will be a sad day and it will be made even sadder if it is done on the basis of serving one demographic over another.

    8. I'd like you to meet my hypothetical high school student. His name is Ron Moleman. He is African American and lives in a poor area. He has a 4.0 GPA as he always has. His school is crap and doesn't offer AP classes. His SAT and ACT scores are okay but not great because he can't afford a prep class. Ron Moleman can't afford to not work for four years. Ron Moleman would love to go to Berkeley. But Ron Moleman doesn't dribble a basketball. So you don't give a shyte about Ron Moleman. Why don't you be honest with yourself and admit you wouldn't give a damn about Coleman if he didn't play basketball. I see no righteous indignation for Ron Moleman. And there are a lot of Ron Moleman's out there who have done everything they can do to be competitive in the primary function of the university - an education. What I see is someone who wants to watch guys run up and down the floor real fast and wants to attach some nobility to that where there is none.

    9. I think your stance is bigoted and prejudiced and if that bigotry and prejudice was pointed in the opposite direction your post would have been deleted and you would have been banned. There. I said it.
    My impression too when I read SCTs post at first, but was careful not to counter because of my love of crew & time spent on the Estuary. Thought you may have been a bit harsh but then he was so emphatic with his verbiage and caps, that I can only conclude he deserved every word of your post. +1

  4. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by socaltownie View Post
    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.
    Out of the 61 on the roster I see 14 from prep schools and academies. 3 of those are from St. Ignatius in San Francisco, which wasn't all that upper crust back in my high school days. Not sure about it now. That doesn't seem excessive for a sport that has limited locations where it can be played. I suppose that is more than 1% but we really don't have any idea of the family income information for the crew students. I went to a prep school on scholarship while my mother was an unemployed single parent collecting food stamps. She did get hired as a librarian the year after I started there but it still wasn't anywhere near a 1%er income.

    On the other hand, I see 14 from the UK and Europe (one I'm guessing is German from the name - no HS given), 8 from Australia, 2 from Canada and 1 from Brazil. That's over 40% of the roster. I'm surprised crew draws so many foreign students. I'd guess it's a testament to the strength and tradition of the program.

  5. #20

    Calm down

    Quote Originally Posted by socaltownie View Post
    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.
    Your comment isn't even true if Cal was relying on the Title 9 proportionality compliance prong, which it doesn't. Title IX requires that female and male student-athletes receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation. If 5 players on Cal men's crew get half-schoolies, than Cal women's crew better get 2.5 scholarships. Again, the 'walk-on" hypothetical you pose is irrelevant to compliance. Just for the record, Cal doesn't meet the scholarship prorportionality test, and instead relies on the accommodating the interests of the under-represented gender, so unless your massively cutting football with its 80 schoolies, there is absolutely no risk of cutting any womens' teams. And if Cal women decide they want a women's fencing team, than I/a better start a women's fencing team. Cal just doesn't have to put a lot of money into the team.

    And with respect to the money angle, Title 9 in NO way requires equal money be spent. The only provision that requires that the same dollars be spent proportional to participation is scholarships (actually that isn't technically correct; for example, the genders need to get the same equipment for the same type team, so men's and women's lacrosse teams get mouth guards) . Hence the football coach gets millions and the women's fencing coach gets paid something marginal.

    But here is where you really missed the boat. Have you seen the size of the women's crew roster (hint, its over 60). Both men and women have a history of allowing walk-ons for anyone willing to put in the time and effort. The same is true at Cal's biggest competitor, Udub.

    There is no gender inequality compliance issues because men's crew (as does women's crew) has a bunch of walk-ons.
    Last edited by wifeisafurd; 06-17-2017 at 09:37 PM.

  6. #21
    Anyone notice the size of the women's crew roster...also 61.
    Last edited by wifeisafurd; 06-17-2017 at 09:14 PM.

  7. #22
    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.
    So we chop a sport that provides essentially no cost savings, no improvement in gender equality, has a rich tradition and has wealthy alums who will pull support from Campus because some crew guy was mean to you. Brilliant.

  8. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by OaktownBear View Post
    This reminds me of that great Martin Luther King quote:



    Quoting from memory. I might have gotten a few of those words wrong. Not sure.

    1. You start off blasting away at giving these guys scholarships. And then you are told they don't have any scholarships, but why let that get in the way of a good rant against kids because of their upbringing. So their education is not supported by Coleman. They are self funded, so their sport is not supported by Coleman. Their men's roster is completely offset by the women's roster, which is self funded so they are not costing on Title IX. Basically, getting rid of crew won't accomplish anything. Not to mention the fact that basketball doesn't make that much money. If you split Coleman's supposed share of revenue up evenly and give it to every athlete of a non-revenue sport, they might be able to buy a Top Dog.

    2. Why pick on crew? Want to look at the demographics of golf, or water polo, or rugby, or tennis or pretty much every sport not named football, basketball, or track. Many of those get scholarships, by the way.

    3. Cal has over a century of a tradition of excellence and Olympians in crew/rowing. I think that means something. It has had demonstrated value to Cal. Now, it could be that because of Title IX or some other factor that this value is not enough to keep it. And that is fine. But that decision should be based on the value of the program to the university vs. the cost. Not on whether people like the demographics of the participants.

    4. The people in crew work their asses off just like Coleman does. He gets a scholarship. They don't. I think Coleman is doing fine in the situation.

    5. The mission of the university was to provide an affordable higher education to the people of California. Specifically the high achieving students. It is not to be the university for the poor.

    6. If you have an issue with the crew team getting the same state subsidized education as the rest of the student population, why stop there. Why provide that education to ANY rich people. They can send their kids to private school.

    7. Many of the Olympic sports at Cal contribute to the medal count of our country and we like to celebrate the "if Cal was a country it would be ranked X in medal count" every 4 years. Almost all of those medals come from rich families because they are unfortunately the ones who can afford to get their kids the top flight training to excel in their sports. The other thing is, they almost all excel in the classroom as well AND graduate. Thankfully the performance of the football and basketball teams are catching up, but that is a very recent phenomenon. In any case, these sports have added to the reputation of Cal. As I said, we may have to cut some (I've been advocating cutting sports for years), but that will be a sad day and it will be made even sadder if it is done on the basis of serving one demographic over another.

    8. I'd like you to meet my hypothetical high school student. His name is Ron Moleman. He is African American and lives in a poor area. He has a 4.0 GPA as he always has. His school is crap and doesn't offer AP classes. His SAT and ACT scores are okay but not great because he can't afford a prep class. Ron Moleman can't afford to not work for four years. Ron Moleman would love to go to Berkeley. But Ron Moleman doesn't dribble a basketball. So you don't give a shyte about Ron Moleman. Why don't you be honest with yourself and admit you wouldn't give a damn about Coleman if he didn't play basketball. I see no righteous indignation for Ron Moleman. And there are a lot of Ron Moleman's out there who have done everything they can do to be competitive in the primary function of the university - an education. What I see is someone who wants to watch guys run up and down the floor real fast and wants to attach some nobility to that where there is none.

    9. I think your stance is bigoted and prejudiced and if that bigotry and prejudice was pointed in the opposite direction your post would have been deleted and you would have been banned. There. I said it.
    Excellent post!

  9. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by UrsaMajor View Post
    Some facts:

    There are very few--if any--crew scholarships for men's crew. The roster is too big. the men's coach has said that he'd prefer a roster of around 35 (essentially twice the # of rowers as there are seats in 2 boats), but the extra rowers cost very little. Crew is self-funded,, but what that means depends on how you define your terms.
    that makes sense. I'm sure the crew coaches want to deal with just their top rowers, but the crew alumni/donors want to continue the walk on tradition that applies to both genders (and may have to under donor contribution contracts). And you are so right on the self-funding issue and defining terms.

    Schools end-up doing weird things because of donors. You think Harvard really thinks it needs over 40 intercollegiate teams? I doubt the administrators do, but if you want the largest endowment, you make sacrifices (especially endowed sacrifices).
    Last edited by wifeisafurd; 06-17-2017 at 09:47 PM.

  10. #25
    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.
    I've been convinced to not read sources that angers me, and based upon what you've written here, I don't have a clue what your talking about. Could you kindly restate the issue and your posit?
    Thank you.

  11. #26
    Crew used to be an angle to "game" admission to elite universities, but it's been overutilized in the last 10-15 years. A Cal friend's daughter rowed in high school and was interested in Princeton. The coach said her grades/scores were fine, but they have an annual applicant pool of 200 who have grades/scores and can contribute in one of the boats. She graduated from Cal, but didn't row.

    Also know a potential third generation Bear on both sides whose boat won a national title on the farm. A second generation Bear, whose dad was a Silicon Valley CFO rowed for Cal.

    When 80 to 95% of applicants are denied admission to elite schools, motivated parents and students are going to use every angle available.

  12. #27
    Golden Bear mbBear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bala Cynwyd, Pa. (near Philly)
    Posts
    5,608
    Quote Originally Posted by socaltownie View Post
    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"
    I don't really understand what you are proposing as a solution? Get rid of crew?

  13. #28
    Golden Bear mbBear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bala Cynwyd, Pa. (near Philly)
    Posts
    5,608
    Quote Originally Posted by socaltownie View Post
    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)
    Oh, and I was going to invite you to our Philly area reception for admitted Cal students next year. Scratch that. The university calls it "geographic diversity" just so you can hate on us more!!
    FYI for rowing fans: the only Sr. on the best HS rowing team in the Philly area is coming to Cal! He goes/went to Malvern Prep, which is religious private, so I don't know if he falls under this rant.
    They just left for Henley....

  14. #29
    Funny (or not so) story about donor wishes. Rice University in Houston built a new stadium that opened in 1950. Shortly after that, an alum died and left the university $40 million ( a HUGE sum in the 50's) to build a new stadium (apparently his will hadn't been updated). Rice wasn't going to tear down a new stadium just to rebuild it, but was reluctant to go to court to break the will--bad juju for future donors. So they sat on the money for years and years until finally they got an agreement to re-direct it from the donor's surviving family.

  15. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by wifeisafurd View Post
    Anyone notice the size of the women's crew roster...also 61.
    Sometimes we lose sight of the true reason for ALL extra-curricular activities at any level of schooling: The educational experience for the participants (complimenting the classroom experience). Stanford and Harvard have it right. We're trying, but we are struggling to be able to afford it.

    When I was at Cal, I remember hearing an old crew alum by the name of Jim Lemmon talk about what the sport meant to the crew athletes. It was anecdotal evidence, sure, but the guys often went on to become huge success stories. I know a Cal crew alum in our community: He's from a foreign country, but settled here after college, where he now contributes (a lot) to our economy... and to Cal.



Posting Permissions

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