GivemTheAxe said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

sketchy9 said:

---

What are the prospects that the UC Regents would suggest/insist/require that Cal and UCLA are a package deal for any possible poaching or realignment? I would think that last thing they want is to be obligated to pay down the stadium debt, and realistically the only viable path to repayment is if Cal remains in the top tier of teams. I can't see why they would allow Cal to slip, and tying their fate to UCLA's seems like it would the best way to prevent that.

---

Maybe? Probably depends on the situation. If the choice is have one school get paid, or none, maybe the Regents just let it happen. If there is a larger group bailing from the p12 as block, and it's Cal vs Furd or Cal vs CU for a slot, I'd sure hope the UC administration exerts whatever it takes to get Cal included including using UCLA as a bargaining chip.

Worst case - if there is room for 4 teams to bail which would be USC, Oregon, UW, and then UCLA without any chance at 6. Then if UCLA balks, CU or ASU get consideration. Only two teams leaving would IMO still leave a viable conference, just less $$$. 6+ leaving and I can't see Cal being left behind. But 4 leaving would take all the juice out of the Pac and it would be almost impossible to get Cal included.

So many scenarios though.

If tOSU and Mich somehow go to the SEC, I think one could have a viable more academic league with the BT leftovers, and the p12 without say USC and Oregon. It's entirely possible the new SEC model will require commitment to football and paying players that just don't sit right with a lot of universities.

---

The news that Christ extended Knowlton through 2029 has me greatly depressed. I don't think our administration is effectively looking after our interests.

---

In the context of this thread, Knowlton is the most aggressive (other than maybe USC AD Bohn) in trying to move the Pac towards improving its position relative to the other P5 conferences. In terms of the direction of the Pac, expect some news about Knowlton and Bohn soon. You probably need to revisit your views on Knowlton after the football season. He is all in on football currently, and you can see if that works out both from an on the field performance side and a money side. It is interesting to see such a different takes on this board versus the Insider board re: Knowlton.

---

All I ever read from the "insiders" is how terrific things are going to be, that all will be revealed soon, that if things work out regarding on field performance, etc. etc., etc., etc.

With all due respect, it is a load of **** that you are being fed. I know because I was there once upon a time. The fact of the matter is that the program stalled out years ago and the current administration has done nothing to improve the situation.

Cal's athletic leadership is all about hot air and puffery. The fan base has been given nothing but promises. It deserves better.

---

You get what you:
1. Deserve?
2. Expect?
3. Work for?
4. Tolerate?

---

Pay for

---

Except you can overpay. Spending money doesn't always get you there. We spent $500 million on a stadium renovation and have yet to have a winning conference record ever since. Mark Fox makes $1.7 million per year. We went 3-15 in conference last year. I don't know how much Knowlton paid the search firm that served him up, but whatever it was it was too much. You have to be smart with your money too.

---

Every 90-100 years you have to renovate your stadium so that it doesn't crumble to the ground. Cal's case was especially costly because we had the wisdom to place the stadium directly on top of an active earthquake fault. If you thought a renovated stadium would score touchdowns or make tackles, you're delusional. As for the basketball team, I don't know how football stadium renovation was supposed to affect them.

---

I didn't think we needed a renovated football stadium to win, but Tedford seemed to think so (based on his experience at Oregon) and convinced the administration that we did, that it needed to be Nike level high end, and that he would leave if we didn't.

Seismic safety could have been achieved at MUCH lower cost, especially if we moved concessions, restrooms and locker rooms outside of the interior spaces. We only needed a press box, not an amazing club level skybox built on top of the old seismically unsound stadium. The SAHPC did not have to be built underground, next to the seismically unsound stadium. Don't get me wrong, the result is amazing, a tremendous example of engineering and architecture, but the financial burden has also been and remains tremendous.

People who make $50,000 a year should not take out loans to live in $10 million homes, even if the home is amazing (as it should be at that price). It is simply more than they can afford given their income.

---

I believe we had this argument before the CMS reconstruction. First, it was going to cost a heck of a lot of money just to keep CMS safe for the projected future.
Second, the powers that be decided that if we had to spend that much money anyway, then why not an upgrade that we could all be proud of.
Third, like almost all construction projects the ultimate price tag eventually turned out higher than expected (due in part to construction delays caused by lawsuits and tree-sitters).
It is a little late now to repeat prior arguments. There were different positions back then. Those who wanted a bigger renovation won the argument.

Tedford was on the side that wanted a bigger renovation. He understood that it would help in recruiting. Based upon comments from recent recruits, CMS is a big positive factor in the positive impression recruits get about the Cal program. Of course not the biggest factor or even one of the biggest factors. But it is an important factor.

Would Cal have made it he decision then if we knew it hen what we "know" now about the possible fate of
the PAC-12? Maybe, Maybe not.
But since we had no crystal ball the decision was made. Why the "coulda, woulda, shoulda" now?

---

The issue is the financing scheme. It was built on the expectation that Cal would continue to draw well (as they did during the peak-Tedford years). Anyone with any sense would know that you should never base a financing scheme on anticipated results when those expectations are not in sync with historical outcomes. Instead, a conservative plan based upon a realistic attendance forecast should have been developed.

Oh well.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

sketchy9 said:

---

What are the prospects that the UC Regents would suggest/insist/require that Cal and UCLA are a package deal for any possible poaching or realignment? I would think that last thing they want is to be obligated to pay down the stadium debt, and realistically the only viable path to repayment is if Cal remains in the top tier of teams. I can't see why they would allow Cal to slip, and tying their fate to UCLA's seems like it would the best way to prevent that.

---

Maybe? Probably depends on the situation. If the choice is have one school get paid, or none, maybe the Regents just let it happen. If there is a larger group bailing from the p12 as block, and it's Cal vs Furd or Cal vs CU for a slot, I'd sure hope the UC administration exerts whatever it takes to get Cal included including using UCLA as a bargaining chip.

Worst case - if there is room for 4 teams to bail which would be USC, Oregon, UW, and then UCLA without any chance at 6. Then if UCLA balks, CU or ASU get consideration. Only two teams leaving would IMO still leave a viable conference, just less $$$. 6+ leaving and I can't see Cal being left behind. But 4 leaving would take all the juice out of the Pac and it would be almost impossible to get Cal included.

So many scenarios though.

If tOSU and Mich somehow go to the SEC, I think one could have a viable more academic league with the BT leftovers, and the p12 without say USC and Oregon. It's entirely possible the new SEC model will require commitment to football and paying players that just don't sit right with a lot of universities.

---

The news that Christ extended Knowlton through 2029 has me greatly depressed. I don't think our administration is effectively looking after our interests.

---

In the context of this thread, Knowlton is the most aggressive (other than maybe USC AD Bohn) in trying to move the Pac towards improving its position relative to the other P5 conferences. In terms of the direction of the Pac, expect some news about Knowlton and Bohn soon. You probably need to revisit your views on Knowlton after the football season. He is all in on football currently, and you can see if that works out both from an on the field performance side and a money side. It is interesting to see such a different takes on this board versus the Insider board re: Knowlton.

---

All I ever read from the "insiders" is how terrific things are going to be, that all will be revealed soon, that if things work out regarding on field performance, etc. etc., etc., etc.

With all due respect, it is a load of **** that you are being fed. I know because I was there once upon a time. The fact of the matter is that the program stalled out years ago and the current administration has done nothing to improve the situation.

Cal's athletic leadership is all about hot air and puffery. The fan base has been given nothing but promises. It deserves better.

---

You get what you:
1. Deserve?
2. Expect?
3. Work for?
4. Tolerate?

---

Pay for

---

Except you can overpay. Spending money doesn't always get you there. We spent $500 million on a stadium renovation and have yet to have a winning conference record ever since. Mark Fox makes $1.7 million per year. We went 3-15 in conference last year. I don't know how much Knowlton paid the search firm that served him up, but whatever it was it was too much. You have to be smart with your money too.

---

Every 90-100 years you have to renovate your stadium so that it doesn't crumble to the ground. Cal's case was especially costly because we had the wisdom to place the stadium directly on top of an active earthquake fault. If you thought a renovated stadium would score touchdowns or make tackles, you're delusional. As for the basketball team, I don't know how football stadium renovation was supposed to affect them.

---

I didn't think we needed a renovated football stadium to win, but Tedford seemed to think so (based on his experience at Oregon) and convinced the administration that we did, that it needed to be Nike level high end, and that he would leave if we didn't.

Seismic safety could have been achieved at MUCH lower cost, especially if we moved concessions, restrooms and locker rooms outside of the interior spaces. We only needed a press box, not an amazing club level skybox built on top of the old seismically unsound stadium. The SAHPC did not have to be built underground, next to the seismically unsound stadium. Don't get me wrong, the result is amazing, a tremendous example of engineering and architecture, but the financial burden has also been and remains tremendous.

People who make $50,000 a year should not take out loans to live in $10 million homes, even if the home is amazing (as it should be at that price). It is simply more than they can afford given their income.

---

I believe we had this argument before the CMS reconstruction. First, it was going to cost a heck of a lot of money just to keep CMS safe for the projected future.
Second, the powers that be decided that if we had to spend that much money anyway, then why not an upgrade that we could all be proud of.
Third, like almost all construction projects the ultimate price tag eventually turned out higher than expected (due in part to construction delays caused by lawsuits and tree-sitters).
It is a little late now to repeat prior arguments. There were different positions back then. Those who wanted a bigger renovation won the argument.

Tedford was on the side that wanted a bigger renovation. He understood that it would help in recruiting. Based upon comments from recent recruits, CMS is a big positive factor in the positive impression recruits get about the Cal program. Of course not the biggest factor or even one of the biggest factors. But it is an important factor.

Would Cal have made it he decision then if we knew it hen what we "know" now about the possible fate of
the PAC-12? Maybe, Maybe not.
But since we had no crystal ball the decision was made. Why the "coulda, woulda, shoulda" now?

---

Because it's so obvious we could have spent the 500 million dollars on the best coaches and be winning championships every year. Also, they seem to think it's a convenient club to bash Knowlton with even though he wasn't here until after the renovation was done.

---

No one blames Knowlton for the debt. No one.

However the debt being transferred from the AD to the university is touted as one of his major accomplishments. Christ did that and it did not make the debt magically go away. It is accounting, not finance. We still need to pay it off. Meanwhile, attendance has been dropping in the revenue sports and that was before COVID. He spent $millions changing basketball coaches for a guy another school paid to go away with predictable results. All of this at a time of great uncertainty for Cal, the PAC-12 and college sports in general, with either players paid or going FCs in football. He has ZERO business experience. His limited AD experience prior to Cal is exclusively military academies in lesser leagues supported by the Federal tax dollsrs.

His salary already greatly exceeds previous ADs. An 8 year contract extension is pretty much unprecedented, both in sports and in the corporate world. Certainly it is s first for Cal. I see nothing to justify it and plenty of reason to argue against it. However, since it is apparently a done deal I will try to just shut up and hope for the best.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

71Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

sketchy9 said:

---

What are the prospects that the UC Regents would suggest/insist/require that Cal and UCLA are a package deal for any possible poaching or realignment? I would think that last thing they want is to be obligated to pay down the stadium debt, and realistically the only viable path to repayment is if Cal remains in the top tier of teams. I can't see why they would allow Cal to slip, and tying their fate to UCLA's seems like it would the best way to prevent that.

---

Maybe? Probably depends on the situation. If the choice is have one school get paid, or none, maybe the Regents just let it happen. If there is a larger group bailing from the p12 as block, and it's Cal vs Furd or Cal vs CU for a slot, I'd sure hope the UC administration exerts whatever it takes to get Cal included including using UCLA as a bargaining chip.

Worst case - if there is room for 4 teams to bail which would be USC, Oregon, UW, and then UCLA without any chance at 6. Then if UCLA balks, CU or ASU get consideration. Only two teams leaving would IMO still leave a viable conference, just less $$$. 6+ leaving and I can't see Cal being left behind. But 4 leaving would take all the juice out of the Pac and it would be almost impossible to get Cal included.

So many scenarios though.

If tOSU and Mich somehow go to the SEC, I think one could have a viable more academic league with the BT leftovers, and the p12 without say USC and Oregon. It's entirely possible the new SEC model will require commitment to football and paying players that just don't sit right with a lot of universities.

---

The news that Christ extended Knowlton through 2029 has me greatly depressed. I don't think our administration is effectively looking after our interests.

---

In the context of this thread, Knowlton is the most aggressive (other than maybe USC AD Bohn) in trying to move the Pac towards improving its position relative to the other P5 conferences. In terms of the direction of the Pac, expect some news about Knowlton and Bohn soon. You probably need to revisit your views on Knowlton after the football season. He is all in on football currently, and you can see if that works out both from an on the field performance side and a money side. It is interesting to see such a different takes on this board versus the Insider board re: Knowlton.

---

All I ever read from the "insiders" is how terrific things are going to be, that all will be revealed soon, that if things work out regarding on field performance, etc. etc., etc., etc.

With all due respect, it is a load of **** that you are being fed. I know because I was there once upon a time. The fact of the matter is that the program stalled out years ago and the current administration has done nothing to improve the situation.

Cal's athletic leadership is all about hot air and puffery. The fan base has been given nothing but promises. It deserves better.

---

You get what you:
1. Deserve?
2. Expect?
3. Work for?
4. Tolerate?

---

Pay for

---

Except you can overpay. Spending money doesn't always get you there. We spent $500 million on a stadium renovation and have yet to have a winning conference record ever since. Mark Fox makes $1.7 million per year. We went 3-15 in conference last year. I don't know how much Knowlton paid the search firm that served him up, but whatever it was it was too much. You have to be smart with your money too.

---

Every 90-100 years you have to renovate your stadium so that it doesn't crumble to the ground. Cal's case was especially costly because we had the wisdom to place the stadium directly on top of an active earthquake fault. If you thought a renovated stadium would score touchdowns or make tackles, you're delusional. As for the basketball team, I don't know how football stadium renovation was supposed to affect them.

---

I didn't think we needed a renovated football stadium to win, but Tedford seemed to think so (based on his experience at Oregon) and convinced the administration that we did, that it needed to be Nike level high end, and that he would leave if we didn't.

Seismic safety could have been achieved at MUCH lower cost, especially if we moved concessions, restrooms and locker rooms outside of the interior spaces. We only needed a press box, not an amazing club level skybox built on top of the old seismically unsound stadium. The SAHPC did not have to be built underground, next to the seismically unsound stadium. Don't get me wrong, the result is amazing, a tremendous example of engineering and architecture, but the financial burden has also been and remains tremendous.

People who make $50,000 a year should not take out loans to live in $10 million homes, even if the home is amazing (as it should be at that price). It is simply more than they can afford given their income.

---

I believe we had this argument before the CMS reconstruction. First, it was going to cost a heck of a lot of money just to keep CMS safe for the projected future.
Second, the powers that be decided that if we had to spend that much money anyway, then why not an upgrade that we could all be proud of.
Third, like almost all construction projects the ultimate price tag eventually turned out higher than expected (due in part to construction delays caused by lawsuits and tree-sitters).
It is a little late now to repeat prior arguments. There were different positions back then. Those who wanted a bigger renovation won the argument.

Tedford was on the side that wanted a bigger renovation. He understood that it would help in recruiting. Based upon comments from recent recruits, CMS is a big positive factor in the positive impression recruits get about the Cal program. Of course not the biggest factor or even one of the biggest factors. But it is an important factor.

Would Cal have made it he decision then if we knew it hen what we "know" now about the possible fate of
the PAC-12? Maybe, Maybe not.
But since we had no crystal ball the decision was made. Why the "coulda, woulda, shoulda" now?

---

I always felt the emphasis on the recruiting benefit was overstated and we certainly haven't got a lot to show for it in that area although we can only speculate where we'd be without it. I agree with those who think coaches are way more important than facilities in the recruiting process.

Cal_79 said:

---

Facilities by themselves don't land recruits, but they can sure chase them away. The old CMS was a crumbling mess and the locker rooms were an embarrassment. What kind of statement does it make about the program when there is no commitment to quality facilities? What comes to mind when the person you're visiting lives in the worst house in the neighborhood?

---

Athletic departments aren't the only ones who think improved facilities will help them land recruits. Any of you who have been on college tours (as prospective students or the parents of same) in the last 20 years almost certainly were shown the college's rec facilities which, I might add, are in many cases palatial - especially if you remember the pre-RSF days at Cal.

Cal_79 said:

---

Facilities by themselves don't land recruits, but they can sure chase them away. The old CMS was a crumbling mess and the locker rooms were an embarrassment. What kind of statement does it make about the program when there is no commitment to quality facilities? What comes to mind when the person you're visiting lives in the worst house in the neighborhood?

---

Agreed. CMS needed to get done, period, unless we were willing to take a step down in football or give it up entirely. The debt will somehow get absorbed, just like most other debts in this country. (Possible future ramifications for all the debt? Maybe, stay tuned... ) Great public works tend to be worth it, IMO. At least you end up with something tangible.

BearinOC said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sketchy9 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

LegoBear said:

---

I wonder if this is going to end up long term killing college football as well. If this end up leading to a super league with a few teams will they eventually be able to compete with the NFL?

For instance I only care about watching SEC or B1G games because I started watching Cal football. If Cal is no longer playing with those big boys or never did I don't think I'll care anymore and will go back to just watching NFL games instead of some super league.

Maybe that's just me and the new super leagues will be able to continue to pull in big and ever growing numbers. Looks like we'll see.

---

Agree. I said much the same in my post way back when.

By eliminating the relevance of more and more colleges, TV is eating away at the national viewership that has made college football so popular on TV. That's not a good (viable) long term strategy.
Most successful businesses seek to increase their customer base not decrease that base.

But the same is true about many other recent fan-unfriendly changes brought about by TV: moving games away from Saturday, Late night or early morning games, (worst of all) non-disclosure of the starting times of games until a few days before the scheduled game day.

When we die hard fans move on to the "great stadium in the sky", there will be no more fans to take our place here on earth.

---

I think what many Cal fans forget is they are not the intended audience. The focus of the college athletics industry is the Midwest and South. They are the people who live and die every Saturday. They are the intended audience. For every Cal fan who says, "no thanks", there are a thousands in other parts of the country who say, "more, please".

A guiding principle: never base anything regarding the US as a whole on the observations of people who live in Coastal California. We are an outlier. And, quite frankly, that is why I like living here.

---

I generally agree with you, but the question becomes is the gain of south and midwest audience enough to offset the loss of coastal CA audience, particularly once you factor in typical spending of each population? I have no idea, and I don't know if anyone does. It's an interesting thing to consider though.

---

It is not just California, the SEC excludes the major centers of population and wealth in the US, most of both coasts and the Midwest. There is a reason the Confederacy lost the Civil War and that was before the massive growth of the West and Midwest.

State and % of US GPD:
Texas 8.4%
Florida 5.2%
Georgia 3.0%'
Tennessee 1.7%
Missouri 1.5%
Louisiana 1.2%
South Carolina 1.1%
Alabama 1.1%
Kentucky 1.0%
Oklahoma 0.9%
Arkansas 0.6%
Mississippi 0.5%

Together that is about 25% of US GDP

How does it make sense for ESPN to focus on the 25% to the extent it would crowd out and exclude 75%? Why would ESPN pay big bucks for the CFP if it is only going to be a rehash of the SEC season? Why watch the SEC regular season if it only determines seeding in the CFP?

---

You maybe leaving out good entertaining Football watching by none Southern fans, and transplants from the South to watch their home team play. A lot our kids here in Orange County are going to Alabama, Florida and LSU due to their sports notoriety.

---

I think that's more a comment on the values of some Orange County kids than on the quality of West Coast sports. And quite possibly parents encouraging this as who wants to admit that their kid goes to UC Merced or even worse, an (eeww!) CSU?

Perhaps the weakness of the dollar and inflation will actually help. Back to the subject of the OP discussion. What y'all think of this.

1: California, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State
2: Colorado, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Utah
3: Arizona, Arizona State, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech
4: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, West Virginia
Name it: Noth pacific, South Pacific, Midwest and Southwest.
This would blanket 1/2 the country.

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

sketchy9 said:

---

What are the prospects that the UC Regents would suggest/insist/require that Cal and UCLA are a package deal for any possible poaching or realignment? I would think that last thing they want is to be obligated to pay down the stadium debt, and realistically the only viable path to repayment is if Cal remains in the top tier of teams. I can't see why they would allow Cal to slip, and tying their fate to UCLA's seems like it would the best way to prevent that.

---

Maybe? Probably depends on the situation. If the choice is have one school get paid, or none, maybe the Regents just let it happen. If there is a larger group bailing from the p12 as block, and it's Cal vs Furd or Cal vs CU for a slot, I'd sure hope the UC administration exerts whatever it takes to get Cal included including using UCLA as a bargaining chip.

Worst case - if there is room for 4 teams to bail which would be USC, Oregon, UW, and then UCLA without any chance at 6. Then if UCLA balks, CU or ASU get consideration. Only two teams leaving would IMO still leave a viable conference, just less $$$. 6+ leaving and I can't see Cal being left behind. But 4 leaving would take all the juice out of the Pac and it would be almost impossible to get Cal included.

So many scenarios though.

If tOSU and Mich somehow go to the SEC, I think one could have a viable more academic league with the BT leftovers, and the p12 without say USC and Oregon. It's entirely possible the new SEC model will require commitment to football and paying players that just don't sit right with a lot of universities.

---

The news that Christ extended Knowlton through 2029 has me greatly depressed. I don't think our administration is effectively looking after our interests.

---

In the context of this thread, Knowlton is the most aggressive (other than maybe USC AD Bohn) in trying to move the Pac towards improving its position relative to the other P5 conferences. In terms of the direction of the Pac, expect some news about Knowlton and Bohn soon. You probably need to revisit your views on Knowlton after the football season. He is all in on football currently, and you can see if that works out both from an on the field performance side and a money side. It is interesting to see such a different takes on this board versus the Insider board re: Knowlton.

---

Wilcox was hired by Williams, so Knowlton gets little if any credit (or blame) for what happens in football this Fall IMO. Hopefully good things.

Knowlton completely screwed up men's basketball. The next few seasons will be historically bad. Knowlton's process in hiring Fox was as bad as it gets. It revealed a lot about Knowlton's acumen and biases. The roster and state of the program the next coach inherits will be the worst since I have been following Cal basketball (since 1980). I don't know if/when the program can recover.

Insiders by definition have a personal relationship with the administration and/or coaches. They think and say "Tom Holmoe (or Jim Knowlton) is such a nice guy to me (insider, usually a donor)." I appreciate the inside information they have, but they are generally the least objective on the board. Mostly they repeat the party line as insiders in politics do.

Insiders have always posted on these boards. They told us Holmoe was amazing, they told us we needed to spend $500 million on the stadium, they told us Desean Jackson was the problem with the 2007 team, last year they said Hyder would be the savior of the team, now they say it is another transfer Shepard. They always say the current person (chancellor, AD, Coach, OC, strength trainer) is great and now they realize that the last person they used to say was great, was actually horrible and all the problems the current person is having were the fault of the last person. Or the one before the last person. Rinse and repeat. To the extent there is a separate board for insiders it just becomes an echo chamber. The party line is not questioned.

I can only assume the insiders agreed, maybe even pushed for, the 8 year extension for Knowlton. I cannot see how that makes sense. However, now we can only hope things work out well for Cal. Tell me more about the great "aggressive" things Knowlton is doing "to improve our position relative to other P5 conferences" so I can be a believer too.

---

I am not an 'insider' but don't agree with most of this

there are a few people who have some more optimistic or glass half full opinions, but painting them with absolutes and as a group isn't something I can agree with

for example, can you quote one post that said Shepard is a savior of the team?

Cal_79 said:

---

Facilities by themselves don't land recruits, but they can sure chase them away. The old CMS was a crumbling mess and the locker rooms were an embarrassment. What kind of statement does it make about the program when there is no commitment to quality facilities? What comes to mind when the person you're visiting lives in the worst house in the neighborhood?

---

I agree. CMS was built in 1923 and had had only a few relatively minor updates. Cal was the laughing stock of the PAC-8, then the PAC-10 then the PAC-12. There were many recruits who were turned off by the condition of the stadium. Recruits might not come to Cal because of the facilities.
But they can be so turned off by the facilities and hat the refuse an offer to come to Cal because of the facilities. The same is true for highly-respected coaches.

How likely would it be for a highly respected coach to come to Cal if Tedford had left Cal.

ColoradoBear said:

---

sketchy9 said:

---

What are the prospects that the UC Regents would suggest/insist/require that Cal and UCLA are a package deal for any possible poaching or realignment? I would think that last thing they want is to be obligated to pay down the stadium debt, and realistically the only viable path to repayment is if Cal remains in the top tier of teams. I can't see why they would allow Cal to slip, and tying their fate to UCLA's seems like it would the best way to prevent that.

---

Maybe? Probably depends on the situation. If the choice is have one school get paid, or none, maybe the Regents just let it happen. If there is a larger group bailing from the p12 as block, and it's Cal vs Furd or Cal vs CU for a slot, I'd sure hope the UC administration exerts whatever it takes to get Cal included including using UCLA as a bargaining chip.

Worst case - if there is room for 4 teams to bail which would be USC, Oregon, UW, and then UCLA without any chance at 6. Then if UCLA balks, CU or ASU get consideration. Only two teams leaving would IMO still leave a viable conference, just less $$$. 6+ leaving and I can't see Cal being left behind. But 4 leaving would take all the juice out of the Pac and it would be almost impossible to get Cal included.

So many scenarios though.

If tOSU and Mich somehow go to the SEC, I think one could have a viable more academic league with the BT leftovers, and the p12 without say USC and Oregon. It's entirely possible the new SEC model will require commitment to football and paying players that just don't sit right with a lot of universities.

---

I'm just speculating here . . . I went to Michigan for two years in the late '70s, so my knowledge is not current, but they considered themselves, along with Northwestern to be the academic cream of the Big-10 and a premier national university. In fact, lots of faculty had spent time at Harvard, Berkeley, etc and vice versa. While the Athletic Dept certainly had cupcake curriculum for athletes (it was the Education major back then) there MIGHT be significant pressure from the academic side to not join a conference of second tier universities like the SEC.

HearstMining said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

sketchy9 said:

---

What are the prospects that the UC Regents would suggest/insist/require that Cal and UCLA are a package deal for any possible poaching or realignment? I would think that last thing they want is to be obligated to pay down the stadium debt, and realistically the only viable path to repayment is if Cal remains in the top tier of teams. I can't see why they would allow Cal to slip, and tying their fate to UCLA's seems like it would the best way to prevent that.

---

Maybe? Probably depends on the situation. If the choice is have one school get paid, or none, maybe the Regents just let it happen. If there is a larger group bailing from the p12 as block, and it's Cal vs Furd or Cal vs CU for a slot, I'd sure hope the UC administration exerts whatever it takes to get Cal included including using UCLA as a bargaining chip.

Worst case - if there is room for 4 teams to bail which would be USC, Oregon, UW, and then UCLA without any chance at 6. Then if UCLA balks, CU or ASU get consideration. Only two teams leaving would IMO still leave a viable conference, just less $$$. 6+ leaving and I can't see Cal being left behind. But 4 leaving would take all the juice out of the Pac and it would be almost impossible to get Cal included.

So many scenarios though.

If tOSU and Mich somehow go to the SEC, I think one could have a viable more academic league with the BT leftovers, and the p12 without say USC and Oregon. It's entirely possible the new SEC model will require commitment to football and paying players that just don't sit right with a lot of universities.

---

I'm just speculating here . . . I went to Michigan for two years in the late '70s, so my knowledge is not current, but they considered themselves, along with Northwestern to be the academic cream of the Big-10 and a premier national university. In fact, lots of faculty had spent time at Harvard, Berkeley, etc and vice versa. While the Athletic Dept certainly had cupcake curriculum for athletes (it was the Education major back then) there MIGHT be significant pressure from the academic side to not join a conference of second tier universities like the SEC.

---

Michigan, Purdue, Northwestern, Illinois, and Wisconsin are all pretty good academic schools. Michigan probably has the best reputation of the bunch but they all have some world class departments. I wouldn't mind being in a league with those schools. Can we have a league with a West component and an East component?

Maybe something like this:

West
-
Arizona
Cal
Oregon
Stanford
UCLA
Washington
Utah

East
-
Colorado
Illinois
Michigan
Minnesota
Northwestern
Purdue
Wisconsin

The winners of the two divisions could meet in a championship game called the Rose Bowl.

If Oregon and Michigan want out then it is viable without them.

dimitrig said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

sketchy9 said:

---

What are the prospects that the UC Regents would suggest/insist/require that Cal and UCLA are a package deal for any possible poaching or realignment? I would think that last thing they want is to be obligated to pay down the stadium debt, and realistically the only viable path to repayment is if Cal remains in the top tier of teams. I can't see why they would allow Cal to slip, and tying their fate to UCLA's seems like it would the best way to prevent that.

---

Maybe? Probably depends on the situation. If the choice is have one school get paid, or none, maybe the Regents just let it happen. If there is a larger group bailing from the p12 as block, and it's Cal vs Furd or Cal vs CU for a slot, I'd sure hope the UC administration exerts whatever it takes to get Cal included including using UCLA as a bargaining chip.

Worst case - if there is room for 4 teams to bail which would be USC, Oregon, UW, and then UCLA without any chance at 6. Then if UCLA balks, CU or ASU get consideration. Only two teams leaving would IMO still leave a viable conference, just less $$$. 6+ leaving and I can't see Cal being left behind. But 4 leaving would take all the juice out of the Pac and it would be almost impossible to get Cal included.

So many scenarios though.

If tOSU and Mich somehow go to the SEC, I think one could have a viable more academic league with the BT leftovers, and the p12 without say USC and Oregon. It's entirely possible the new SEC model will require commitment to football and paying players that just don't sit right with a lot of universities.

---

I'm just speculating here . . . I went to Michigan for two years in the late '70s, so my knowledge is not current, but they considered themselves, along with Northwestern to be the academic cream of the Big-10 and a premier national university. In fact, lots of faculty had spent time at Harvard, Berkeley, etc and vice versa. While the Athletic Dept certainly had cupcake curriculum for athletes (it was the Education major back then) there MIGHT be significant pressure from the academic side to not join a conference of second tier universities like the SEC.

---

Michigan, Purdue, Northwestern, Illinois, and Wisconsin are all pretty good academic schools. Michigan probably has the best reputation of the bunch but they all have some world class departments. I wouldn't mind being in a league with those schools. Can we have a league with a West component and an East component?

Maybe something like this:

West
-
Arizona
Cal
Oregon
Stanford
UCLA
Washington
Utah

East
-
Colorado
Illinois
Michigan
Minnesota
Northwestern
Purdue
Wisconsin

The winners of the two divisions could meet in a championship game called the Rose Bowl.

If Oregon and Michigan want out then it is viable without them.

---

Well on that list of Big 10 the equivalent of UM is Cal and Northwestern would be Stanford. I like the way you think but let's deal in realm of what is possible.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

Facilities by themselves don't land recruits, but they can sure chase them away. The old CMS was a crumbling mess and the locker rooms were an embarrassment. What kind of statement does it make about the program when there is no commitment to quality facilities? What comes to mind when the person you're visiting lives in the worst house in the neighborhood?

---

I agree. CMS was built in 1923 and had had only a few relatively minor updates. Cal was the laughing stock of the PAC-8, then the PAC-10 then the PAC-12. There were many recruits who were turned off by the condition of the stadium. Recruits might not come to Cal because of the facilities.
But they can be so turned off by the facilities and hat the refuse an offer to come to Cal because of the facilities. The same is true for highly-respected coaches.

How likely would it be for a highly respected coach to come to Cal if Tedford had left Cal.

---

All the California stadiums were built around the same time and renovated over the last decade.

The Rose Bowl was renovated for $180 million, the LA Coliseum (including luxury boxes) for $350 million and Stanford Stadium for $90 million.

I argued at the time that spending over $500 million was unnecessary, that based on Oaklands experience the Seat Licenses would not sell and that it would not significantly improve recruiting.

Our best recruiting was around 2003-2005 when we were a hot program on the rise. Our recruiting since the renovation has been below average. The Tosh classes were Tosh, and blew up when Tosh left.

Seismic safety, metal benches, a nice locker room and a nice weight room could have been achieved at a fraction of the $500 million cost. Cal fans loved Memorial before the renovation because of its architecture, location and views.

It is a done deal, so debating it is pointless. We just still need to find a way to pay for it.