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.GivemTheAxe said:calumnus said:Eastern Oregon Bear said: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.calumnus said:dimitrig said:calumnus said:71Bear said: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.wifeisafurd said: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.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.
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.
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?
Oh well.