So I think it got deleted. But I thought (cause I wrote it, damm it) that my comment was worth thinking about.....

1) The program that doesn't tolerate ****ty results is aquatics. It has the best coaches in the world, a world class facility, and I can tell you starts ramping up recruiting by about 7th and definitely 8th grade based upon the requests for time that my kid's club swim team gets.
2) A big reason is tradition but also well heeled funders that ensure Cal has one of the best resourced programs in the country
3) In the end this is the problem for Cal football. We play in a conference where there are at LEAST 3 programs (Oregon, Washington, U$C) that place a higher priority on winning and compromising the university on the road to Ws than we ever will. Another, Furd, is situated in a HIGHLY unique position (it and Notre Dame but Furd is a far superrior institution are 2 of the only private R1 institutions that play competitive football. This is diferent than it used to be 30 years ago where there were several programs out there competing for kids that wanted to win/compete at the highest level but didn't want to go to big land grant universities) giving it a national recruiting footprint that Cal is never going to match. So right off the bat there are 4 programs that "strategically" are in a better place. Yet, year to year we might get a W here and there but over a decade it isn't going to be pretty.
4) Which in turn makes it hard to be better than 7 to 9 wins. Maybe if the stars ALL align but it takes a magical season for Cal or a future HOF QB who just beat a team with 38 seconds left and no time outs.

Coming to grips with that has been healthy. I have really stopped caring that much and, if it is convenient, I will turn on the Bears for a few but only if nothing better presents itself, including working on my sprinkler system. Until Cal finds its "Boone Pikens" it is what it is.

BTW - that isn't healthy for the sport. I would LOVE to see ratings for CFB and how things look other than top weekly games that occur between say the top 20 programs in the county.

I agree with you. We are doomed to flounder unless someone at a very high level (big, big donor, AD, president) wants to field a good football team. Even getting an AD who rolls the dice continually with new head coach attempts would be better than what we have now. 5 years at a pop for head coaches with no track record and minimal support seems like a never ending trek to nowhereville.

82gradDLSdad said:

---

I agree with you. We are doomed to flounder unless someone at a very high level (big, big donor, AD, president) wants to field a good football team. Even getting an AD who rolls the dice continually with new head coach attempts would be better than what we have now. 5 years at a pop for head coaches with no track record and minimal support seems like a never ending trek to nowhereville.

---

Can we get Bezos to lose interest in Space and redirect to Cal? He is hanging with Tony's ex and all.

I also agree. We've been debating and thrashing about the "problems" and deficiencies with Cal football for sooo long - it's not going to change fellas unless we address the issues laid out above. Football can't compare with Cal aquatics - We are not a football school like Cal is to swimming and water polo. Aquatics draws the 5 stars like USC does to football. It's history and tradition that doesn't grow on its own - It needs financial support and backing from the University beyond silly marketing and hiring new coaches every 3 years. I am also one who has given up on the JT years of old and at my age, just feel good with a solid win and a courageous team, like the one that showed up against UW. Let's beat the Cougars in spite of it all!

socaltownie said:

---

So I think it got deleted. But I thought (cause I wrote it, damm it) that my comment was worth thinking about.....

1) The program that doesn't tolerate ****ty results is aquatics. It has the best coaches in the world, a world class facility, and I can tell you starts ramping up recruiting by about 7th and definitely 8th grade based upon the requests for time that my kid's club swim team gets.
2) A big reason is tradition but also well heeled funders that ensure Cal has one of the best resourced programs in the country
3) In the end this is the problem for Cal football. We play in a conference where there are at LEAST 3 programs (Oregon, Washington, U$C) that place a higher priority on winning and compromising the university on the road to Ws than we ever will. Another, Furd, is situated in a HIGHLY unique position (it and Notre Dame but Furd is a far superrior institution are 2 of the only private R1 institutions that play competitive football. This is diferent than it used to be 30 years ago where there were several programs out there competing for kids that wanted to win/compete at the highest level but didn't want to go to big land grant universities) giving it a national recruiting footprint that Cal is never going to match. So right off the bat there are 4 programs that "strategically" are in a better place. Yet, year to year we might get a W here and there but over a decade it isn't going to be pretty.
4) Which in turn makes it hard to be better than 7 to 9 wins. Maybe if the stars ALL align but it takes a magical season for Cal or a future HOF QB who just beat a team with 38 seconds left and no time outs.

Coming to grips with that has been healthy. I have really stopped caring that much and, if it is convenient, I will turn on the Bears for a few but only if nothing better presents itself, including working on my sprinkler system. Until Cal finds its "Boone Pikens" it is what it is.

BTW - that isn't healthy for the sport. I would LOVE to see ratings for CFB and how things look other than top weekly games that occur between say the top 20 programs in the county.

---

SportsMediaWatch is the go-to place for ratings on all sports. The college football data is interesting stuff….

Cal/NV drew 255,000 viewers
Cal/TCU drew 193,000 viewers
Cal/Sac St. - not reported (SMW does not publish P12 network viewership)

Both of the first two games were near the bottom of the rankings for all games televised and reported.

~ wdf happened to da old pumpers thread . . .

https://deadspin.com/the-1970s-oakland-raiders-boozin-and-coozin-through-el-5646039

https://www.si.com/nfl/raiders/news/oakland-raiders-training-camp-in-santa-rosa-al-davis-fred-biletnikoff-ken-stabler-gene-upshaw

71Bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

So I think it got deleted. But I thought (cause I wrote it, damm it) that my comment was worth thinking about.....

1) The program that doesn't tolerate ****ty results is aquatics. It has the best coaches in the world, a world class facility, and I can tell you starts ramping up recruiting by about 7th and definitely 8th grade based upon the requests for time that my kid's club swim team gets.
2) A big reason is tradition but also well heeled funders that ensure Cal has one of the best resourced programs in the country
3) In the end this is the problem for Cal football. We play in a conference where there are at LEAST 3 programs (Oregon, Washington, U$C) that place a higher priority on winning and compromising the university on the road to Ws than we ever will. Another, Furd, is situated in a HIGHLY unique position (it and Notre Dame but Furd is a far superrior institution are 2 of the only private R1 institutions that play competitive football. This is diferent than it used to be 30 years ago where there were several programs out there competing for kids that wanted to win/compete at the highest level but didn't want to go to big land grant universities) giving it a national recruiting footprint that Cal is never going to match. So right off the bat there are 4 programs that "strategically" are in a better place. Yet, year to year we might get a W here and there but over a decade it isn't going to be pretty.
4) Which in turn makes it hard to be better than 7 to 9 wins. Maybe if the stars ALL align but it takes a magical season for Cal or a future HOF QB who just beat a team with 38 seconds left and no time outs.

Coming to grips with that has been healthy. I have really stopped caring that much and, if it is convenient, I will turn on the Bears for a few but only if nothing better presents itself, including working on my sprinkler system. Until Cal finds its "Boone Pikens" it is what it is.

BTW - that isn't healthy for the sport. I would LOVE to see ratings for CFB and how things look other than top weekly games that occur between say the top 20 programs in the county.

---

SportsMediaWatch is the go-to place for ratings on all sports. The college football data is interesting stuff….

Cal/NV drew 255,000 viewers
Cal/TCU drew 193,000 viewers
Cal/Sac St. - not reported (SMW does not publish P12 network viewership)

Both of the first two games were near the bottom of the rankings for all games televised and reported.

---

I wasn't clear - what I am looking for is multi-year trends and especially how the entire "package" is playing out for the networks. There are going to be some GOOD games on the tube and I have every reason to believe that some of these will be solidly viewed. But who is really hanging with another 50+ bama blow out other than the Over betters? To me that is the question - as competitive balance has waned has it been good for ratings (understanding that you also need to account for the fact that ratings have been trending down for years across all properties and live sports is critical given how it is uniquely positioned against Streaming). I know that the NFL is vitally concerned about "balance" and competitive balance and I assume it is for a reason that involves ratings./revenue.

I thought this was a sunshine pumper thread?? Instead your even keeled, rational take is a bit depressing in many ways.

Acceptance is where we're at - is that healthy, sunshine pumping, depressingly negative, or weirdly calming? Probably all of these things - but it's up to each individual fan to choose.

It's the winning at all costs mentality that is the problem with the sport. Why not just enjoy the competition and the individual stories that underpin the back drop on Saturday afternoons. We know the entire collegiate sports situation is crooked. Do we want to be like that?

socaltownie said:

---

71Bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

So I think it got deleted. But I thought (cause I wrote it, damm it) that my comment was worth thinking about.....

1) The program that doesn't tolerate ****ty results is aquatics. It has the best coaches in the world, a world class facility, and I can tell you starts ramping up recruiting by about 7th and definitely 8th grade based upon the requests for time that my kid's club swim team gets.
2) A big reason is tradition but also well heeled funders that ensure Cal has one of the best resourced programs in the country
3) In the end this is the problem for Cal football. We play in a conference where there are at LEAST 3 programs (Oregon, Washington, U$C) that place a higher priority on winning and compromising the university on the road to Ws than we ever will. Another, Furd, is situated in a HIGHLY unique position (it and Notre Dame but Furd is a far superrior institution are 2 of the only private R1 institutions that play competitive football. This is diferent than it used to be 30 years ago where there were several programs out there competing for kids that wanted to win/compete at the highest level but didn't want to go to big land grant universities) giving it a national recruiting footprint that Cal is never going to match. So right off the bat there are 4 programs that "strategically" are in a better place. Yet, year to year we might get a W here and there but over a decade it isn't going to be pretty.
4) Which in turn makes it hard to be better than 7 to 9 wins. Maybe if the stars ALL align but it takes a magical season for Cal or a future HOF QB who just beat a team with 38 seconds left and no time outs.

Coming to grips with that has been healthy. I have really stopped caring that much and, if it is convenient, I will turn on the Bears for a few but only if nothing better presents itself, including working on my sprinkler system. Until Cal finds its "Boone Pikens" it is what it is.

BTW - that isn't healthy for the sport. I would LOVE to see ratings for CFB and how things look other than top weekly games that occur between say the top 20 programs in the county.

---

SportsMediaWatch is the go-to place for ratings on all sports. The college football data is interesting stuff….

Cal/NV drew 255,000 viewers
Cal/TCU drew 193,000 viewers
Cal/Sac St. - not reported (SMW does not publish P12 network viewership)

Both of the first two games were near the bottom of the rankings for all games televised and reported.

---

I wasn't clear - what I am looking for is multi-year trends and especially how the entire "package" is playing out for the networks. There are going to be some GOOD games on the tube and I have every reason to believe that some of these will be solidly viewed. But who is really hanging with another 50+ bama blow out other than the Over betters? To me that is the question - as competitive balance has waned has it been good for ratings (understanding that you also need to account for the fact that ratings have been trending down for years across all properties and live sports is critical given how it is uniquely positioned against Streaming). I know that the NFL is vitally concerned about "balance" and competitive balance and I assume it is for a reason that involves ratings./revenue.

---

Ratings are through the roof compared to last year. However, that is definitely not an apples to apples comparison due to COVID.

Here is some data (incl. a 2021 comparison to 2019)…

https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/college-football-tv-ratings/

My attitude right now is just to enjoy the experience of being able to go, after a year of no in-person football. That means going to the home games that are during the day (and night games if the weather is decent) downing three Top Dogs, enjoying being with my dad, and not stressing too much about the results. I probably won't watch any away games, because it's just not the same as being in the stadium.

Frankly, my hope at this point is that college football bifurcates, as has been discussed here recently, and that we and Stanford choose to go into the non-NFL-minor-league route. That would probably result in mostly day games, and a continued focus on the players as student athletes, rather than professionals-in-training.

Have USC, UW, or Oregon athletics actually compromised their respective universities on the road to winning? It seems like all 3 have leveraged winning to an overall increase in prominence and funding for the university.

Jeff82, you down THREE Top Dogs when you go to games?!? Is it, like, two before the game and one after, or all at once? Are they all "tops", or what kinds (or an assortment)? Just curious...

Yes Cal has an uphill battle in many ways against those other schools. What it will likely need to have for long term success is a coach that can win with the athletes that can get into Cal and will want to stay with Cal once he starts winning. It would be great if a former Cal player could become the long term coach because there probably aren't a ton of coaches that would stay after initial success. I don't think Cal will ever go out and grab the highest paid coach but I do think if a coach wins it will try to reward him.

And college football needs bands, crowds, and upsets. As much is I dislike the SEC in general that Alabama Florida fourth quarter was some of the most exciting football of the year partly due to it being a possible upset and partly due to noise from the crowd and bands. Alabama blowing people out every week isn't entertaining. Having the same five teams rotate in the playoffs isn't a long term solution either. Some parity is needed like in the NFL.

socaliganbear said:

---

Have USC, UW, or Oregon athletics actually compromised their respective universities on the road to winning? It seems like all 3 have leveraged winning to an overall increase in prominence and funding for the university.

---

Exactly. How does the academic standing of 82 football players impact the academic quality of a university with 41,000+ students? We suck at football because the people at the top suck at making football hiring decisions and few huge donors care. It's that simple and it doesn't have much to do with us wanting to retain our academic standing more than other schools. I don't want to go watch Cal football in order to eat hot dogs or think how great it is that those footballers in blue are sure great students. I don't begrudge anyone for going for whatever reason but Jeff's reasons don't do it for me. My dad is dead and my kids and wife don't want to go with me.

Integrity has no purpose in America.

socaliganbear said:

---

Have USC, UW, or Oregon athletics actually compromised their respective universities on the road to winning? It seems like all 3 have leveraged winning to an overall increase in prominence and funding for the university.

---

100% agree - Throw UCLA into this mix. I mean all this talk about going to the minor leagues is just crazy! This is like saying you're happy settling for an NIT invite every year. There is nothing exciting about that.

We should be all in or all out. There are several good schools that have great academics and football programs. Why not strive to be one?

If we don't go all in, let's go all out ... Give up football and focus on academics and make sure we never again lose our #1 public univ rating.

socaltownie said:

---

So I think it got deleted. But I thought (cause I wrote it, damm it) that my comment was worth thinking about.....

USC is also a private R1 university not just Stanford

1) The program that doesn't tolerate ****ty results is aquatics. It has the best coaches in the world, a world class facility, and I can tell you starts ramping up recruiting by about 7th and definitely 8th grade based upon the requests for time that my kid's club swim team gets.
2) A big reason is tradition but also well heeled funders that ensure Cal has one of the best resourced programs in the country
3) In the end this is the problem for Cal football. We play in a conference where there are at LEAST 3 programs (Oregon, Washington, U$C) that place a higher priority on winning and compromising the university on the road to Ws than we ever will. Another, Furd, is situated in a HIGHLY unique position (it and Notre Dame but Furd is a far superrior institution are 2 of the only private R1 institutions that play competitive football. This is diferent than it used to be 30 years ago where there were several programs out there competing for kids that wanted to win/compete at the highest level but didn't want to go to big land grant universities) giving it a national recruiting footprint that Cal is never going to match. So right off the bat there are 4 programs that "strategically" are in a better place. Yet, year to year we might get a W here and there but over a decade it isn't going to be pretty.
4) Which in turn makes it hard to be better than 7 to 9 wins. Maybe if the stars ALL align but it takes a magical season for Cal or a future HOF QB who just beat a team with 38 seconds left and no time outs.

Coming to grips with that has been healthy. I have really stopped caring that much and, if it is convenient, I will turn on the Bears for a few but only if nothing better presents itself, including working on my sprinkler system. Until Cal finds its "Boone Pikens" it is what it is.

BTW - that isn't healthy for the sport. I would LOVE to see ratings for CFB and how things look other than top weekly games that occur between say the top 20 programs in the county.

---

USC is also a private R1 university not just Stanford

We had the same results during the Dykes years, but at least I really enjoyed the offense as entertainment. Why not go back to that style of football with someone else as the coach?

socaliganbear said:

---

Have USC, UW, or Oregon athletics actually compromised their respective universities on the road to winning? It seems like all 3 have leveraged winning to an overall increase in prominence and funding for the university.

---

I think we can safely assume that there is significant pressure on faculty at those institutions to keep athletes eligible and that their leadership spends SIGNIFICANTLy more time on thinking about football vs. winning NSF/Department of Energy Grants.

Radioman2 said:

---

USC is also a private R1 university not just Stanford

---

It is a FAR different experience. USC is decidedly "urban" and its undergrad life is decidedly much more social than furd. It really is a place for the well heeled Southern Californians to go enjoy 4 years of partying subsidized by a fairly large international student population paying tip top dollar.

socaltownie said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

Have USC, UW, or Oregon athletics actually compromised their respective universities on the road to winning? It seems like all 3 have leveraged winning to an overall increase in prominence and funding for the university.

---

I think we can safely assume that there is significant pressure on faculty at those institutions to keep athletes eligible and that their leadership spends SIGNIFICANTLy more time on thinking about football vs. winning NSF/Department of Energy Grants.

---

I'm certain these schools care more about winning than Cal does starting from the very top. The question is have they done so in a way that has compromised their universities? I would argue that without their commitment to winning in athletics, SC would be another Occidental and Oregon would be west coast University of Maine.

socaliganbear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

Have USC, UW, or Oregon athletics actually compromised their respective universities on the road to winning? It seems like all 3 have leveraged winning to an overall increase in prominence and funding for the university.

---

I think we can safely assume that there is significant pressure on faculty at those institutions to keep athletes eligible and that their leadership spends SIGNIFICANTLy more time on thinking about football vs. winning NSF/Department of Energy Grants.

---

I'm certain these schools care more about winning than Cal does starting from the very top. The question is have they done so in a way that has compromised their universities? I would argue that without their commitment to winning in athletics, SC would be another Occidental and Oregon would be west coast University of Maine.

---

I am not disputing the value of winning. A decent amount of high er ed research has ID"ed something called the Boise State effect where winning has been instrumental in elevating the visibility (and applications) of schools that otherwise would have flow under the radar.

CALiforniALUM said:

---

It's the winning at all costs mentality that is the problem with the sport. Why not just enjoy the competition and the individual stories that underpin the back drop on Saturday afternoons. We know the entire collegiate sports situation is crooked. Do we want to be like that?

---

I want to see high quality, high level football played by my alma mater. But, yes, it's becoming increasingly difficult to do that in the CFB landscape. Still, the team is underachieving this season.

socaltownie said:

---

Radioman2 said:

---

USC is also a private R1 university not just Stanford

---

It is a FAR different experience. USC is decidedly "urban" and its undergrad life is decidedly much more social than furd. It really is a place for the well heeled Southern Californians to go enjoy 4 years of partying subsidized by a fairly large international student population paying tip top dollar.

---

More accurate to say rich American and rich international families are subsidizing generally smart middle class kids to go to USC. Pretty sure Chad Fratstar, son of Joe Newport Developer isn't given a scholarship to attend.

Big C said:

---

Jeff82, you down THREE Top Dogs when you go to games?!? Is it, like, two before the game and one after, or all at once? Are they all "tops", or what kinds (or an assortment)? Just curious...

---

Typically for a Saturday day game, I don't eat breakfast. My current pattern is the park in Lower Hearst, then take the shuttle with my Dad up to the Greek, and make sure he gets to the golf carts that take him the rest of the way to the stadium. I then job down to Top Dog and buy four dogs, one for him (Top Dog, Morehouse mustard), three for me. For Sac State, I ventured inside and ordered two kiels and a brat, since I was fairly sure we would win the game, and didn't mind getting there a few minutes late. When time is an issue, I'll do the outside line and buy three brats, or two brats and a smoked chicken apple, all with hot mustard and sauerkraut. I then put the dogs in my clear bag and head back up to the stadium so that gate security can see I have sausages, not weapons. I eat the hot dogs once I get to my seat, usually with a Diet Pepsi to save a few calories. This is one of my splurge meals of the week.

Having graduated in 1982, I love the fact that Top Dog is one of the few things on Southside that hasn't changed over the years, others being Moe's Books and Yogurt Park. I still miss the charcoal grill at Kips. Your mileage (and digestive issues) may vary.

I will repeat here a point I made on another thread about assistant coaches, which is if we're going to put additional money into the football program, maybe the place to put it is academic support, to give players more help dealing with what we perceive to be the anti-athletics, sink-or-swim attitude of the faculty. That might persuade more 4*+ players to come here, because they have a better chance to be successful in the classroom and on the field.

socaltownie said:

---

Coming to grips with that has been healthy. I have really stopped caring that much and, if it is convenient, I will turn on the Bears for a few but only if nothing better presents itself, including working on my sprinkler system. Until Cal finds its "Boone Pikens" it is what it is.

---

Many of us have reached the equilibrium that you have.

It was not that long ago when I would plan my weekends around Cal football games with a misplaced moral imperative to place Cal football program and UC Berkeley on a false pedestal. I still appreciate the Snyder and Tedford years and will still have fond feelings for our program relative to other programs. And I will continue to remember fondly my time as an undergraduate at UC Berkeley.

But seeing Cal for what it is has been healthy. Even though I am now mostly retired, I have not watched a single game this year. Until today, I have not been to this site to check even recruiting.

I am travelling most of the time with my wife. doing only the things we want to do, and sometimes don't even bother to check the Cal score the next day. I feel as if I have the only type of healthy relationship possible with Cal football, without disappointment for it being what it is.

Jeff82 said:

---

Big C said:

---

Jeff82, you down THREE Top Dogs when you go to games?!? Is it, like, two before the game and one after, or all at once? Are they all "tops", or what kinds (or an assortment)? Just curious...

---

Typically for a Saturday day game, I don't eat breakfast. My current pattern is the park in Lower Hearst, then take the shuttle with my Dad up to the Greek, and make sure he gets to the golf carts that take him the rest of the way to the stadium. I then job down to Top Dog and buy four dogs, one for him (Top Dog, Morehouse mustard), three for me. For Sac State, I ventured inside and ordered two kiels and a brat, since I was fairly sure we would win the game, and didn't mind getting there a few minutes late. When time is an issue, I'll do the outside line and buy three brats, or two brats and a smoked chicken apple, all with hot mustard and sauerkraut. I then put the dogs in my clear bag and head back up to the stadium so that gate security can see I have sausages, not weapons. I eat the hot dogs once I get to my seat, usually with a Diet Pepsi to save a few calories. This is one of my splurge meals of the week.

Having graduated in 1982, I love the fact that Top Dog is one of the few things on Southside that hasn't changed over the years, others being Moe's Books and Yogurt Park. I still miss the charcoal grill at Kips. Your mileage (and digestive issues) may vary.

---

It broke my heart when Top Dog turned the Northside venue into a pizza place or something. Not only did I eat there as an undergrad, but we took our boys there when they were small and we made our infrequent (conflicts with Saturday soccer) treks down from Roseville for games. Recently, I planned to stop at the Top Dog on Center but couldn't find a place to park so went all the way down Telegraph to the Smokehouse which has reopened. Quite good burger for $4.50 or so. I recommend it!

I've never eaten at Smokehouse, but yours is the second recommendation I've gotten. I will definitely try it.

Radioman2 said:

---

USC is also a private R1 university not just Stanford

---

Some Private R1 Universities that play D1 football:
Stanford
Duke
USC
Miami
Notre Dame
Northwestern
Boston College
Rice
Vanderbilt

Stanford does not have a huge advantage. They sucked when Buddy Teevans, Walt Harris, Paul Wiggins, Jack Elway, even Walsh II were coaches, but they succeeded when John Ralston, Bill Walsh, Dennis Green, Tyrone Willingham, Jim Harbaugh and David Shaw were coaches.

As with Cal, for Stanford is all about hiring the right coach. They probably churn coaches more than we do and generally focus on offensive innovation more than we do.

They are also 3 for 3 in hiring African American head coaches, which Cal has never done. Their issue with Green and Willibgham (and Walsh and Harbaugh) was losing them to the NFL or a bigger program after their Stanford success. They solved that problem with the internal promotion of alumnus David Shaw when Harbaugh left. The ability to keep a coach when they succeed is the reason to give some preference to alums who love and are loyal to the school over the usual mercenaries who will say what you want to hear until someone pays them more to say it to them.

There is an easy solution - pay the money to get the best coaches. Our facilities are fine. We need an additional 5 - 10 million per year investment.

That simple thing - paying your coordinators a million dollars and your line coach 500K - is really all you need. Run through them until you get the best or the one that works for you. Once the word gets out that you are serious...then it all works.

What is so silly is that the University is so concerned about appearance of athletics that it does not understand that small amount of additional investment will more than pay for itself in additional alumni support.

But at the end of the day - the University is doing fine. It just closed a 4 billion dollar endowment push and is more than halfway to the next 6 billion dollar endowment push. More kids have applied to Cal than ever, and the Forbes rating will pay dividends as well. We have an old football tradition, and it is part of the fabric of the University - but most of the current faculty has the idea that our tradition is losing. That is a bigger problem than the money to pay the best coaches.

calumnus said:

---

Radioman2 said:

---

USC is also a private R1 university not just Stanford

---

Some Private R1 Universities that play D1 football:
Stanford
Duke
USC
Miami
Notre Dame
Northwestern
Boston College
Rice
Vanderbilt

Stanford does not have a huge advantage. They sucked when Buddy Teevans, Walt Harris, Paul Wiggins, Jack Elway, even Walsh II were coaches, but they succeeded when John Ralston, Bill Walsh, Dennis Green, Tyrone Willingham, Jim Harbaugh and David Shaw were coaches.

As with Cal, for Stanford is all about hiring the right coach. They probably churn coaches more than we do and generally focus on offensive innovation more than we do.

They are also 3 for 3 in hiring African American head coaches, which Cal has never done. Their issue with Green and Willibgham (and Walsh and Harbaugh) was losing them to the NFL or a bigger program after their Stanford success. They solved that problem with the internal promotion of alumnus David Shaw when Harbaugh left.

---

This is strongest post Cal Strong has seen on Bearinsider in long, strong time. Stanfurd has no big structural advantages over Cal. They just do a stronger job of hiring the right coaches. And when they hire a weak coach, they don't let them stick around for many years like Cal has done with Dykes and Wilcox.

Stanfurd has made it to Rose Bowls. They have won. But this weak thread saying only USC, UW, and Oregon can win and we can never expect better . . . WEAK! That thinking soft as baby poop.

Calumnus not WEAK . . . Calumnus not soft as baby poop . . . Cal not internet pervert. Cal STRONG!!!!!!

concernedparent said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Radioman2 said:

---

USC is also a private R1 university not just Stanford

---

It is a FAR different experience. USC is decidedly "urban" and its undergrad life is decidedly much more social than furd. It really is a place for the well heeled Southern Californians to go enjoy 4 years of partying subsidized by a fairly large international student population paying tip top dollar.

---

More accurate to say rich American and rich international families are subsidizing generally smart middle class kids to go to USC. Pretty sure Chad Fratstar, son of Joe Newport Developer isn't given a scholarship to attend.

---

Pains me to say this, but the views expressed here about USC are from the 1980's. They are a top-25 school with very strong academic programs and an amazing alumni network. If my kids were accepted, I'd be very proud. I would throw up on in my mouth with every check I'd sign to pay for it, but proud nonetheless.