philly1121 said:
wifeisafurd said:
philly1121 said:
calumnus said:
philly1121 said:
Not going to take sides in the Wilcox saga. I don't know whether to keep him or to boot him. I figure we would keep him just because we aren't going to pay his salary.
I will say this. Cal is unique. We are a public university. We are most often the #1 public university in America and the world. But - with that comes standards. With that comes prestige, tradition. Perhaps even an aura. All of that is academic related. And for most alumni - that is where the emphasis lies. And it feeds into my next point: will.
The big difference between all those schools listed and Cal? Will. The desire to be better in sports. And you know what? Its not there. What little will there is to be better comes with a catch: be better in sports on a discount.
I see comparisons about our program with others in the conference and how its unacceptable to be 4th or 5th in the division. But you know what? That's our level. It is. It really is. Because there is no will to be better. Yes the players have desire. Yes the coaches do to. But if we're not recruiting 4-star and up - well, these are a good bunch of kids I'm sure and they're trying their best. But their skill level isn't what it is compared to the powers in the conference.
And I'm sure Wilcox is a good guy and has the players behind him. Great! But if you're not recruiting 4 and 5 star talent, then you better be one hell of a coach to be competitive. I don't know if he's that kind of coach.
So we meander during the season. Our record of 5-7 isn't a surprise to me. Maybe we should be 6-6 because of the Arizona fiasco. But - this is where the team is. And that's where it will stay. We may get lucky with an 8-4 season here or there but that's not an expectation. No way. And there's no turning the corner with this program either. Because there's no will to confirm, celebrate and demand more from the occasional 8-4 record.
So - I'm not sure what all the whining is about. This is Cal football. We love the team, but there's no administrative will to be successful beyond the occasional bid to the Boca Raton Bowl. We shouldn't be surprised at this.
First, why would there be "administrative will" to win in major sports? They are not Cal alums, they are not die hard Cal fans. They went to school elsewhere and now work for Cal. Christ's mission is clearly on the academic side (as it should be).
The only reason "the administration" would care about winning is pressure/encouragement from major donors. If Christ thought that winning versus losing would lead to a significant increase in donations, or if she understood that continued losing would become a financial drain on the university, then she would care. Otherwise, winning is just a "nice" thing if you get but not something she is going to worry about. In some ways our unconditional support of the team and program, and excuse making for mediocrity, just lets the administration think the stats quo works.
Ok, so what have the major donors done to pressure Administration? Isn't a half occupied stadium that will take 100 years to pay off a financial drain on the university? You know - donors and Jeff Tedford campaigned for the stadium to be renovated in the belief, yes belief, that it would put us close to par with the Oregon's, UCLA's and USC's of the conference. It hasn't happened.
I'm am no sunshine pumper here. Never have been. If you argument is correct, without major dollars from donors or them pressuring Admin, as you say, then this is how its going to be. Mediocrity will be the norm. Correcation. It IS the norm. I see no change in the future.
Let me see if I can address some the misstatements in this missive.
Jeff Tedford and donors campaigned for the SAHPC for which there was a substantial commitment of funds. Their view was they needed advance trianing facilities to compete. The football program and athletic department was actively involved in the planning of the SAHPC, and, in fact, had completed significant fundraising towards the construction of the SAHPC.
Cal, or let's call it Berkeley in the dichotomous nomenclature of the day, had a problem because the stadium was non-complaint with earthquake standards, and candidly was outdated (recall the bathroom situation for example). So Berkley trotted out Tedford to appeal to fans, but the hard, cold reality was there really was little interest in funding what Berkeley was selling.
The financial plan for funding the stadium remodel came from the Cal CFO (now UC CFO) and was championed by the then Chancellor, who tried to sell the concept to donors, including buying club seats in at what even in the inflationary world of the Bay Area, absurdly over-market prices for the best seats. Berkley, then was stupid enough to have Cal faculty members, rather than an independent engineering firm, design an elegant, but completely irrationally costly earthquake retrofit. Berkeley then was stupid enough to have Berkeley manage the project resulting in massive cost overruns, something Berkley is very good at when it attempts to manage its own real estate projects rather than rely on films that do this for a living.
The ironic thing about that while there are many athletic facilities in the UC system, and facilities and buildings in general, but only one structure where any cost of earthquake retrofit was not borne by UC - Memorial Stadium. Why? Because they thought they could stick it to donors. And years later of debt service payments, a new Chancellor arrives on the scene who needs land for dorms and other academic related real estate projects on a campus way too small to accommodate such projects. So she exchanges otherwise dedicated property for athletics for the remaining debt related to retrofit (which still is a remarkably large amount) in a paper transaction. The Cal Athletic Dept. was not reimbursed for past payments, and thus remain the only earthquake retrofit expenses to ever not be funded by UC. And with the exchange, UC is back to funding the earthquake retrofit costs
Then there is the 100 years payoff let's make it up crap language. The bonds that funded the stadium remodel have remaining terms of less that 40 years (they have various terms). The Cal Athletic Department long term capital fund presently is generating sufficient funds to make the debt service. You can look it all up on the SEC EDGAR system as the bonds were publicly issued. The only financial drain I see is that Cal didn't keep its stadium facility up, and now must dedicate a portion of its football revenue to fund the remaining debt service, rather than to pay coaches or whatever.
Which gets us to why must a university normally do such things such as earthquake retrofits on its facilities? Well the State actually requires earthquake retrofits fo all public facilities. The State, in fact, gives UC and other State agencies money to do this, though I imagine the Memorial retrofit is covered to some degree by UC funds. Is this a finical burden? I suppose so, but it is one the legislature has chosen to burden the taxpayers of California with. They want the public is safe public buildings -go figure. But what the freaking heck this should have to do with funding football stadiums is beyond me, but sure speaks to me as athletes being second class citizens at Cal,.
All that said, your second paragraph probably is dead on, even if your history is not.
One other thing because it is coming, Berkley had to pay fo the Cal Athletic Department shortfalls. If you take away the funding of 600 plus students by the athletic department and the all the "transfer payments" the athletic department makes to fund the Cal bureaucracy, the Athletic Department is a net revenue producer, which is why the AD and revenue coaches make so much money, and guys that run cost centers, like say the History Department (I like history, but had to chose something), do not.
Wifes....call it 40 years. Call it 100. You're missing the point. This was sold to us in the form of necessity. Now you can call it the SAHPC, the retrofit, the earthquake proofing - or separate them out - whatever. This was a package and was sold as a necessity for the performance of our "student athletes" (football team) to be competitive in the conference. And i remember quite vividly on this board the arguments for this upgrade. As far as the necessity of earthquake proofing the place? Well, its a state building. What the heck are they supposed to do? Let the West faade of the stadium detach? You can argue whether the business model to pay for the SAHPC or the earthquake proofing was sound but it goes away from my larger point. This was promised to make us more competitive and it hasn't.
Also - the argument i'm reading now is that the donors must pressure Admin to have the will to make the program better. But in your missive you write that UC "stuck it to donors" to pay for the retrofit. So let me ask you as a point of logic - why would there be no expectation on the part of football or UC donors to NOT pay for this retrofit? This isn't some lecture hall or science lab. This is a football stadium. In short, it is NOT necessary. So, I ask again, why would there be no expectation that UC Admin would not want donors who want football, to, in part, pay for this upgrade? The UC likely said, "well, we've got this football team that is doing well, we need to get them a better place to train and condition, a part of a stadium that is moving away from the other half. If they (donors and fans) want to improve this place, let's let them pay for it." I'm not quite sure how anyone would have expected otherwise.
Lastly, this whole larger argument rests again on the premise that we are so close to being competitive with the big dogs. If we just spend more money, upgrade facilities, get to that 6-6 bowl game - recruits will come. Not gonna happen. I don't know what the answer is. But I do know that if you think you got stuck with the bill for the retrofit, brother, you are gonna have to fork over ALOT more money for us to be competitive and cover expenses that are probably not directly associated with the football team. Are you or others willing to do that OR withhold donations to pressure Admin to pay closer attention to athletics? Good discussion.
Your facts continue to be wrong and you are conflating projects.
Just to be indicative that you are throwing stuff out, that there are bonds that are 40 years left with different maturity not only means that the payoff is not 100 years, but is also means a good portion of the the debf is gone by the last bond is paid. The average pay out will far less than 40 years.
I'm having difficulty with the argument that earthquake retrofitting or the stadium improvement was sold as a necessity for the football program or athletes, because it is non-sensical, it is untrue, and it doesn't fit the time line. What Tedford demanded as part of his contract is that Cal would agree to upgrade its training facility. Funds were raised for that and based on the original budget they were almost there (around $60 plus million for what was a projected $80 million project). Tedford sold new training facilities were coming to his players and had great recruiting classes. The the facilities were delayed because Berkley once again acted like a bunch of ******* with Berkley, and the recruits started to question whether the new facilities were coming. Not that you get this unless you practice land use, but the whole CEQA fight was about the SAHPC and no one was talking about the stadium, which was yet to even be subject to environmental review. In other words, not only was the stadium not part of SAHPC, Berkley the school, told the court and the world in its CEQA document and filing with the court, that the stadium was a separate project and would be dealt with later, if not at all. The players didn't have to sit on old benches like the fans - but they did work out and meet in ancient facilities, and that did matter given what Oregon and other schools did with there training facilities. They didn't give a **** about the stadium remodel. The premise that was sold too you as one package defies logic and was legally wrong:
1) the players and JT were focused on the training facilities only;
2 Fund raising was focused on the training facilities at the time the SAHPC was constructed; and
3) Legally the two projects were distinct projects and moving forward only the SAHPC had been approved
If Cal still had ancient training facilities, they're likely would never be a competitive program. JT's recruiting suffered from the delay and institutional problems that came with the CEQA litigation and I'm not sure it ever recovered. Whispers came about the Berkeley nut jobs will destroy the football programs. Whispers there was no institutional support. Recruiting is a contact sport. But what also happened is everyone caught on while JT was getting great recruiting classes promising great facilities, and made plans to upgrade their facilities in order to stay competitive. Thus, going forward Cal stayed even with its competition by the new training facilities.
In September 2008 the court injunction was lifted, the protesters came down, and construction of the athletic training center began and the SAHPC was finished.
Years later, on January 19, 2010, the UC Board of Regents approved the Memorial retrofit and renovation.
It was then the Berkeley CFO came out with the university incurring a controversial $445 million of debt, which it planned to finance with the sale of special stadium seats in the Endowment Seating Program. Berkley may have sold you that the stadium remodel and funding plan was for a competitive football program if you were gullible to believe that especially with the SAHPC basics completed, but JT and football team were looking for better facilities that were supposed to cost $80 million (you can read my post above about overruns). People that bought into ESP, which is what was designed to pay for the debt service did so for many reasons: prestige, amenities like food and booze, better seat locations, exclusivity , etc.
The retrofit argument also defies logic. Cal and other UC's paid to retrofit playhouses, places were concerts were performed by non-students, faculty centers, a flippen hotel in the middle of a campus, alumni centers, medical facilities, sports facilities (including intramural, basketball, baseball, aquatics, etc.), student housing, museums, students, movie theaters, campus restaurants, a flipping sculpture garden, student activities center, a chancellor's residence, a convocation center, and a who lot of other stuff set forth in bond financing. So when I look at this list and read you're arguments what you're saying is that all this other crap belongs on campus and shuold be paid for, but we make football play for retrofits because Cal (and UCLA) football makes money. College athletics programs represent a multibillion dollar industry and are integrally linked to school branding and reputation. And while individual sports programs -- even in Division I schools -- don't necessarily turn a profit, the many other benefits to colleges have far-reaching implications for students, faculty and community. Athletics programs drive enrollment and heighten college profiles, often resulting in financial windfalls for the institutions that happen far away from fields and arenas. Just like cultural stuff, where schools have building for plays, music acts, etc. and retro fit those buildings because someone thinks while that doesn't turn a profit, it benefits UC schools that have far-reaching implications for students, faculty and community. Explain to me otherwise why a football field at UC Davis gets its retofit paid by UC and Cal doesn't?
