calumnus said:

---

aowatson said:

---

Agree, wholeheartedly. StDium debt is the biggest issue.

---

Here is an idea: spin off Cal football as a alumni/booster owned and run enterprise that would own the stadium (and the debt), negotiate the TV contracts and coaching salaries, market the team, pay the players for their NIL and fund their scholarships, and if there is money left over, make donations to the AD.

Every other sport would be part of the Cal Athletic Department with a men's and women's team in each sport, with equal scholarships, which should satisfy Title IX. Field hockey would get cut. Admin costs could be greatly reduced.

---

Can all ticket holders get a puppy, too!?!?

maxer said:

---

59bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

evanluck said:

---

What is identity of Cal Football and can this identity be truly competitive in the changing landscape of modern College Football?

I think most of us would agree that the goal identity of Cal Football and Cal Athletics in general is nurture true student athletes that experience success at the highest level as students and athletes.

It seems too dissonant to think that just because the trend in College football is more rapidly hurtling towards professionalism, that Cal Football will all of a sudden transform itself into a football factory ready to duke it out with the "Big Boys" who have decades of preparation, infrastructure, donors, and fan bases willing to cooperate in masquerading a semi-professional team as a group of student athletes.

Most of us in our own professional career can relate to this type of choice. Most industries, be it medicine, insurance, real estate, financial investment, engineering all began with a service-oriented broader mission. Many professionals get into those industries (some with significant investment in education and training) with the idea that they will make a difference serving others in the context of this broader mission only to find that the mechanics of the industry have totally shifted to profit over mission.

Most make the compromise and participate in the profit machine in the name of supporting their families and building their own personal prosperity. Some leave out of disgust. A few stay in the system and they figure out how to still serve the mission despite a structure that makes it difficult. Many of these people find, perhaps surprisingly, that they do not have to sacrifice personal well being to remain mission focused.

I think Cal Football can be have this type of identity. We can be who we want to be and still succeed at the highest level. All of our decisions should flow from the clarity of this identity and goal. Feels good to have the world shaking around you with changes and everyone shouting that your very existence is in jeopardy and you are standing in the security of knowing who you are and believing that you can accomplish what you set out to accomplish.

Go Bears!

---

I would put it a different way. The industry has changed. You could make a strong argument that in an era where football was largely played at 1 p.m. on a Saturday and TV revenues were largely an afterthought (if generated at all) there was value in fielding competive teams. Alumni parties provided an opportunity, nearly unique, for donor engagement and that mattered over the course of decades as Cal built up endowments and cultivated donations.

But in an era where TV wags the dog, the industry is fundamentally transformed. Alumni events can not be easily planned as the TV schedule often isn't finalized until 14 days away. The time is at the convenience of TV - not what works for engaging prospective donors. The game day experience is eroded as TV commercial time outs slow the game to a crawl. In-stadium revenue needs to be maximized. Etc. etc. etc.

I just can't make a BUSINESS argument for Cal being in this industry. I can make an emotional one. I can try to tie straws together to suggest that somehow the good will of seeing Cal on an ESPN broadcast at 10 a.m. on a Saturday translates into greater unrestricted donations but honestly I don't know if that is true and I would absolutely want the data on it. I get why every Chancellor makes happy sounds because why would you poke the bear and speak truth on this matter until you absolutely had to. But personally I think that this moment is a perfect one to step back and really ask whether the patient is worth saving and then ask why.

---

This post falls squarely in the "I wish I'd said that" category. The revenue sports of college athletics have been semi-professional for decades and, in the last 25 years or so, have ramped up toward full on professional status. For the last several years I've questioned how any so called "institution of higher learning", particularly one that is public, can justify being in the sports entertainment business.

---

How is it any different than being in the medical business? UCSF is as commercial an entity that exists.

It's also not zero-sum -- one doesn't preclude success in the other. There's this lazy supposition that many have (not you, just the world at large) that every dollar spent on the Athletic Department could be better used on academics when in fact those dollars wouldn't exist at all without sports.

Grow the pie in all areas by being the best in them!

---

You want business lines that create synergy/compliment each other. That is the point. UCSF has a hospital because doctors in training need to see patients in a hospital (and outpatient) setting. Schools have bookstores because students buy books. They have housing because out of area students need someplace to live. Etc. etc. etc.

The problem for Cal is that the revenue sports "industry" has moved in a direction that does not compliment the core business of UCB and, arguably is a problem for it. I HATE to sound like our favorite computer science proff. but the albatross of CMS right now is limiting the Cal options has that might sense for the enterprise. If the $$ for the bonds was NOT an issue I really have to ask whether there isn't a pathway forward that would still have football but done on a MUCH smaller scale put provide a synergy with the university - great Saturday afternoon experiences to bring alumni to campus. Sure, we might not play the trojans and instead Davis - but hanging with 20-25K on a beautiful fall day in CMS configured for the smaller crowd could be fun

Look, I want our cheese not to have been moved. But fast foward just a few years - are you REALLY going to be happy with PAID atheletes (who agruably are not even students because I can see some B2 schools challenging the requirement to be academically eligible) wearing blue and gold playing at times solely that benefit TV viewers (most who are interested because they are gambling on the games) against schools that vastly outspend Cal on NIL and thus blow out Cal regularly except those times they play other BDWs? How will THAT compliment the university?

This would be different if athletics actually was a PROFITABLE line of business. Then you could ask questions about return on investment and net margins over other tangential enterprises the university could be engaged in. But it isn't. The B1G contract $$ is going to be sucked up by increases to AD and coaches salaries, even more lavish facilities, even more sport slots for upper middle class white kids to comply with Title IX and conference demands for olympic sports. Look at UCLA. This isn't about $$$ to go to further expand Anderson in a way that compliments the LA economy - it was to "save" olympic sports.

I HATE typing this. I really do. My heart bleeds blue and gold. But honestly a crisis is the time to look hard at things and when I do I see a very viable argument to scale back Cal sports.

socaltownie said:

---

maxer said:

---

59bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

evanluck said:

---

What is identity of Cal Football and can this identity be truly competitive in the changing landscape of modern College Football?

I think most of us would agree that the goal identity of Cal Football and Cal Athletics in general is nurture true student athletes that experience success at the highest level as students and athletes.

It seems too dissonant to think that just because the trend in College football is more rapidly hurtling towards professionalism, that Cal Football will all of a sudden transform itself into a football factory ready to duke it out with the "Big Boys" who have decades of preparation, infrastructure, donors, and fan bases willing to cooperate in masquerading a semi-professional team as a group of student athletes.

Most of us in our own professional career can relate to this type of choice. Most industries, be it medicine, insurance, real estate, financial investment, engineering all began with a service-oriented broader mission. Many professionals get into those industries (some with significant investment in education and training) with the idea that they will make a difference serving others in the context of this broader mission only to find that the mechanics of the industry have totally shifted to profit over mission.

Most make the compromise and participate in the profit machine in the name of supporting their families and building their own personal prosperity. Some leave out of disgust. A few stay in the system and they figure out how to still serve the mission despite a structure that makes it difficult. Many of these people find, perhaps surprisingly, that they do not have to sacrifice personal well being to remain mission focused.

I think Cal Football can be have this type of identity. We can be who we want to be and still succeed at the highest level. All of our decisions should flow from the clarity of this identity and goal. Feels good to have the world shaking around you with changes and everyone shouting that your very existence is in jeopardy and you are standing in the security of knowing who you are and believing that you can accomplish what you set out to accomplish.

Go Bears!

---

I would put it a different way. The industry has changed. You could make a strong argument that in an era where football was largely played at 1 p.m. on a Saturday and TV revenues were largely an afterthought (if generated at all) there was value in fielding competive teams. Alumni parties provided an opportunity, nearly unique, for donor engagement and that mattered over the course of decades as Cal built up endowments and cultivated donations.

But in an era where TV wags the dog, the industry is fundamentally transformed. Alumni events can not be easily planned as the TV schedule often isn't finalized until 14 days away. The time is at the convenience of TV - not what works for engaging prospective donors. The game day experience is eroded as TV commercial time outs slow the game to a crawl. In-stadium revenue needs to be maximized. Etc. etc. etc.

I just can't make a BUSINESS argument for Cal being in this industry. I can make an emotional one. I can try to tie straws together to suggest that somehow the good will of seeing Cal on an ESPN broadcast at 10 a.m. on a Saturday translates into greater unrestricted donations but honestly I don't know if that is true and I would absolutely want the data on it. I get why every Chancellor makes happy sounds because why would you poke the bear and speak truth on this matter until you absolutely had to. But personally I think that this moment is a perfect one to step back and really ask whether the patient is worth saving and then ask why.

---

This post falls squarely in the "I wish I'd said that" category. The revenue sports of college athletics have been semi-professional for decades and, in the last 25 years or so, have ramped up toward full on professional status. For the last several years I've questioned how any so called "institution of higher learning", particularly one that is public, can justify being in the sports entertainment business.

---

How is it any different than being in the medical business? UCSF is as commercial an entity that exists.

It's also not zero-sum -- one doesn't preclude success in the other. There's this lazy supposition that many have (not you, just the world at large) that every dollar spent on the Athletic Department could be better used on academics when in fact those dollars wouldn't exist at all without sports.

Grow the pie in all areas by being the best in them!

---

You want business lines that create synergy/compliment each other. That is the point. UCSF has a hospital because doctors in training need to see patients in a hospital (and outpatient) setting. Schools have bookstores because students buy books. They have housing because out of area students need someplace to live. Etc. etc. etc.

The problem for Cal is that the revenue sports "industry" has moved in a direction that does not compliment the core business of UCB and, arguably is a problem for it. I HATE to sound like our favorite computer science proff. but the albatross of CMS right now in providing Cal options that make sense for the enterprise is pretty much smart on - seriously - if the $$ for the bonds was NOT an issue I really have to ask whether there isn't a pathway forward that would still have football but done on a MUCH smaller scale put provide a synergy with the university - great Saturday afternoon experiences to bring alumni to campus.

Look, I want our cheese not to have been moved. But fast foward just a few years - are you REALLY going to be happy with PAID atheletes (who agruably are not even students because I can see some B2 schools challenging the requirement to be academically eligible) wearing blue and gold playing at times solely that benefit TV viewers (most who are interested because they are gambling on the games) against schools that vastly outspend Cal on NIL and thus blow out Cal regularly except those times they play other BDWs? How will THAT compliment the university?

This would be different if athletics actually was a PROFITABLE line of business. Then you could ask questions about return on investment and net margins over other tangential enterprises the university could be engaged in. But it isn't. The B1G contract $$ is going to be sucked up by increases to AD and coaches salaries, even more lavish facilities, even more sport slots for upper middle class white kids to comply with Title IX and conference demands for olympic sports. Look at UCLA. This isn't about $$$ to go to further expand Anderson in a way that compliments the LA economy - it was to "save" olympic sports.

I HATE typing this. I really do. My heart bleeds blue and gold. But honestly a crisis is the time to look hard at things and when I do I see a very viable argument to scale back Cal sports.

---

More or less, yes.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

maxer said:

---

59bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

evanluck said:

---

What is identity of Cal Football and can this identity be truly competitive in the changing landscape of modern College Football?

I think most of us would agree that the goal identity of Cal Football and Cal Athletics in general is nurture true student athletes that experience success at the highest level as students and athletes.

It seems too dissonant to think that just because the trend in College football is more rapidly hurtling towards professionalism, that Cal Football will all of a sudden transform itself into a football factory ready to duke it out with the "Big Boys" who have decades of preparation, infrastructure, donors, and fan bases willing to cooperate in masquerading a semi-professional team as a group of student athletes.

Most of us in our own professional career can relate to this type of choice. Most industries, be it medicine, insurance, real estate, financial investment, engineering all began with a service-oriented broader mission. Many professionals get into those industries (some with significant investment in education and training) with the idea that they will make a difference serving others in the context of this broader mission only to find that the mechanics of the industry have totally shifted to profit over mission.

Most make the compromise and participate in the profit machine in the name of supporting their families and building their own personal prosperity. Some leave out of disgust. A few stay in the system and they figure out how to still serve the mission despite a structure that makes it difficult. Many of these people find, perhaps surprisingly, that they do not have to sacrifice personal well being to remain mission focused.

I think Cal Football can be have this type of identity. We can be who we want to be and still succeed at the highest level. All of our decisions should flow from the clarity of this identity and goal. Feels good to have the world shaking around you with changes and everyone shouting that your very existence is in jeopardy and you are standing in the security of knowing who you are and believing that you can accomplish what you set out to accomplish.

Go Bears!

---

I would put it a different way. The industry has changed. You could make a strong argument that in an era where football was largely played at 1 p.m. on a Saturday and TV revenues were largely an afterthought (if generated at all) there was value in fielding competive teams. Alumni parties provided an opportunity, nearly unique, for donor engagement and that mattered over the course of decades as Cal built up endowments and cultivated donations.

But in an era where TV wags the dog, the industry is fundamentally transformed. Alumni events can not be easily planned as the TV schedule often isn't finalized until 14 days away. The time is at the convenience of TV - not what works for engaging prospective donors. The game day experience is eroded as TV commercial time outs slow the game to a crawl. In-stadium revenue needs to be maximized. Etc. etc. etc.

I just can't make a BUSINESS argument for Cal being in this industry. I can make an emotional one. I can try to tie straws together to suggest that somehow the good will of seeing Cal on an ESPN broadcast at 10 a.m. on a Saturday translates into greater unrestricted donations but honestly I don't know if that is true and I would absolutely want the data on it. I get why every Chancellor makes happy sounds because why would you poke the bear and speak truth on this matter until you absolutely had to. But personally I think that this moment is a perfect one to step back and really ask whether the patient is worth saving and then ask why.

---

This post falls squarely in the "I wish I'd said that" category. The revenue sports of college athletics have been semi-professional for decades and, in the last 25 years or so, have ramped up toward full on professional status. For the last several years I've questioned how any so called "institution of higher learning", particularly one that is public, can justify being in the sports entertainment business.

---

How is it any different than being in the medical business? UCSF is as commercial an entity that exists.

It's also not zero-sum -- one doesn't preclude success in the other. There's this lazy supposition that many have (not you, just the world at large) that every dollar spent on the Athletic Department could be better used on academics when in fact those dollars wouldn't exist at all without sports.

Grow the pie in all areas by being the best in them!

---

You want business lines that create synergy/compliment each other. That is the point. UCSF has a hospital because doctors in training need to see patients in a hospital (and outpatient) setting. Schools have bookstores because students buy books. They have housing because out of area students need someplace to live. Etc. etc. etc.

The problem for Cal is that the revenue sports "industry" has moved in a direction that does not compliment the core business of UCB and, arguably is a problem for it. I HATE to sound like our favorite computer science proff. but the albatross of CMS right now in providing Cal options that make sense for the enterprise is pretty much smart on - seriously - if the $$ for the bonds was NOT an issue I really have to ask whether there isn't a pathway forward that would still have football but done on a MUCH smaller scale put provide a synergy with the university - great Saturday afternoon experiences to bring alumni to campus.

Look, I want our cheese not to have been moved. But fast foward just a few years - are you REALLY going to be happy with PAID atheletes (who agruably are not even students because I can see some B2 schools challenging the requirement to be academically eligible) wearing blue and gold playing at times solely that benefit TV viewers (most who are interested because they are gambling on the games) against schools that vastly outspend Cal on NIL and thus blow out Cal regularly except those times they play other BDWs? How will THAT compliment the university?

This would be different if athletics actually was a PROFITABLE line of business. Then you could ask questions about return on investment and net margins over other tangential enterprises the university could be engaged in. But it isn't. The B1G contract $$ is going to be sucked up by increases to AD and coaches salaries, even more lavish facilities, even more sport slots for upper middle class white kids to comply with Title IX and conference demands for olympic sports. Look at UCLA. This isn't about $$$ to go to further expand Anderson in a way that compliments the LA economy - it was to "save" olympic sports.

I HATE typing this. I really do. My heart bleeds blue and gold. But honestly a crisis is the time to look hard at things and when I do I see a very viable argument to scale back Cal sports.

---

More or less, yes.

---

I also agree with this. Basically, other than the stadium debt, I would say we go where Furd goes. If they want to scale back, and still maintain the rivalry with them, which I think is where they ultimately will go rather than have paid football players, I'm OK with that. I really have very little interest in rooting for non-student-athletes who just happen to be wearing Cal uniforms.