Yeah, welcome to our world. Their attendance is down almost 50% in 8 years. The students are apathetic. Football doesn't sell there anymore. (at least they have basketball). Their athletic department is in a shambles financially speaking.Rushinbear said:
Just finished reading a thred on ucla bruins on 247 sports. They sound just like us in reverse: need a better DC or Kelly must go. Entrance and progress academic standards must be lowered in order to get and keep the best guys.
I responded: "Welcome to our world."
BearlyCareAnymore said:Yeah, welcome to our world. Their attendance is down almost 50% in 8 years. The students are apathetic. Football doesn't sell there anymore. (at least they have basketball). Their athletic department is in a shambles financially speaking.Rushinbear said:
Just finished reading a thred on ucla bruins on 247 sports. They sound just like us in reverse: need a better DC or Kelly must go. Entrance and progress academic standards must be lowered in order to get and keep the best guys.
I responded: "Welcome to our world."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/11/sports/ncaafootball/ucla-football-game-attendance.html
golden sloth said:BearlyCareAnymore said:Yeah, welcome to our world. Their attendance is down almost 50% in 8 years. The students are apathetic. Football doesn't sell there anymore. (at least they have basketball). Their athletic department is in a shambles financially speaking.Rushinbear said:
Just finished reading a thred on ucla bruins on 247 sports. They sound just like us in reverse: need a better DC or Kelly must go. Entrance and progress academic standards must be lowered in order to get and keep the best guys.
I responded: "Welcome to our world."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/11/sports/ncaafootball/ucla-football-game-attendance.html
All while getting progressively better on the field.
If you think Wilcox has the worst ranked Cal teams of all time, you should go read up on the early 1960s and the Coach Holmoe era.calumnus said:golden sloth said:BearlyCareAnymore said:Yeah, welcome to our world. Their attendance is down almost 50% in 8 years. The students are apathetic. Football doesn't sell there anymore. (at least they have basketball). Their athletic department is in a shambles financially speaking.Rushinbear said:
Just finished reading a thred on ucla bruins on 247 sports. They sound just like us in reverse: need a better DC or Kelly must go. Entrance and progress academic standards must be lowered in order to get and keep the best guys.
I responded: "Welcome to our world."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/11/sports/ncaafootball/ucla-football-game-attendance.html
All while getting progressively better on the field.
In the last 8 years, two NFL teams moved to LA plus another NFL team that used to play in LA and is still very popular, moved to nearby Vegas (weekend road trips). So a lot of football fans, including a lot of UCLA fans,are spending their money on the NFL (through the bandwagon fans can jump back as UCLA improves).
Also, in the last 8 years UCLA has been turning parking lots into dorms and now is able to house all of its students on campus. The norm used to be students living off campus, owning a car and driving to school, then driving out to the Rose Bowl for tailgating and football games on Saturdays. Now the students live on campus, and most don't own cars. Great for on campus basketball games, but not so good for football games in Pasadena. Sure there are student buses, but you have to wake up early, get to the bus, have to ride a bus for an hour, can't tailgate….
It is one reason they want what we have, an on campus stadium.
We now have only one NFL team and it is next to Stanford in Santa Clara. We are in the best situation to attract fans since the 1950s, but we have locked up a coach with the worst ranked Cal teams of all time for 5 more years, with a similar situation in basketball. We are alienating the student fans that show up. We can't even have cheerleaders ready for football games. There is great potential for Cal football and basketball but Knowlton is blowing it.
Eastern Oregon Bear said:If you think Wilcox has the worst ranked Cal teams of all time, you should go read up on the early 1960s and the Coach Holmoe era.calumnus said:golden sloth said:BearlyCareAnymore said:Yeah, welcome to our world. Their attendance is down almost 50% in 8 years. The students are apathetic. Football doesn't sell there anymore. (at least they have basketball). Their athletic department is in a shambles financially speaking.Rushinbear said:
Just finished reading a thred on ucla bruins on 247 sports. They sound just like us in reverse: need a better DC or Kelly must go. Entrance and progress academic standards must be lowered in order to get and keep the best guys.
I responded: "Welcome to our world."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/11/sports/ncaafootball/ucla-football-game-attendance.html
All while getting progressively better on the field.
In the last 8 years, two NFL teams moved to LA plus another NFL team that used to play in LA and is still very popular, moved to nearby Vegas (weekend road trips). So a lot of football fans, including a lot of UCLA fans,are spending their money on the NFL (through the bandwagon fans can jump back as UCLA improves).
Also, in the last 8 years UCLA has been turning parking lots into dorms and now is able to house all of its students on campus. The norm used to be students living off campus, owning a car and driving to school, then driving out to the Rose Bowl for tailgating and football games on Saturdays. Now the students live on campus, and most don't own cars. Great for on campus basketball games, but not so good for football games in Pasadena. Sure there are student buses, but you have to wake up early, get to the bus, have to ride a bus for an hour, can't tailgate….
It is one reason they want what we have, an on campus stadium.
We now have only one NFL team and it is next to Stanford in Santa Clara. We are in the best situation to attract fans since the 1950s, but we have locked up a coach with the worst ranked Cal teams of all time for 5 more years, with a similar situation in basketball. We are alienating the student fans that show up. We can't even have cheerleaders ready for football games. There is great potential for Cal football and basketball but Knowlton is blowing it.
This is not true. For many years most students have lived on or very near campus. There is a ton of off campus housing in Westwood. The buses have been part of the football game day ritual for a long time and a lot of past students report it as part of the fun of game day. It was not an obstacle before The Raiders and the Chargers are not syphoning fans off UCLA anymore than former Oakland Raiders fans are flocking to Cal. The 49ers could leave and it would not matter. Those are not the same fans.calumnus said:golden sloth said:BearlyCareAnymore said:Yeah, welcome to our world. Their attendance is down almost 50% in 8 years. The students are apathetic. Football doesn't sell there anymore. (at least they have basketball). Their athletic department is in a shambles financially speaking.Rushinbear said:
Just finished reading a thred on ucla bruins on 247 sports. They sound just like us in reverse: need a better DC or Kelly must go. Entrance and progress academic standards must be lowered in order to get and keep the best guys.
I responded: "Welcome to our world."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/11/sports/ncaafootball/ucla-football-game-attendance.html
All while getting progressively better on the field.
In the last 8 years, two NFL teams moved to LA plus another NFL team that used to play in LA and is still very popular, moved to nearby Vegas (weekend road trips). So a lot of football fans, including a lot of UCLA fans,are spending their money on the NFL (through the bandwagon fans can jump back as UCLA improves).
Also, in the last 8 years UCLA has been turning parking lots into dorms and now is able to house all of its students on campus. The norm used to be students living off campus, owning a car and driving to school, then driving out to the Rose Bowl for tailgating and football games on Saturdays. Now the students live on campus, and most don't own cars. Great for on campus basketball games, but not so good for football games in Pasadena. Sure there are student buses, but you have to wake up early, get to the bus, have to ride a bus for an hour, can't tailgate….
It is one reason they want what we have, an on campus stadium.
We now have only one NFL team and it is next to Stanford in Santa Clara. We are in the best situation to attract fans since the 1950s, but we have locked up a coach with the worst ranked Cal teams of all time for 5 more years, with a similar situation in basketball. We are alienating the student fans that show up. We can't even have cheerleaders ready for football games. There is great potential for Cal football and basketball but Knowlton is blowing it.
You will blow all credibility if you argue that Wilcox's teams are worse than Holmoe's.calumnus said:Eastern Oregon Bear said:If you think Wilcox has the worst ranked Cal teams of all time, you should go read up on the early 1960s and the Coach Holmoe era.calumnus said:golden sloth said:BearlyCareAnymore said:Yeah, welcome to our world. Their attendance is down almost 50% in 8 years. The students are apathetic. Football doesn't sell there anymore. (at least they have basketball). Their athletic department is in a shambles financially speaking.Rushinbear said:
Just finished reading a thred on ucla bruins on 247 sports. They sound just like us in reverse: need a better DC or Kelly must go. Entrance and progress academic standards must be lowered in order to get and keep the best guys.
I responded: "Welcome to our world."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/11/sports/ncaafootball/ucla-football-game-attendance.html
All while getting progressively better on the field.
In the last 8 years, two NFL teams moved to LA plus another NFL team that used to play in LA and is still very popular, moved to nearby Vegas (weekend road trips). So a lot of football fans, including a lot of UCLA fans,are spending their money on the NFL (through the bandwagon fans can jump back as UCLA improves).
Also, in the last 8 years UCLA has been turning parking lots into dorms and now is able to house all of its students on campus. The norm used to be students living off campus, owning a car and driving to school, then driving out to the Rose Bowl for tailgating and football games on Saturdays. Now the students live on campus, and most don't own cars. Great for on campus basketball games, but not so good for football games in Pasadena. Sure there are student buses, but you have to wake up early, get to the bus, have to ride a bus for an hour, can't tailgate….
It is one reason they want what we have, an on campus stadium.
We now have only one NFL team and it is next to Stanford in Santa Clara. We are in the best situation to attract fans since the 1950s, but we have locked up a coach with the worst ranked Cal teams of all time for 5 more years, with a similar situation in basketball. We are alienating the student fans that show up. We can't even have cheerleaders ready for football games. There is great potential for Cal football and basketball but Knowlton is blowing it.
I will post the rankings again. 6 of Wilcox's wins are over FCS teams. In the early 1960s the PAC-8 was the best conference in the country. Meanwhile the SEC didn't even allow African American players to go to their schools or play on their teams.
BearlyCareAnymore said:This is not true. For many years most students have lived on or very near campus. There is a ton of off campus housing in Westwood. The buses have been part of the football game day ritual for a long time and a lot of past students report it as part of the fun of game day. It was not an obstacle before The Raiders and the Chargers are not syphoning fans off UCLA anymore than former Oakland Raiders fans are flocking to Cal. The 49ers could leave and it would not matter. Those are not the same fans.calumnus said:golden sloth said:BearlyCareAnymore said:Yeah, welcome to our world. Their attendance is down almost 50% in 8 years. The students are apathetic. Football doesn't sell there anymore. (at least they have basketball). Their athletic department is in a shambles financially speaking.Rushinbear said:
Just finished reading a thred on ucla bruins on 247 sports. They sound just like us in reverse: need a better DC or Kelly must go. Entrance and progress academic standards must be lowered in order to get and keep the best guys.
I responded: "Welcome to our world."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/11/sports/ncaafootball/ucla-football-game-attendance.html
All while getting progressively better on the field.
In the last 8 years, two NFL teams moved to LA plus another NFL team that used to play in LA and is still very popular, moved to nearby Vegas (weekend road trips). So a lot of football fans, including a lot of UCLA fans,are spending their money on the NFL (through the bandwagon fans can jump back as UCLA improves).
Also, in the last 8 years UCLA has been turning parking lots into dorms and now is able to house all of its students on campus. The norm used to be students living off campus, owning a car and driving to school, then driving out to the Rose Bowl for tailgating and football games on Saturdays. Now the students live on campus, and most don't own cars. Great for on campus basketball games, but not so good for football games in Pasadena. Sure there are student buses, but you have to wake up early, get to the bus, have to ride a bus for an hour, can't tailgate….
It is one reason they want what we have, an on campus stadium.
We now have only one NFL team and it is next to Stanford in Santa Clara. We are in the best situation to attract fans since the 1950s, but we have locked up a coach with the worst ranked Cal teams of all time for 5 more years, with a similar situation in basketball. We are alienating the student fans that show up. We can't even have cheerleaders ready for football games. There is great potential for Cal football and basketball but Knowlton is blowing it.
Almost all of the West Coast programs are having the same issue. You do not understand at all the changing demographics of the student bodies at UCLA and Cal. These are elite students who have to "adult" a lot faster than students did in the past and have to work for internships, grad schools and professional schools etc. a lot earlier than before. Students are much less likely to have had prior relationships with Cal than in the past - when it comes to elite universities you scatter your applications and you take who you can get. It isn't like before when you can just get straight A's and you go to Cal like your Mom and Dad. And even among those, I've known life long Cal football fans who got into Cal and could barely manage a game or two a year.
Ever wonder WHY we don't have cheerleaders ready for games? Or why the band numbers are dwindling. This is not where students are putting their energy. Times have changed. If we had held on to a modicum of success, maybe we could have held on, but this is not a hole we can dig out of. Yes, one coach followed a Hall of Fame coach and was able to bring in 2 to recruits that drew some fans. Yes, if we signed that roster again, more fans (not as many as before would come. But thinking that any of that is going to be replicated in the current environment is like arguing that I can retire tomorrow because it is possible I could hit the powerball.
I'm not blaming the students. There is nothing to blame for having different priorities. They don't have to prioritize football like I did. Unlike a lot of you, I don't think it is their responsibility to go to games. Geez, good for them for working their butts off to succeed.calumnus said:BearlyCareAnymore said:This is not true. For many years most students have lived on or very near campus. There is a ton of off campus housing in Westwood. The buses have been part of the football game day ritual for a long time and a lot of past students report it as part of the fun of game day. It was not an obstacle before The Raiders and the Chargers are not syphoning fans off UCLA anymore than former Oakland Raiders fans are flocking to Cal. The 49ers could leave and it would not matter. Those are not the same fans.calumnus said:golden sloth said:BearlyCareAnymore said:Yeah, welcome to our world. Their attendance is down almost 50% in 8 years. The students are apathetic. Football doesn't sell there anymore. (at least they have basketball). Their athletic department is in a shambles financially speaking.Rushinbear said:
Just finished reading a thred on ucla bruins on 247 sports. They sound just like us in reverse: need a better DC or Kelly must go. Entrance and progress academic standards must be lowered in order to get and keep the best guys.
I responded: "Welcome to our world."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/11/sports/ncaafootball/ucla-football-game-attendance.html
All while getting progressively better on the field.
In the last 8 years, two NFL teams moved to LA plus another NFL team that used to play in LA and is still very popular, moved to nearby Vegas (weekend road trips). So a lot of football fans, including a lot of UCLA fans,are spending their money on the NFL (through the bandwagon fans can jump back as UCLA improves).
Also, in the last 8 years UCLA has been turning parking lots into dorms and now is able to house all of its students on campus. The norm used to be students living off campus, owning a car and driving to school, then driving out to the Rose Bowl for tailgating and football games on Saturdays. Now the students live on campus, and most don't own cars. Great for on campus basketball games, but not so good for football games in Pasadena. Sure there are student buses, but you have to wake up early, get to the bus, have to ride a bus for an hour, can't tailgate….
It is one reason they want what we have, an on campus stadium.
We now have only one NFL team and it is next to Stanford in Santa Clara. We are in the best situation to attract fans since the 1950s, but we have locked up a coach with the worst ranked Cal teams of all time for 5 more years, with a similar situation in basketball. We are alienating the student fans that show up. We can't even have cheerleaders ready for football games. There is great potential for Cal football and basketball but Knowlton is blowing it.
Almost all of the West Coast programs are having the same issue. You do not understand at all the changing demographics of the student bodies at UCLA and Cal. These are elite students who have to "adult" a lot faster than students did in the past and have to work for internships, grad schools and professional schools etc. a lot earlier than before. Students are much less likely to have had prior relationships with Cal than in the past - when it comes to elite universities you scatter your applications and you take who you can get. It isn't like before when you can just get straight A's and you go to Cal like your Mom and Dad. And even among those, I've known life long Cal football fans who got into Cal and could barely manage a game or two a year.
Ever wonder WHY we don't have cheerleaders ready for games? Or why the band numbers are dwindling. This is not where students are putting their energy. Times have changed. If we had held on to a modicum of success, maybe we could have held on, but this is not a hole we can dig out of. Yes, one coach followed a Hall of Fame coach and was able to bring in 2 to recruits that drew some fans. Yes, if we signed that roster again, more fans (not as many as before would come. But thinking that any of that is going to be replicated in the current environment is like arguing that I can retire tomorrow because it is possible I could hit the powerball.
We had a second student cheerleader/dance group "the Bearettes" start up on their own. With their own money and time.
Don't blame the students for the failures of the extremely highly paid but incompetent adults.
BearlyCareAnymore said:I'm not blaming the students. There is nothing to blame for having different priorities. They don't have to prioritize football like I did. Unlike a lot of you, I don't think it is their responsibility to go to games. Geez, good for them for working their butts off to succeed.calumnus said:BearlyCareAnymore said:This is not true. For many years most students have lived on or very near campus. There is a ton of off campus housing in Westwood. The buses have been part of the football game day ritual for a long time and a lot of past students report it as part of the fun of game day. It was not an obstacle before The Raiders and the Chargers are not syphoning fans off UCLA anymore than former Oakland Raiders fans are flocking to Cal. The 49ers could leave and it would not matter. Those are not the same fans.calumnus said:golden sloth said:BearlyCareAnymore said:Yeah, welcome to our world. Their attendance is down almost 50% in 8 years. The students are apathetic. Football doesn't sell there anymore. (at least they have basketball). Their athletic department is in a shambles financially speaking.Rushinbear said:
Just finished reading a thred on ucla bruins on 247 sports. They sound just like us in reverse: need a better DC or Kelly must go. Entrance and progress academic standards must be lowered in order to get and keep the best guys.
I responded: "Welcome to our world."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/11/sports/ncaafootball/ucla-football-game-attendance.html
All while getting progressively better on the field.
In the last 8 years, two NFL teams moved to LA plus another NFL team that used to play in LA and is still very popular, moved to nearby Vegas (weekend road trips). So a lot of football fans, including a lot of UCLA fans,are spending their money on the NFL (through the bandwagon fans can jump back as UCLA improves).
Also, in the last 8 years UCLA has been turning parking lots into dorms and now is able to house all of its students on campus. The norm used to be students living off campus, owning a car and driving to school, then driving out to the Rose Bowl for tailgating and football games on Saturdays. Now the students live on campus, and most don't own cars. Great for on campus basketball games, but not so good for football games in Pasadena. Sure there are student buses, but you have to wake up early, get to the bus, have to ride a bus for an hour, can't tailgate….
It is one reason they want what we have, an on campus stadium.
We now have only one NFL team and it is next to Stanford in Santa Clara. We are in the best situation to attract fans since the 1950s, but we have locked up a coach with the worst ranked Cal teams of all time for 5 more years, with a similar situation in basketball. We are alienating the student fans that show up. We can't even have cheerleaders ready for football games. There is great potential for Cal football and basketball but Knowlton is blowing it.
Almost all of the West Coast programs are having the same issue. You do not understand at all the changing demographics of the student bodies at UCLA and Cal. These are elite students who have to "adult" a lot faster than students did in the past and have to work for internships, grad schools and professional schools etc. a lot earlier than before. Students are much less likely to have had prior relationships with Cal than in the past - when it comes to elite universities you scatter your applications and you take who you can get. It isn't like before when you can just get straight A's and you go to Cal like your Mom and Dad. And even among those, I've known life long Cal football fans who got into Cal and could barely manage a game or two a year.
Ever wonder WHY we don't have cheerleaders ready for games? Or why the band numbers are dwindling. This is not where students are putting their energy. Times have changed. If we had held on to a modicum of success, maybe we could have held on, but this is not a hole we can dig out of. Yes, one coach followed a Hall of Fame coach and was able to bring in 2 to recruits that drew some fans. Yes, if we signed that roster again, more fans (not as many as before would come. But thinking that any of that is going to be replicated in the current environment is like arguing that I can retire tomorrow because it is possible I could hit the powerball.
We had a second student cheerleader/dance group "the Bearettes" start up on their own. With their own money and time.
Don't blame the students for the failures of the extremely highly paid but incompetent adults.
I had Bockrath as my AD who actively insulted students and lied to them. Knowlton is a peach compared to that ass. When I started one of our favorite cheers was "Field Goal Now!" when we got in the red zone followed by "We told you so" when they fumbled. You act like Cal has never been bad before. You want to explain why the Cal band is seeing such a decline. They have never been tied to football success.
This is not what appeals to our students and it hasn't been for a while now. That is why this isn't 2001 and we just need to hire Jeff Tedford.
It is not just Cal. Beyond UCLA, Stanford is in the toilet. Even USC attendance is down 25% in 7 years (I know, it is all those Trojan fans going to Chargers games). The Pac-12 had its lowest ever average attendance last year and the conference attendance has dropped 10 straight years so it is not Covid or Pullman getting a new semi-pro football team. This is the new reality. The money is not coming back like it did. "Winning will fix it", as if that is an easy button, isn't true anymore.
You're right, pure and simple. Cal students and recent grads have been focused on their own success since they were in junior high school. As a general rule, their relations with college and particularly employers are purely transactional (ever look at a Millennial's resume? They don't stay anywhere for more than a couple of years). I can't blame them - my oldest was layed off after only a year on his first job. They have emotional ties with friends, (hopefully) family, and causes (although those can change at the drop of a hat) and that's about it. They're good people, but with different priorities and college sports (be it UCLA, Stanford, Cal, etc) is way down the list.BearlyCareAnymore said:I'm not blaming the students. There is nothing to blame for having different priorities. They don't have to prioritize football like I did. Unlike a lot of you, I don't think it is their responsibility to go to games. Geez, good for them for working their butts off to succeed.calumnus said:BearlyCareAnymore said:This is not true. For many years most students have lived on or very near campus. There is a ton of off campus housing in Westwood. The buses have been part of the football game day ritual for a long time and a lot of past students report it as part of the fun of game day. It was not an obstacle before The Raiders and the Chargers are not syphoning fans off UCLA anymore than former Oakland Raiders fans are flocking to Cal. The 49ers could leave and it would not matter. Those are not the same fans.calumnus said:golden sloth said:BearlyCareAnymore said:Yeah, welcome to our world. Their attendance is down almost 50% in 8 years. The students are apathetic. Football doesn't sell there anymore. (at least they have basketball). Their athletic department is in a shambles financially speaking.Rushinbear said:
Just finished reading a thred on ucla bruins on 247 sports. They sound just like us in reverse: need a better DC or Kelly must go. Entrance and progress academic standards must be lowered in order to get and keep the best guys.
I responded: "Welcome to our world."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/11/sports/ncaafootball/ucla-football-game-attendance.html
All while getting progressively better on the field.
In the last 8 years, two NFL teams moved to LA plus another NFL team that used to play in LA and is still very popular, moved to nearby Vegas (weekend road trips). So a lot of football fans, including a lot of UCLA fans,are spending their money on the NFL (through the bandwagon fans can jump back as UCLA improves).
Also, in the last 8 years UCLA has been turning parking lots into dorms and now is able to house all of its students on campus. The norm used to be students living off campus, owning a car and driving to school, then driving out to the Rose Bowl for tailgating and football games on Saturdays. Now the students live on campus, and most don't own cars. Great for on campus basketball games, but not so good for football games in Pasadena. Sure there are student buses, but you have to wake up early, get to the bus, have to ride a bus for an hour, can't tailgate….
It is one reason they want what we have, an on campus stadium.
We now have only one NFL team and it is next to Stanford in Santa Clara. We are in the best situation to attract fans since the 1950s, but we have locked up a coach with the worst ranked Cal teams of all time for 5 more years, with a similar situation in basketball. We are alienating the student fans that show up. We can't even have cheerleaders ready for football games. There is great potential for Cal football and basketball but Knowlton is blowing it.
Almost all of the West Coast programs are having the same issue. You do not understand at all the changing demographics of the student bodies at UCLA and Cal. These are elite students who have to "adult" a lot faster than students did in the past and have to work for internships, grad schools and professional schools etc. a lot earlier than before. Students are much less likely to have had prior relationships with Cal than in the past - when it comes to elite universities you scatter your applications and you take who you can get. It isn't like before when you can just get straight A's and you go to Cal like your Mom and Dad. And even among those, I've known life long Cal football fans who got into Cal and could barely manage a game or two a year.
Ever wonder WHY we don't have cheerleaders ready for games? Or why the band numbers are dwindling. This is not where students are putting their energy. Times have changed. If we had held on to a modicum of success, maybe we could have held on, but this is not a hole we can dig out of. Yes, one coach followed a Hall of Fame coach and was able to bring in 2 to recruits that drew some fans. Yes, if we signed that roster again, more fans (not as many as before would come. But thinking that any of that is going to be replicated in the current environment is like arguing that I can retire tomorrow because it is possible I could hit the powerball.
We had a second student cheerleader/dance group "the Bearettes" start up on their own. With their own money and time.
Don't blame the students for the failures of the extremely highly paid but incompetent adults.
I had Bockrath as my AD who actively insulted students and lied to them. Knowlton is a peach compared to that ass. When I started one of our favorite cheers was "Field Goal Now!" when we got in the red zone followed by "We told you so" when they fumbled. You act like Cal has never been bad before. You want to explain why the Cal band is seeing such a decline. They have never been tied to football success.
This is not what appeals to our students and it hasn't been for a while now. That is why this isn't 2001 and we just need to hire Jeff Tedford.
It is not just Cal. Beyond UCLA, Stanford is in the toilet. Even USC attendance is down 25% in 7 years (I know, it is all those Trojan fans going to Chargers games). The Pac-12 had its lowest ever average attendance last year and the conference attendance has dropped 10 straight years so it is not Covid or Pullman getting a new semi-pro football team. This is the new reality. The money is not coming back like it did. "Winning will fix it", as if that is an easy button, isn't true anymore.
I do agree that the younger generation's priorities do not align with football, but I do strongly dispute the notion that they have to 'adult' faster. Far too many of the young kids joining my firm don't have basic life skills like being able to drive, cooking a decent meal, doing their own laundry, or knowing how to swim.BearlyCareAnymore said:This is not true. For many years most students have lived on or very near campus. There is a ton of off campus housing in Westwood. The buses have been part of the football game day ritual for a long time and a lot of past students report it as part of the fun of game day. It was not an obstacle before The Raiders and the Chargers are not syphoning fans off UCLA anymore than former Oakland Raiders fans are flocking to Cal. The 49ers could leave and it would not matter. Those are not the same fans.calumnus said:golden sloth said:BearlyCareAnymore said:Yeah, welcome to our world. Their attendance is down almost 50% in 8 years. The students are apathetic. Football doesn't sell there anymore. (at least they have basketball). Their athletic department is in a shambles financially speaking.Rushinbear said:
Just finished reading a thred on ucla bruins on 247 sports. They sound just like us in reverse: need a better DC or Kelly must go. Entrance and progress academic standards must be lowered in order to get and keep the best guys.
I responded: "Welcome to our world."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/11/sports/ncaafootball/ucla-football-game-attendance.html
All while getting progressively better on the field.
In the last 8 years, two NFL teams moved to LA plus another NFL team that used to play in LA and is still very popular, moved to nearby Vegas (weekend road trips). So a lot of football fans, including a lot of UCLA fans,are spending their money on the NFL (through the bandwagon fans can jump back as UCLA improves).
Also, in the last 8 years UCLA has been turning parking lots into dorms and now is able to house all of its students on campus. The norm used to be students living off campus, owning a car and driving to school, then driving out to the Rose Bowl for tailgating and football games on Saturdays. Now the students live on campus, and most don't own cars. Great for on campus basketball games, but not so good for football games in Pasadena. Sure there are student buses, but you have to wake up early, get to the bus, have to ride a bus for an hour, can't tailgate….
It is one reason they want what we have, an on campus stadium.
We now have only one NFL team and it is next to Stanford in Santa Clara. We are in the best situation to attract fans since the 1950s, but we have locked up a coach with the worst ranked Cal teams of all time for 5 more years, with a similar situation in basketball. We are alienating the student fans that show up. We can't even have cheerleaders ready for football games. There is great potential for Cal football and basketball but Knowlton is blowing it.
Almost all of the West Coast programs are having the same issue. You do not understand at all the changing demographics of the student bodies at UCLA and Cal. These are elite students who have to "adult" a lot faster than students did in the past and have to work for internships, grad schools and professional schools etc. a lot earlier than before. Students are much less likely to have had prior relationships with Cal than in the past - when it comes to elite universities you scatter your applications and you take who you can get. It isn't like before when you can just get straight A's and you go to Cal like your Mom and Dad. And even among those, I've known life long Cal football fans who got into Cal and could barely manage a game or two a year.
Ever wonder WHY we don't have cheerleaders ready for games? Or why the band numbers are dwindling. This is not where students are putting their energy. Times have changed. If we had held on to a modicum of success, maybe we could have held on, but this is not a hole we can dig out of. Yes, one coach followed a Hall of Fame coach and was able to bring in 2 to recruits that drew some fans. Yes, if we signed that roster again, more fans (not as many as before would come. But thinking that any of that is going to be replicated in the current environment is like arguing that I can retire tomorrow because it is possible I could hit the powerball.
golden sloth said:
One other point on UCLA attendance and the LA market. Have you seen the Rams or Charger games? Even when the Rams won the Superbowl last year their home games were 30 - 40% away fans and usually outcheered the home crowd. I know a ton of 49er fans that did a one day trip for the NFC championship game because the tixkets were so cheap. LA does not have good football fans (and the Bay Area is not far behind). LA gets by because it has such a massive media market.
The Rams left LA in 1980 and did not return until 2016. During this time, the Raiders came to fill the vacancy for a brief period with mixed results. Meanwhile, the Dodgers and Lakers had great success.golden sloth said:
One other point on UCLA attendance and the LA market. Have you seen the Rams or Charger games? Even when the Rams won the Superbowl last year their home games were 30 - 40% away fans and usually outcheered the home crowd. I know a ton of 49er fans that did a one day trip for the NFC championship game because the tixkets were so cheap. LA does not have good football fans (and the Bay Area is not far behind). LA gets by because it has such a massive media market.
southseasbear said:The Rams left LA in 1980 and did not return until 2016. During this time, the Raiders came to fill the vacancy for a brief period with mixed results. Meanwhile, the Dodgers and Lakers had great success.golden sloth said:
One other point on UCLA attendance and the LA market. Have you seen the Rams or Charger games? Even when the Rams won the Superbowl last year their home games were 30 - 40% away fans and usually outcheered the home crowd. I know a ton of 49er fans that did a one day trip for the NFC championship game because the tixkets were so cheap. LA does not have good football fans (and the Bay Area is not far behind). LA gets by because it has such a massive media market.
01Bear said:southseasbear said:The Rams left LA in 1980 and did not return until 2016. During this time, the Raiders came to fill the vacancy for a brief period with mixed results. Meanwhile, the Dodgers and Lakers had great success.golden sloth said:
One other point on UCLA attendance and the LA market. Have you seen the Rams or Charger games? Even when the Rams won the Superbowl last year their home games were 30 - 40% away fans and usually outcheered the home crowd. I know a ton of 49er fans that did a one day trip for the NFC championship game because the tixkets were so cheap. LA does not have good football fans (and the Bay Area is not far behind). LA gets by because it has such a massive media market.
The Rams left LA in 1994, it only felt like they left earlier given how poorly they played in the decade before they moved to St. Louis. The Raiders also left Los Angeles in 1994. There was no period of time where the Raiders had a monopoly on pro football in Los Angeles (you're probably thinking of the USC Trojans).
Incidentally, the Dodgers and Lakers weren't doing so well in the mid-90s, either. (Much to my chagrin) the Lakers didn't win a championship, again, until the 1999-2000 season. While that began a threepeat, the Lakers soon languished again until winning back-to-back titles in 2009 and 2010. After that, the Lakers went in another championship drought until 2020.
Coincidentally, 2020 was the year the Dodgers's championship drought ended, as well. The Dodgers hadn't won a World Series since 1988, a time when the Rams were regularly losing in LA (though they managed to earn a playoff berth* with a wildcard spot that year).
*Of course, they suddenly remembered who they were and were promptly eliminated by the Vikings.
Yes, attendance is down. There is apathy. But if you look at the three top academic schools in this state--Stanford, Cal, and UCLA--their attendance is about the same. There is a shortage of 20-30 year-olds at the games--the existing fan base is aging. The demographics of these 3 schools doesn't bode well for the future either, with a great many of the student body not growing up with football. But UCLA seems to be trying much harder than Cal. For one, the in-game experience at the Rose Bowl gets improved each year and is superior to that of CMS. UCLA has also been aggressive about getting feedback from fans, and I'm glad they've listened to one of mine. I've never received a request for feedback from Cal Athletics.BearlyCareAnymore said:Yeah, welcome to our world. Their attendance is down almost 50% in 8 years. The students are apathetic. Football doesn't sell there anymore. (at least they have basketball). Their athletic department is in a shambles financially speaking.Rushinbear said:
Just finished reading a thred on ucla bruins on 247 sports. They sound just like us in reverse: need a better DC or Kelly must go. Entrance and progress academic standards must be lowered in order to get and keep the best guys.
I responded: "Welcome to our world."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/11/sports/ncaafootball/ucla-football-game-attendance.html
LMK5 said:Yes, attendance is down. There is apathy. But if you look at the three top academic schools in this state--Stanford, Cal, and UCLA--their attendance is about the same. There is a shortage of 20-30 year-olds at the games--the existing fan base is aging. The demographics of these 3 schools doesn't bode well for the future either, with a great many of the student body not growing up with football. But UCLA seems to be trying much harder than Cal. For one, the in-game experience at the Rose Bowl gets improved each year and is superior to that of CMS. UCLA has also been aggressive about getting feedback from fans, and I'm glad they've listened to one of mine. I've never received a request for feedback from Cal Athletics.BearlyCareAnymore said:Yeah, welcome to our world. Their attendance is down almost 50% in 8 years. The students are apathetic. Football doesn't sell there anymore. (at least they have basketball). Their athletic department is in a shambles financially speaking.Rushinbear said:
Just finished reading a thred on ucla bruins on 247 sports. They sound just like us in reverse: need a better DC or Kelly must go. Entrance and progress academic standards must be lowered in order to get and keep the best guys.
I responded: "Welcome to our world."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/11/sports/ncaafootball/ucla-football-game-attendance.html
There's also a big difference in expectation between Cal and UCLA. UCLA AD Jarmond has been very vocal about returning the program to excellence. They just won their 120th NCAA championship with women's soccer's victory over UNC. There's absolutely no reason why Cal can't more closely track UCLA's performance and commitment. They just have to decide what they want to be. Along with some other things, athletics feels stodgy at Cal.
As far as finances go, I'm astonished that there aren't safeguards in place that strictly prohibit state university athletic departments from going into the red. That has to get fixed. But a Cal guy calling out another school because of debt is sort of comical, no?
Like many have said here, there are many factors that have served to erode attendance. Unpredictable start times is certainly one of them. Now look at the cost. With tickets, parking, concessions, and possibly babysitting costs, it's very pricey. The hassles with security, clear bags, and vaccination documentation didn't help much. Unless you pay up for tickets, your view may be pretty poor. There are lots of play stoppages, making the games too long. Then there's the bathroom lines. Now compare that to sitting in your comfy recliner with a beverage of your choice, free food, no lines at the bathroom, a great view of the game on your big screen TV, the comradery of friends/family, and the ability to record the game and start watching 45 minutes after the start to avoid commercials. That's a hell of a lot of competition for the ADs to deal with.BearlyCareAnymore said:I'm not blaming the students. There is nothing to blame for having different priorities. They don't have to prioritize football like I did. Unlike a lot of you, I don't think it is their responsibility to go to games. Geez, good for them for working their butts off to succeed.calumnus said:BearlyCareAnymore said:This is not true. For many years most students have lived on or very near campus. There is a ton of off campus housing in Westwood. The buses have been part of the football game day ritual for a long time and a lot of past students report it as part of the fun of game day. It was not an obstacle before The Raiders and the Chargers are not syphoning fans off UCLA anymore than former Oakland Raiders fans are flocking to Cal. The 49ers could leave and it would not matter. Those are not the same fans.calumnus said:golden sloth said:BearlyCareAnymore said:Yeah, welcome to our world. Their attendance is down almost 50% in 8 years. The students are apathetic. Football doesn't sell there anymore. (at least they have basketball). Their athletic department is in a shambles financially speaking.Rushinbear said:
Just finished reading a thred on ucla bruins on 247 sports. They sound just like us in reverse: need a better DC or Kelly must go. Entrance and progress academic standards must be lowered in order to get and keep the best guys.
I responded: "Welcome to our world."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/11/sports/ncaafootball/ucla-football-game-attendance.html
All while getting progressively better on the field.
In the last 8 years, two NFL teams moved to LA plus another NFL team that used to play in LA and is still very popular, moved to nearby Vegas (weekend road trips). So a lot of football fans, including a lot of UCLA fans,are spending their money on the NFL (through the bandwagon fans can jump back as UCLA improves).
Also, in the last 8 years UCLA has been turning parking lots into dorms and now is able to house all of its students on campus. The norm used to be students living off campus, owning a car and driving to school, then driving out to the Rose Bowl for tailgating and football games on Saturdays. Now the students live on campus, and most don't own cars. Great for on campus basketball games, but not so good for football games in Pasadena. Sure there are student buses, but you have to wake up early, get to the bus, have to ride a bus for an hour, can't tailgate….
It is one reason they want what we have, an on campus stadium.
We now have only one NFL team and it is next to Stanford in Santa Clara. We are in the best situation to attract fans since the 1950s, but we have locked up a coach with the worst ranked Cal teams of all time for 5 more years, with a similar situation in basketball. We are alienating the student fans that show up. We can't even have cheerleaders ready for football games. There is great potential for Cal football and basketball but Knowlton is blowing it.
Almost all of the West Coast programs are having the same issue. You do not understand at all the changing demographics of the student bodies at UCLA and Cal. These are elite students who have to "adult" a lot faster than students did in the past and have to work for internships, grad schools and professional schools etc. a lot earlier than before. Students are much less likely to have had prior relationships with Cal than in the past - when it comes to elite universities you scatter your applications and you take who you can get. It isn't like before when you can just get straight A's and you go to Cal like your Mom and Dad. And even among those, I've known life long Cal football fans who got into Cal and could barely manage a game or two a year.
Ever wonder WHY we don't have cheerleaders ready for games? Or why the band numbers are dwindling. This is not where students are putting their energy. Times have changed. If we had held on to a modicum of success, maybe we could have held on, but this is not a hole we can dig out of. Yes, one coach followed a Hall of Fame coach and was able to bring in 2 to recruits that drew some fans. Yes, if we signed that roster again, more fans (not as many as before would come. But thinking that any of that is going to be replicated in the current environment is like arguing that I can retire tomorrow because it is possible I could hit the powerball.
We had a second student cheerleader/dance group "the Bearettes" start up on their own. With their own money and time.
Don't blame the students for the failures of the extremely highly paid but incompetent adults.
I had Bockrath as my AD who actively insulted students and lied to them. Knowlton is a peach compared to that ass. When I started one of our favorite cheers was "Field Goal Now!" when we got in the red zone followed by "We told you so" when they fumbled. You act like Cal has never been bad before. You want to explain why the Cal band is seeing such a decline. They have never been tied to football success.
This is not what appeals to our students and it hasn't been for a while now. That is why this isn't 2001 and we just need to hire Jeff Tedford.
It is not just Cal. Beyond UCLA, Stanford is in the toilet. Even USC attendance is down 25% in 7 years (I know, it is all those Trojan fans going to Chargers games). The Pac-12 had its lowest ever average attendance last year and the conference attendance has dropped 10 straight years so it is not Covid or Pullman getting a new semi-pro football team. This is the new reality. The money is not coming back like it did. "Winning will fix it", as if that is an easy button, isn't true anymore.
Do you realize that Anaheim and Orange County are not in LA? That's like saying Berkeley is in San Jose.01Bear said:southseasbear said:The Rams left LA in 1980 and did not return until 2016. During this time, the Raiders came to fill the vacancy for a brief period with mixed results. Meanwhile, the Dodgers and Lakers had great success.golden sloth said:
One other point on UCLA attendance and the LA market. Have you seen the Rams or Charger games? Even when the Rams won the Superbowl last year their home games were 30 - 40% away fans and usually outcheered the home crowd. I know a ton of 49er fans that did a one day trip for the NFC championship game because the tixkets were so cheap. LA does not have good football fans (and the Bay Area is not far behind). LA gets by because it has such a massive media market.
The Rams left LA in 1994, it only felt like they left earlier given how poorly they played in the decade before they moved to St. Louis. The Raiders also left Los Angeles in 1994. There was no period of time where the Raiders had a monopoly on pro football in Los Angeles (you're probably thinking of the USC Trojans).
Incidentally, the Dodgers and Lakers weren't doing so well in the mid-90s, either. (Much to my chagrin) the Lakers didn't win a championship, again, until the 1999-2000 season. While that began a threepeat, the Lakers soon languished again until winning back-to-back titles in 2009 and 2010. After that, the Lakers went in another championship drought until 2020.
Coincidentally, 2020 was the year the Dodgers's championship drought ended, as well. The Dodgers hadn't won a World Series since 1988, a time when the Rams were regularly losing in LA (though they managed to earn a playoff berth* with a wildcard spot that year).
*Of course, they suddenly remembered who they were and were promptly eliminated by the Vikings.
southseasbear said:Do you realize that Anaheim and Orange County are not in LA? That's like saying Berkeley is in San Jose.01Bear said:southseasbear said:The Rams left LA in 1980 and did not return until 2016. During this time, the Raiders came to fill the vacancy for a brief period with mixed results. Meanwhile, the Dodgers and Lakers had great success.golden sloth said:
One other point on UCLA attendance and the LA market. Have you seen the Rams or Charger games? Even when the Rams won the Superbowl last year their home games were 30 - 40% away fans and usually outcheered the home crowd. I know a ton of 49er fans that did a one day trip for the NFC championship game because the tixkets were so cheap. LA does not have good football fans (and the Bay Area is not far behind). LA gets by because it has such a massive media market.
The Rams left LA in 1994, it only felt like they left earlier given how poorly they played in the decade before they moved to St. Louis. The Raiders also left Los Angeles in 1994. There was no period of time where the Raiders had a monopoly on pro football in Los Angeles (you're probably thinking of the USC Trojans).
Incidentally, the Dodgers and Lakers weren't doing so well in the mid-90s, either. (Much to my chagrin) the Lakers didn't win a championship, again, until the 1999-2000 season. While that began a threepeat, the Lakers soon languished again until winning back-to-back titles in 2009 and 2010. After that, the Lakers went in another championship drought until 2020.
Coincidentally, 2020 was the year the Dodgers's championship drought ended, as well. The Dodgers hadn't won a World Series since 1988, a time when the Rams were regularly losing in LA (though they managed to earn a playoff berth* with a wildcard spot that year).
*Of course, they suddenly remembered who they were and were promptly eliminated by the Vikings.
calumnus said:01Bear said:southseasbear said:The Rams left LA in 1980 and did not return until 2016. During this time, the Raiders came to fill the vacancy for a brief period with mixed results. Meanwhile, the Dodgers and Lakers had great success.golden sloth said:
One other point on UCLA attendance and the LA market. Have you seen the Rams or Charger games? Even when the Rams won the Superbowl last year their home games were 30 - 40% away fans and usually outcheered the home crowd. I know a ton of 49er fans that did a one day trip for the NFC championship game because the tixkets were so cheap. LA does not have good football fans (and the Bay Area is not far behind). LA gets by because it has such a massive media market.
The Rams left LA in 1994, it only felt like they left earlier given how poorly they played in the decade before they moved to St. Louis. The Raiders also left Los Angeles in 1994. There was no period of time where the Raiders had a monopoly on pro football in Los Angeles (you're probably thinking of the USC Trojans).
Incidentally, the Dodgers and Lakers weren't doing so well in the mid-90s, either. (Much to my chagrin) the Lakers didn't win a championship, again, until the 1999-2000 season. While that began a threepeat, the Lakers soon languished again until winning back-to-back titles in 2009 and 2010. After that, the Lakers went in another championship drought until 2020.
Coincidentally, 2020 was the year the Dodgers's championship drought ended, as well. The Dodgers hadn't won a World Series since 1988, a time when the Rams were regularly losing in LA (though they managed to earn a playoff berth* with a wildcard spot that year).
*Of course, they suddenly remembered who they were and were promptly eliminated by the Vikings.
I stopped rooting for the Rams when they left Los Angeles and moved to Orange County in 1980. Much like San Diegans no longer root for the Chargers. The Raiders were then the LA team until they left in 1994. Especially after immediately winning a Super Bowl. The Raiders popularity soared when LA based rap groups like NWA and even East Coast rap groups like Public Enemy wore Raiders hats on album covers and at concerts. A lot of people in LA who didn't like that association adopted the Montana era Niners. Rams were largely forgotten until they returned to LA after the long absence of any team in LA.
UC Davis' athletic department runs in the black. They have for at least the last 5 years.calumnus said:LMK5 said:Yes, attendance is down. There is apathy. But if you look at the three top academic schools in this state--Stanford, Cal, and UCLA--their attendance is about the same. There is a shortage of 20-30 year-olds at the games--the existing fan base is aging. The demographics of these 3 schools doesn't bode well for the future either, with a great many of the student body not growing up with football. But UCLA seems to be trying much harder than Cal. For one, the in-game experience at the Rose Bowl gets improved each year and is superior to that of CMS. UCLA has also been aggressive about getting feedback from fans, and I'm glad they've listened to one of mine. I've never received a request for feedback from Cal Athletics.BearlyCareAnymore said:Yeah, welcome to our world. Their attendance is down almost 50% in 8 years. The students are apathetic. Football doesn't sell there anymore. (at least they have basketball). Their athletic department is in a shambles financially speaking.Rushinbear said:
Just finished reading a thred on ucla bruins on 247 sports. They sound just like us in reverse: need a better DC or Kelly must go. Entrance and progress academic standards must be lowered in order to get and keep the best guys.
I responded: "Welcome to our world."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/11/sports/ncaafootball/ucla-football-game-attendance.html
There's also a big difference in expectation between Cal and UCLA. UCLA AD Jarmond has been very vocal about returning the program to excellence. They just won their 120th NCAA championship with women's soccer's victory over UNC. There's absolutely no reason why Cal can't more closely track UCLA's performance and commitment. They just have to decide what they want to be. Along with some other things, athletics feels stodgy at Cal.
As far as finances go, I'm astonished that there aren't safeguards in place that strictly prohibit state university athletic departments from going into the red. That has to get fixed. But a Cal guy calling out another school because of debt is sort of comical, no?
Do you think UC Davis' athletics department breaks even? Cal Poly? UC Riverside? San Mateo City College?
Spending money on athletics is the norm for most public (and private) schools from the junior high, high school, JC, FCS and D1 level.
Cal and UCLA are held to a different standard because they have revenue sports, I understand that political reality, but that should not be a law.
BearlyCareAnymore said:UC Davis' athletic department runs in the black. They have for at least the last 5 years.calumnus said:LMK5 said:Yes, attendance is down. There is apathy. But if you look at the three top academic schools in this state--Stanford, Cal, and UCLA--their attendance is about the same. There is a shortage of 20-30 year-olds at the games--the existing fan base is aging. The demographics of these 3 schools doesn't bode well for the future either, with a great many of the student body not growing up with football. But UCLA seems to be trying much harder than Cal. For one, the in-game experience at the Rose Bowl gets improved each year and is superior to that of CMS. UCLA has also been aggressive about getting feedback from fans, and I'm glad they've listened to one of mine. I've never received a request for feedback from Cal Athletics.BearlyCareAnymore said:Yeah, welcome to our world. Their attendance is down almost 50% in 8 years. The students are apathetic. Football doesn't sell there anymore. (at least they have basketball). Their athletic department is in a shambles financially speaking.Rushinbear said:
Just finished reading a thred on ucla bruins on 247 sports. They sound just like us in reverse: need a better DC or Kelly must go. Entrance and progress academic standards must be lowered in order to get and keep the best guys.
I responded: "Welcome to our world."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/11/sports/ncaafootball/ucla-football-game-attendance.html
There's also a big difference in expectation between Cal and UCLA. UCLA AD Jarmond has been very vocal about returning the program to excellence. They just won their 120th NCAA championship with women's soccer's victory over UNC. There's absolutely no reason why Cal can't more closely track UCLA's performance and commitment. They just have to decide what they want to be. Along with some other things, athletics feels stodgy at Cal.
As far as finances go, I'm astonished that there aren't safeguards in place that strictly prohibit state university athletic departments from going into the red. That has to get fixed. But a Cal guy calling out another school because of debt is sort of comical, no?
Do you think UC Davis' athletics department breaks even? Cal Poly? UC Riverside? San Mateo City College?
Spending money on athletics is the norm for most public (and private) schools from the junior high, high school, JC, FCS and D1 level.
Cal and UCLA are held to a different standard because they have revenue sports, I understand that political reality, but that should not be a law.
01Bear said:calumnus said:01Bear said:southseasbear said:The Rams left LA in 1980 and did not return until 2016. During this time, the Raiders came to fill the vacancy for a brief period with mixed results. Meanwhile, the Dodgers and Lakers had great success.golden sloth said:
One other point on UCLA attendance and the LA market. Have you seen the Rams or Charger games? Even when the Rams won the Superbowl last year their home games were 30 - 40% away fans and usually outcheered the home crowd. I know a ton of 49er fans that did a one day trip for the NFC championship game because the tixkets were so cheap. LA does not have good football fans (and the Bay Area is not far behind). LA gets by because it has such a massive media market.
The Rams left LA in 1994, it only felt like they left earlier given how poorly they played in the decade before they moved to St. Louis. The Raiders also left Los Angeles in 1994. There was no period of time where the Raiders had a monopoly on pro football in Los Angeles (you're probably thinking of the USC Trojans).
Incidentally, the Dodgers and Lakers weren't doing so well in the mid-90s, either. (Much to my chagrin) the Lakers didn't win a championship, again, until the 1999-2000 season. While that began a threepeat, the Lakers soon languished again until winning back-to-back titles in 2009 and 2010. After that, the Lakers went in another championship drought until 2020.
Coincidentally, 2020 was the year the Dodgers's championship drought ended, as well. The Dodgers hadn't won a World Series since 1988, a time when the Rams were regularly losing in LA (though they managed to earn a playoff berth* with a wildcard spot that year).
*Of course, they suddenly remembered who they were and were promptly eliminated by the Vikings.
I stopped rooting for the Rams when they left Los Angeles and moved to Orange County in 1980. Much like San Diegans no longer root for the Chargers. The Raiders were then the LA team until they left in 1994. Especially after immediately winning a Super Bowl. The Raiders popularity soared when LA based rap groups like NWA and even East Coast rap groups like Public Enemy wore Raiders hats on album covers and at concerts. A lot of people in LA who didn't like that association adopted the Montana era Niners. Rams were largely forgotten until they returned to LA after the long absence of any team in LA.
Calumnus, my friend, you've been gone too long from the LA area. The Rams were still LA's team (along with the Raiders) even when I was a kid in the Southland. Sure, we used to ridicule and mock the Rams, especially when they left for St. Louis, but there was definitely some heartache when the Rams left in 1994. When the Rams returned to LA, there was actually much rejoicing among the dormant Rams fanbase in LA. While your feelings toward the Rams are understandable, they do not represent the feelings of the rest of the Rams fanbase in the LA area.
My guess is you don't live in LA. Those of us who did viewed the move to Anaheim as a betrayal, causing the Rams to lose a significant amount of their fanbase. I had been a big fan and still remember seeing them play. I still remember the names: QB: Roman Gabriel, John Hadl, James Harris, Ron Jaworsky, Joe Namath (for a quick second). WR: Jack Snow, Lantz Rentzel, Jesse Harris. OL: Ken Iman, Tom Mack. DL: Merlin Olson, Deacon Jones, Rosey Grier, Lamar Lundy, Phil Olson, Coy Bacon, Fred Dryer. Punter: Chappel. Kicker: David Rae. Coaches George Allen, Tommy Prothro, Chuck Knox. It's been over 40 years and I still remember these names (and give me a few minutes and more will come to mind, such as LB Isiah Robertson), as they were my childhood heroes. Growing up, I either went to games (tickets were relatively inexepensive and the Coliseum never sold out) or listened on the radio (they were not televised)01Bear said:southseasbear said:Do you realize that Anaheim and Orange County are not in LA? That's like saying Berkeley is in San Jose.01Bear said:southseasbear said:The Rams left LA in 1980 and did not return until 2016. During this time, the Raiders came to fill the vacancy for a brief period with mixed results. Meanwhile, the Dodgers and Lakers had great success.golden sloth said:
One other point on UCLA attendance and the LA market. Have you seen the Rams or Charger games? Even when the Rams won the Superbowl last year their home games were 30 - 40% away fans and usually outcheered the home crowd. I know a ton of 49er fans that did a one day trip for the NFC championship game because the tixkets were so cheap. LA does not have good football fans (and the Bay Area is not far behind). LA gets by because it has such a massive media market.
The Rams left LA in 1994, it only felt like they left earlier given how poorly they played in the decade before they moved to St. Louis. The Raiders also left Los Angeles in 1994. There was no period of time where the Raiders had a monopoly on pro football in Los Angeles (you're probably thinking of the USC Trojans).
Incidentally, the Dodgers and Lakers weren't doing so well in the mid-90s, either. (Much to my chagrin) the Lakers didn't win a championship, again, until the 1999-2000 season. While that began a threepeat, the Lakers soon languished again until winning back-to-back titles in 2009 and 2010. After that, the Lakers went in another championship drought until 2020.
Coincidentally, 2020 was the year the Dodgers's championship drought ended, as well. The Dodgers hadn't won a World Series since 1988, a time when the Rams were regularly losing in LA (though they managed to earn a playoff berth* with a wildcard spot that year).
*Of course, they suddenly remembered who they were and were promptly eliminated by the Vikings.
The distance between LA and Anaheim is much closer to Berkeley to Hayward than Berkeley to San Jose. (Or SF to Redwood City; whereas the distance between SF and Santa Clara is more akin that between Berkeley and San Jose.) The fact of the matter is, the Rams were still not only called the LA Rams but also maintained its fanbase in the LA metro area, since Anaheim (and really Orange County, especially north OC) are easily within the LA metro area. (Incidentally, calumnus's comparison of thr Rams's move to Anaheim to the Chargers's moving to LA is entirely distinguishable as San Diego is not within the LA metro area; as such, the Chargers really did abandon their fan base with their move.)
For that record, the Raiders played in El Segundo, not the City of Angels. In fact, the distance from LA to El Segundo is about the same distance as Berkeley to Hayward. So going by your ridiculous argument, the Raiders weren't in LA, either.
But surely you knew this, right?
southseasbear said:My guess is you don't live in LA. Those of us who did viewed the move to Anaheim as a betrayal, causing the Rams to lose a significant amount of their fanbase. I had been a big fan and still remember seeing them play. I still remember the names: QB: Roman Gabriel, John Hadl, James Harris, Ron Jaworsky, Joe Namath (for a quick second). WR: Jack Snow, Lantz Rentzel, Jesse Harris. OL: Ken Iman, Tom Mack. DL: Merlin Olson, Deacon Jones, Rosey Grier, Lamar Lundy, Phil Olson, Coy Bacon, Fred Dryer. Punter: Chappel. Kicker: David Rae. Coaches George Allen, Tommy Prothro, Chuck Knox. It's been over 40 years and I still remember these names (and give me a few minutes and more will come to mind, such as LB Isiah Robertson), as they were my childhood heroes. Growing up, I either went to games (tickets were relatively inexepensive and the Coliseum never sold out) or listened on the radio (they were not televised)01Bear said:southseasbear said:Do you realize that Anaheim and Orange County are not in LA? That's like saying Berkeley is in San Jose.01Bear said:southseasbear said:The Rams left LA in 1980 and did not return until 2016. During this time, the Raiders came to fill the vacancy for a brief period with mixed results. Meanwhile, the Dodgers and Lakers had great success.golden sloth said:
One other point on UCLA attendance and the LA market. Have you seen the Rams or Charger games? Even when the Rams won the Superbowl last year their home games were 30 - 40% away fans and usually outcheered the home crowd. I know a ton of 49er fans that did a one day trip for the NFC championship game because the tixkets were so cheap. LA does not have good football fans (and the Bay Area is not far behind). LA gets by because it has such a massive media market.
The Rams left LA in 1994, it only felt like they left earlier given how poorly they played in the decade before they moved to St. Louis. The Raiders also left Los Angeles in 1994. There was no period of time where the Raiders had a monopoly on pro football in Los Angeles (you're probably thinking of the USC Trojans).
Incidentally, the Dodgers and Lakers weren't doing so well in the mid-90s, either. (Much to my chagrin) the Lakers didn't win a championship, again, until the 1999-2000 season. While that began a threepeat, the Lakers soon languished again until winning back-to-back titles in 2009 and 2010. After that, the Lakers went in another championship drought until 2020.
Coincidentally, 2020 was the year the Dodgers's championship drought ended, as well. The Dodgers hadn't won a World Series since 1988, a time when the Rams were regularly losing in LA (though they managed to earn a playoff berth* with a wildcard spot that year).
*Of course, they suddenly remembered who they were and were promptly eliminated by the Vikings.
The distance between LA and Anaheim is much closer to Berkeley to Hayward than Berkeley to San Jose. (Or SF to Redwood City; whereas the distance between SF and Santa Clara is more akin that between Berkeley and San Jose.) The fact of the matter is, the Rams were still not only called the LA Rams but also maintained its fanbase in the LA metro area, since Anaheim (and really Orange County, especially north OC) are easily within the LA metro area. (Incidentally, calumnus's comparison of thr Rams's move to Anaheim to the Chargers's moving to LA is entirely distinguishable as San Diego is not within the LA metro area; as such, the Chargers really did abandon their fan base with their move.)
For that record, the Raiders played in El Segundo, not the City of Angels. In fact, the distance from LA to El Segundo is about the same distance as Berkeley to Hayward. So going by your ridiculous argument, the Raiders weren't in LA, either.
But surely you knew this, right?
The Rams left Los Angeles in 1990. Not only the city, but the County. At the beginning of this post, I speculated you didn't live in LA (at least not back then) because had you done so you would know there was a huge cultural divide. It was called the "Orange Curtain." We didn't cross it unless we were going to Disneyland. Had you ever lived in LA you would know that the Raiders could not possibly play in El Segundo because there is no stadium (other than the one at El Segundo High School) there. The Raiders played in the Coliseum. El Segundo is a suburb of LA (as is Inglewood where the Lakers and Kings played); Anaheim is not.
Sure, they still called themselves the "Los Angeles Rams," (and ironically maintained their office on Pico Blvd. in West LA (not far from where I lived but over an hour away from Anaheim) but that was like an insult. I don't know anyone who traveled to their games. And I said, most of us felt abandoned and rooted against them.
No, it's not comical. Cal was completely above board, conducted the process in the open over months' time, and invested the money in a fixed asset. ucla spent it on, among other things, food, as demanded by Chip Kelly which went down the hatch and out the other end. They did it translucently at best and then tried to sneak off in the night with a new engine by which they hope to make up the difference.LMK5 said:Yes, attendance is down. There is apathy. But if you look at the three top academic schools in this state--Stanford, Cal, and UCLA--their attendance is about the same. There is a shortage of 20-30 year-olds at the games--the existing fan base is aging. The demographics of these 3 schools doesn't bode well for the future either, with a great many of the student body not growing up with football. But UCLA seems to be trying much harder than Cal. For one, the in-game experience at the Rose Bowl gets improved each year and is superior to that of CMS. UCLA has also been aggressive about getting feedback from fans, and I'm glad they've listened to one of mine. I've never received a request for feedback from Cal Athletics.BearlyCareAnymore said:Yeah, welcome to our world. Their attendance is down almost 50% in 8 years. The students are apathetic. Football doesn't sell there anymore. (at least they have basketball). Their athletic department is in a shambles financially speaking.Rushinbear said:
Just finished reading a thred on ucla bruins on 247 sports. They sound just like us in reverse: need a better DC or Kelly must go. Entrance and progress academic standards must be lowered in order to get and keep the best guys.
I responded: "Welcome to our world."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/11/sports/ncaafootball/ucla-football-game-attendance.html
There's also a big difference in expectation between Cal and UCLA. UCLA AD Jarmond has been very vocal about returning the program to excellence. They just won their 120th NCAA championship with women's soccer's victory over UNC. There's absolutely no reason why Cal can't more closely track UCLA's performance and commitment. They just have to decide what they want to be. Along with some other things, athletics feels stodgy at Cal.
As far as finances go, I'm astonished that there aren't safeguards in place that strictly prohibit state university athletic departments from going into the red. That has to get fixed. But a Cal guy calling out another school because of debt is sort of comical, no?
"Practice" is not the same as "play." 01Bear said, "For that record, the Raiders played in El Segundo, not the City of Angels," which is not true.oski003 said:southseasbear said:My guess is you don't live in LA. Those of us who did viewed the move to Anaheim as a betrayal, causing the Rams to lose a significant amount of their fanbase. I had been a big fan and still remember seeing them play. I still remember the names: QB: Roman Gabriel, John Hadl, James Harris, Ron Jaworsky, Joe Namath (for a quick second). WR: Jack Snow, Lantz Rentzel, Jesse Harris. OL: Ken Iman, Tom Mack. DL: Merlin Olson, Deacon Jones, Rosey Grier, Lamar Lundy, Phil Olson, Coy Bacon, Fred Dryer. Punter: Chappel. Kicker: David Rae. Coaches George Allen, Tommy Prothro, Chuck Knox. It's been over 40 years and I still remember these names (and give me a few minutes and more will come to mind, such as LB Isiah Robertson), as they were my childhood heroes. Growing up, I either went to games (tickets were relatively inexepensive and the Coliseum never sold out) or listened on the radio (they were not televised)01Bear said:southseasbear said:Do you realize that Anaheim and Orange County are not in LA? That's like saying Berkeley is in San Jose.01Bear said:southseasbear said:The Rams left LA in 1980 and did not return until 2016. During this time, the Raiders came to fill the vacancy for a brief period with mixed results. Meanwhile, the Dodgers and Lakers had great success.golden sloth said:
One other point on UCLA attendance and the LA market. Have you seen the Rams or Charger games? Even when the Rams won the Superbowl last year their home games were 30 - 40% away fans and usually outcheered the home crowd. I know a ton of 49er fans that did a one day trip for the NFC championship game because the tixkets were so cheap. LA does not have good football fans (and the Bay Area is not far behind). LA gets by because it has such a massive media market.
The Rams left LA in 1994, it only felt like they left earlier given how poorly they played in the decade before they moved to St. Louis. The Raiders also left Los Angeles in 1994. There was no period of time where the Raiders had a monopoly on pro football in Los Angeles (you're probably thinking of the USC Trojans).
Incidentally, the Dodgers and Lakers weren't doing so well in the mid-90s, either. (Much to my chagrin) the Lakers didn't win a championship, again, until the 1999-2000 season. While that began a threepeat, the Lakers soon languished again until winning back-to-back titles in 2009 and 2010. After that, the Lakers went in another championship drought until 2020.
Coincidentally, 2020 was the year the Dodgers's championship drought ended, as well. The Dodgers hadn't won a World Series since 1988, a time when the Rams were regularly losing in LA (though they managed to earn a playoff berth* with a wildcard spot that year).
*Of course, they suddenly remembered who they were and were promptly eliminated by the Vikings.
The distance between LA and Anaheim is much closer to Berkeley to Hayward than Berkeley to San Jose. (Or SF to Redwood City; whereas the distance between SF and Santa Clara is more akin that between Berkeley and San Jose.) The fact of the matter is, the Rams were still not only called the LA Rams but also maintained its fanbase in the LA metro area, since Anaheim (and really Orange County, especially north OC) are easily within the LA metro area. (Incidentally, calumnus's comparison of thr Rams's move to Anaheim to the Chargers's moving to LA is entirely distinguishable as San Diego is not within the LA metro area; as such, the Chargers really did abandon their fan base with their move.)
For that record, the Raiders played in El Segundo, not the City of Angels. In fact, the distance from LA to El Segundo is about the same distance as Berkeley to Hayward. So going by your ridiculous argument, the Raiders weren't in LA, either.
But surely you knew this, right?
The Rams left Los Angeles in 1990. Not only the city, but the County. At the beginning of this post, I speculated you didn't live in LA (at least not back then) because had you done so you would know there was a huge cultural divide. It was called the "Orange Curtain." We didn't cross it unless we were going to Disneyland. Had you ever lived in LA you would know that the Raiders could not possibly play in El Segundo because there is no stadium (other than the one at El Segundo High School) there. The Raiders played in the Coliseum. El Segundo is a suburb of LA (as is Inglewood where the Lakers and Kings played); Anaheim is not.
Sure, they still called themselves the "Los Angeles Rams," (and ironically maintained their office on Pico Blvd. in West LA (not far from where I lived but over an hour away from Anaheim) but that was like an insult. I don't know anyone who traveled to their games. And I said, most of us felt abandoned and rooted against them.
The Raiders practiced in the City of El Segundo, a city between LAX and Manhattan Beach in the Greater Los Angeles Area. The Chargers are currently building a large practice facility there now. The Lakers and Kings both practice in El Segundo as well.
Cal Athletics is being held above water by borrowing from the campus. The ways they thought they could service the stadium debt never materialized, and this will be an issue for many, many years to come. Chip spent too lavishly on fancy food. In both cases, there weren't adequate controls in place to ensure that the universities (taxpayers) weren't burdened.Rushinbear said:No, it's not comical. Cal was completely above board, conducted the process in the open over months' time, and invested the money in a fixed asset. ucla spent it on, among other things, food, as demanded by Chip Kelly which went down the hatch and out the other end. They did it translucently at best and then tried to sneak off in the night with a new engine by which they hope to make up the difference.LMK5 said:Yes, attendance is down. There is apathy. But if you look at the three top academic schools in this state--Stanford, Cal, and UCLA--their attendance is about the same. There is a shortage of 20-30 year-olds at the games--the existing fan base is aging. The demographics of these 3 schools doesn't bode well for the future either, with a great many of the student body not growing up with football. But UCLA seems to be trying much harder than Cal. For one, the in-game experience at the Rose Bowl gets improved each year and is superior to that of CMS. UCLA has also been aggressive about getting feedback from fans, and I'm glad they've listened to one of mine. I've never received a request for feedback from Cal Athletics.BearlyCareAnymore said:Yeah, welcome to our world. Their attendance is down almost 50% in 8 years. The students are apathetic. Football doesn't sell there anymore. (at least they have basketball). Their athletic department is in a shambles financially speaking.Rushinbear said:
Just finished reading a thred on ucla bruins on 247 sports. They sound just like us in reverse: need a better DC or Kelly must go. Entrance and progress academic standards must be lowered in order to get and keep the best guys.
I responded: "Welcome to our world."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/11/sports/ncaafootball/ucla-football-game-attendance.html
There's also a big difference in expectation between Cal and UCLA. UCLA AD Jarmond has been very vocal about returning the program to excellence. They just won their 120th NCAA championship with women's soccer's victory over UNC. There's absolutely no reason why Cal can't more closely track UCLA's performance and commitment. They just have to decide what they want to be. Along with some other things, athletics feels stodgy at Cal.
As far as finances go, I'm astonished that there aren't safeguards in place that strictly prohibit state university athletic departments from going into the red. That has to get fixed. But a Cal guy calling out another school because of debt is sort of comical, no?
Guess what? A spendthrift is always a spendthrift and they will find new ways to waste the BIG money and then come crying back to their conference with their hand out. It was other peoples' money and they will always go after that.
