It's just laundry on hired mercenaries. Perhaps a reality check?
One thing I really like about the ACC
8,098 Views |
59 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by calumnus
No it's not a Cal thing, it's only a thing for those on this board feeling insecure about how garbage our revenue sports are and needing to compensate by talking about academics. Thankfully most Cal alumni are much more well adjusted to reality than people here.MTbear22 said:Preferring to associate with schools with strong academics is not a Cal thing. No, it should not be the only or even primary consideration. But it can certainly be A consideration.LunchTime said:socaltownie said:
If the travel can be solved the ACC could be a fit
But I wanted to look at something
Acceptance Rate
GTech - 16%
UN C - 20%
Duke - 5.9%
Wake - 25%
Clemson - 43%
FSU - 36%
Oregon 81%
Washington 52%
Arizona -87%
Colorado - 84%
Cal/Furd is a better fit in the ACC
Hit the nail on the head for why no one wants Cal.
The arrogant elitism of the fan base has restricted growth of the product to the point that B1G can own Bay Area TV with Oregon and UCLA.
This type of post is a great example of how Cal fans go out of their to show how disconnected Cal is from everyone around Cal.
I don't get the snobbery accusation. It's about turning away good players who want to come to Cal, but don't have the grades to meet our standards. So, they get in at our rivals. That's one of the challenges we face every year. In that regard, the ACC would be the best fit for us, among the major conferences.DoubtfulBear said:No it's not a Cal thing, it's only a thing for those on this board feeling insecure about how garbage our revenue sports are and needing to compensate by talking about academics. Thankfully most Cal alumni are much more well adjusted to reality than people here.MTbear22 said:Preferring to associate with schools with strong academics is not a Cal thing. No, it should not be the only or even primary consideration. But it can certainly be A consideration.LunchTime said:socaltownie said:
If the travel can be solved the ACC could be a fit
But I wanted to look at something
Acceptance Rate
GTech - 16%
UN C - 20%
Duke - 5.9%
Wake - 25%
Clemson - 43%
FSU - 36%
Oregon 81%
Washington 52%
Arizona -87%
Colorado - 84%
Cal/Furd is a better fit in the ACC
Hit the nail on the head for why no one wants Cal.
The arrogant elitism of the fan base has restricted growth of the product to the point that B1G can own Bay Area TV with Oregon and UCLA.
This type of post is a great example of how Cal fans go out of their to show how disconnected Cal is from everyone around Cal.
I'll say it again, why does UCLA not have this problem? Why does Texas not have this problem? Why does Michigan not have this problem? There are many examples of top tier public schools that are still able to get top athletic talent. Playing mediocre football against BC isn't going to increase game attendance or TV viewership.Rushinbear said:I don't get the snobbery accusation. It's about turning away good players who want to come to Cal, but don't have the grades to meet our standards. So, they get in at our rivals. That's one of the challenges we face every year. In that regard, the ACC would be the best fit for us, among the major conferences.DoubtfulBear said:No it's not a Cal thing, it's only a thing for those on this board feeling insecure about how garbage our revenue sports are and needing to compensate by talking about academics. Thankfully most Cal alumni are much more well adjusted to reality than people here.MTbear22 said:Preferring to associate with schools with strong academics is not a Cal thing. No, it should not be the only or even primary consideration. But it can certainly be A consideration.LunchTime said:socaltownie said:
If the travel can be solved the ACC could be a fit
But I wanted to look at something
Acceptance Rate
GTech - 16%
UN C - 20%
Duke - 5.9%
Wake - 25%
Clemson - 43%
FSU - 36%
Oregon 81%
Washington 52%
Arizona -87%
Colorado - 84%
Cal/Furd is a better fit in the ACC
Hit the nail on the head for why no one wants Cal.
The arrogant elitism of the fan base has restricted growth of the product to the point that B1G can own Bay Area TV with Oregon and UCLA.
This type of post is a great example of how Cal fans go out of their to show how disconnected Cal is from everyone around Cal.
You're right Cal does suffer from elitism and academic snobbery. We are a liberal bastion. There's no hiding from that and that's our identity.DoubtfulBear said:
No it's not a Cal thing, it's only a thing for those on this board feeling insecure about how garbage our revenue sports are and needing to compensate by talking about academics. Thankfully most Cal alumni are much more well adjusted to reality than people here.
Who cares? Let's roll with it. Every school has their identity which it's rivals hate. And if you don't then you're a boring school and that's worse.
This is college sports. We love our schools for our own personal reasons. The best part is that it gets settled on the playing field. If we have to play the villain, fine!
DoubtfulBear said:I'll say it again, why does UCLA not have this problem? Why does Texas not have this problem? Why does Michigan not have this problem? There are many examples of top tier public schools that are still able to get top athletic talent. Playing mediocre football against BC isn't going to increase game attendance or TV viewership.Rushinbear said:I don't get the snobbery accusation. It's about turning away good players who want to come to Cal, but don't have the grades to meet our standards. So, they get in at our rivals. That's one of the challenges we face every year. In that regard, the ACC would be the best fit for us, among the major conferences.DoubtfulBear said:No it's not a Cal thing, it's only a thing for those on this board feeling insecure about how garbage our revenue sports are and needing to compensate by talking about academics. Thankfully most Cal alumni are much more well adjusted to reality than people here.MTbear22 said:Preferring to associate with schools with strong academics is not a Cal thing. No, it should not be the only or even primary consideration. But it can certainly be A consideration.LunchTime said:socaltownie said:
If the travel can be solved the ACC could be a fit
But I wanted to look at something
Acceptance Rate
GTech - 16%
UN C - 20%
Duke - 5.9%
Wake - 25%
Clemson - 43%
FSU - 36%
Oregon 81%
Washington 52%
Arizona -87%
Colorado - 84%
Cal/Furd is a better fit in the ACC
Hit the nail on the head for why no one wants Cal.
The arrogant elitism of the fan base has restricted growth of the product to the point that B1G can own Bay Area TV with Oregon and UCLA.
This type of post is a great example of how Cal fans go out of their to show how disconnected Cal is from everyone around Cal.
UCLA does have this problem. When they hired Chip Kelley, they made some concessions here, along with infusing cash into the program while Cal siphoned it to other sports. UCLA has been winning lately (they kicked butt in the portal before we even started Cal Legends), but let's not pretend they are a football giant.
Villain? Villains are usually cunning, calculated, and unpredictable.BC Calfan said:DoubtfulBear said:
No it's not a Cal thing, it's only a thing for those on this board feeling insecure about how garbage our revenue sports are and needing to compensate by talking about academics. Thankfully most Cal alumni are much more well adjusted to reality than people here.
If we have to play the villain, fine!
Cal is more like this....
UCLA: THe presence of a Chancellor (Young) who was there for 30+ years and consolidated power in the office of the Chancellor to a degree that Cal (might) only dream about. He was strongly committed to sports AND because of the tenure was able to move the battle ship that is ANY university in a way to get there.DoubtfulBear said:I'll say it again, why does UCLA not have this problem? Why does Texas not have this problem? Why does Michigan not have this problem? There are many examples of top tier public schools that are still able to get top athletic talent. Playing mediocre football against BC isn't going to increase game attendance or TV viewership.Rushinbear said:I don't get the snobbery accusation. It's about turning away good players who want to come to Cal, but don't have the grades to meet our standards. So, they get in at our rivals. That's one of the challenges we face every year. In that regard, the ACC would be the best fit for us, among the major conferences.DoubtfulBear said:No it's not a Cal thing, it's only a thing for those on this board feeling insecure about how garbage our revenue sports are and needing to compensate by talking about academics. Thankfully most Cal alumni are much more well adjusted to reality than people here.MTbear22 said:Preferring to associate with schools with strong academics is not a Cal thing. No, it should not be the only or even primary consideration. But it can certainly be A consideration.LunchTime said:socaltownie said:
If the travel can be solved the ACC could be a fit
But I wanted to look at something
Acceptance Rate
GTech - 16%
UN C - 20%
Duke - 5.9%
Wake - 25%
Clemson - 43%
FSU - 36%
Oregon 81%
Washington 52%
Arizona -87%
Colorado - 84%
Cal/Furd is a better fit in the ACC
Hit the nail on the head for why no one wants Cal.
The arrogant elitism of the fan base has restricted growth of the product to the point that B1G can own Bay Area TV with Oregon and UCLA.
This type of post is a great example of how Cal fans go out of their to show how disconnected Cal is from everyone around Cal.
UCLA #2: Has never been afraid to be seen as a university connected to LOS ANGELES and this, in turn, fostered great relationships with ULCA alumni involved in professional sports.
Contrast to Cal: Look at this board's ambivelent relationship/feelings about Jason Kidd ("He didn't graduate!!" "He was dumb" "Got only into Cal cause of being the best PG of all time". ) The lack of outreach by the university in both sports and non-sports to the East Bay - ESPECIALLY Richmond, Oakland, and non-faculty brat Berkeley. Hell, this board is ambivlent at best of calling itself "UC Berkeley". ****, do the Bruins go around wanted to be UC Southern California????
Michigan: 40% admit rate for instate (the numbers get pulled down a lot by out of state midwestern kids that apply. That is about the same as UCR and lower than UCM. Every other UC is more selective. Moreover, the University of Michigan is overseen by an ELECTED in statewide elections board of governors. Guess what, Big Blue football success is a POLTICIAL issue. It is also why Michigan prays it never goes red because....florida.
Texas: Probably the most instructive. But I think you can not underestimate the improtance of Football to Texas culture. Nearly EVERY school in Texas is at least decent in football and there is a strong culture of giving and support that just doesn't exist in California. Lots of reasons why and this post is already too long. Moreover, be sure to look at several scandals that UT has been somewhat "relaxed" about in in the past and whether tolerating that kind of action by players would be accepted at Cal. We suspended a coach for awkward passes at a blogger.
Not a football giant, but certainly at a tier or two above us. They have a 60% all time win/loss record while we're getting close to 50%.oski003 said:DoubtfulBear said:I'll say it again, why does UCLA not have this problem? Why does Texas not have this problem? Why does Michigan not have this problem? There are many examples of top tier public schools that are still able to get top athletic talent. Playing mediocre football against BC isn't going to increase game attendance or TV viewership.Rushinbear said:I don't get the snobbery accusation. It's about turning away good players who want to come to Cal, but don't have the grades to meet our standards. So, they get in at our rivals. That's one of the challenges we face every year. In that regard, the ACC would be the best fit for us, among the major conferences.DoubtfulBear said:No it's not a Cal thing, it's only a thing for those on this board feeling insecure about how garbage our revenue sports are and needing to compensate by talking about academics. Thankfully most Cal alumni are much more well adjusted to reality than people here.MTbear22 said:Preferring to associate with schools with strong academics is not a Cal thing. No, it should not be the only or even primary consideration. But it can certainly be A consideration.LunchTime said:socaltownie said:
If the travel can be solved the ACC could be a fit
But I wanted to look at something
Acceptance Rate
GTech - 16%
UN C - 20%
Duke - 5.9%
Wake - 25%
Clemson - 43%
FSU - 36%
Oregon 81%
Washington 52%
Arizona -87%
Colorado - 84%
Cal/Furd is a better fit in the ACC
Hit the nail on the head for why no one wants Cal.
The arrogant elitism of the fan base has restricted growth of the product to the point that B1G can own Bay Area TV with Oregon and UCLA.
This type of post is a great example of how Cal fans go out of their to show how disconnected Cal is from everyone around Cal.
UCLA does have this problem. When they hired Chip Kelley, they made some concessions here, along with infusing cash into the program while Cal siphoned it to other sports. UCLA has been winning lately (they kicked butt in the portal before we even started Cal Legends), but let's not pretend they are a football giant.
I agree with you, but I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you saying that its in our DNA to not value revenue sports and therefore we should be content to be with the BCs and UVAs of the world?socaltownie said:UCLA: THe presence of a Chancellor (Young) who was there for 30+ years and consolidated power in the office of the Chancellor to a degree that Cal (might) only dream about. He was strongly committed to sports AND because of the tenure was able to move the battle ship that is ANY university in a way to get there.DoubtfulBear said:I'll say it again, why does UCLA not have this problem? Why does Texas not have this problem? Why does Michigan not have this problem? There are many examples of top tier public schools that are still able to get top athletic talent. Playing mediocre football against BC isn't going to increase game attendance or TV viewership.Rushinbear said:I don't get the snobbery accusation. It's about turning away good players who want to come to Cal, but don't have the grades to meet our standards. So, they get in at our rivals. That's one of the challenges we face every year. In that regard, the ACC would be the best fit for us, among the major conferences.DoubtfulBear said:No it's not a Cal thing, it's only a thing for those on this board feeling insecure about how garbage our revenue sports are and needing to compensate by talking about academics. Thankfully most Cal alumni are much more well adjusted to reality than people here.MTbear22 said:Preferring to associate with schools with strong academics is not a Cal thing. No, it should not be the only or even primary consideration. But it can certainly be A consideration.LunchTime said:socaltownie said:
If the travel can be solved the ACC could be a fit
But I wanted to look at something
Acceptance Rate
GTech - 16%
UN C - 20%
Duke - 5.9%
Wake - 25%
Clemson - 43%
FSU - 36%
Oregon 81%
Washington 52%
Arizona -87%
Colorado - 84%
Cal/Furd is a better fit in the ACC
Hit the nail on the head for why no one wants Cal.
The arrogant elitism of the fan base has restricted growth of the product to the point that B1G can own Bay Area TV with Oregon and UCLA.
This type of post is a great example of how Cal fans go out of their to show how disconnected Cal is from everyone around Cal.
UCLA #2: Has never been afraid to be seen as a university connected to LOS ANGELES and this, in turn, fostered great relationships with ULCA alumni involved in professional sports.
Contrast to Cal: Look at this board's ambivelent relationship/feelings about Jason Kidd ("He didn't graduate!!" "He was dumb" "Got only into Cal cause of being the best PG of all time". ) The lack of outreach by the university in both sports and non-sports to the East Bay - ESPECIALLY Richmond, Oakland, and non-faculty brat Berkeley. Hell, this board is ambivlent at best of calling itself "UC Berkeley". ****, do the Bruins go around wanted to be UC Southern California????
Michigan: 40% admit rate for instate (the numbers get pulled down a lot by out of state midwestern kids that apply. That is about the same as UCR and lower than UCM. Every other UC is more selective. Moreover, the University of Michigan is overseen by an ELECTED in statewide elections board of governors. Guess what, Big Blue football success is a POLTICIAL issue. It is also why Michigan prays it never goes red because....florida.
Texas: Probably the most instructive. But I think you can not underestimate the improtance of Football to Texas culture. Nearly EVERY school in Texas is at least decent in football and there is a strong culture of giving and support that just doesn't exist in California. Lots of reasons why and this post is already too long. Moreover, be sure to look at several scandals that UT has been somewhat "relaxed" about in in the past and whether tolerating that kind of action by players would be accepted at Cal. We suspended a coach for awkward passes at a blogger.
I'm not happy about it, but can accept that winning football is not in our culture. What I'm not fine with is deflecting criticism of our on field performance with Berkeley's academic superiority.
IMO, the only good thing about the ACC is that it is easy to spell.
DoubtfulBear said:Not a football giant, but certainly at a tier or two above us. They have a 60% all time win/loss record while we're getting close to 50%.oski003 said:DoubtfulBear said:I'll say it again, why does UCLA not have this problem? Why does Texas not have this problem? Why does Michigan not have this problem? There are many examples of top tier public schools that are still able to get top athletic talent. Playing mediocre football against BC isn't going to increase game attendance or TV viewership.Rushinbear said:I don't get the snobbery accusation. It's about turning away good players who want to come to Cal, but don't have the grades to meet our standards. So, they get in at our rivals. That's one of the challenges we face every year. In that regard, the ACC would be the best fit for us, among the major conferences.DoubtfulBear said:No it's not a Cal thing, it's only a thing for those on this board feeling insecure about how garbage our revenue sports are and needing to compensate by talking about academics. Thankfully most Cal alumni are much more well adjusted to reality than people here.MTbear22 said:Preferring to associate with schools with strong academics is not a Cal thing. No, it should not be the only or even primary consideration. But it can certainly be A consideration.LunchTime said:socaltownie said:
If the travel can be solved the ACC could be a fit
But I wanted to look at something
Acceptance Rate
GTech - 16%
UN C - 20%
Duke - 5.9%
Wake - 25%
Clemson - 43%
FSU - 36%
Oregon 81%
Washington 52%
Arizona -87%
Colorado - 84%
Cal/Furd is a better fit in the ACC
Hit the nail on the head for why no one wants Cal.
The arrogant elitism of the fan base has restricted growth of the product to the point that B1G can own Bay Area TV with Oregon and UCLA.
This type of post is a great example of how Cal fans go out of their to show how disconnected Cal is from everyone around Cal.
UCLA does have this problem. When they hired Chip Kelley, they made some concessions here, along with infusing cash into the program while Cal siphoned it to other sports. UCLA has been winning lately (they kicked butt in the portal before we even started Cal Legends), but let's not pretend they are a football giant.
Both Cal and UCLA have winning all-time records. UCLA has had more recent success as discussed above. My points still stand. They currently have a better program than us, largely due to the administration failing Tedford and Dykes. At the same time, UCLA hired the weasel (who underperformed), Jim Mora, and then went all in with Chip Kelly. Kelly even managed to poach our #1 recruit because Cal wouldn't admit him. That recruit was a first round draft pick three years later. UCLA spends like a billion dollars on football players food and diet regimes. Cal needs to step up.
Winning at sports takes effort. Because it is a zero sum game (if you win, they lose) it requires effort COMPARATIVELY GREATER than your competion.DoubtfulBear said:I agree with you, but I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you saying that its in our DNA to not value revenue sports and therefore we should be content to be with the BCs and UVAs of the world?socaltownie said:UCLA: THe presence of a Chancellor (Young) who was there for 30+ years and consolidated power in the office of the Chancellor to a degree that Cal (might) only dream about. He was strongly committed to sports AND because of the tenure was able to move the battle ship that is ANY university in a way to get there.DoubtfulBear said:I'll say it again, why does UCLA not have this problem? Why does Texas not have this problem? Why does Michigan not have this problem? There are many examples of top tier public schools that are still able to get top athletic talent. Playing mediocre football against BC isn't going to increase game attendance or TV viewership.Rushinbear said:I don't get the snobbery accusation. It's about turning away good players who want to come to Cal, but don't have the grades to meet our standards. So, they get in at our rivals. That's one of the challenges we face every year. In that regard, the ACC would be the best fit for us, among the major conferences.DoubtfulBear said:No it's not a Cal thing, it's only a thing for those on this board feeling insecure about how garbage our revenue sports are and needing to compensate by talking about academics. Thankfully most Cal alumni are much more well adjusted to reality than people here.MTbear22 said:Preferring to associate with schools with strong academics is not a Cal thing. No, it should not be the only or even primary consideration. But it can certainly be A consideration.LunchTime said:socaltownie said:
If the travel can be solved the ACC could be a fit
But I wanted to look at something
Acceptance Rate
GTech - 16%
UN C - 20%
Duke - 5.9%
Wake - 25%
Clemson - 43%
FSU - 36%
Oregon 81%
Washington 52%
Arizona -87%
Colorado - 84%
Cal/Furd is a better fit in the ACC
Hit the nail on the head for why no one wants Cal.
The arrogant elitism of the fan base has restricted growth of the product to the point that B1G can own Bay Area TV with Oregon and UCLA.
This type of post is a great example of how Cal fans go out of their to show how disconnected Cal is from everyone around Cal.
UCLA #2: Has never been afraid to be seen as a university connected to LOS ANGELES and this, in turn, fostered great relationships with ULCA alumni involved in professional sports.
Contrast to Cal: Look at this board's ambivelent relationship/feelings about Jason Kidd ("He didn't graduate!!" "He was dumb" "Got only into Cal cause of being the best PG of all time". ) The lack of outreach by the university in both sports and non-sports to the East Bay - ESPECIALLY Richmond, Oakland, and non-faculty brat Berkeley. Hell, this board is ambivlent at best of calling itself "UC Berkeley". ****, do the Bruins go around wanted to be UC Southern California????
Michigan: 40% admit rate for instate (the numbers get pulled down a lot by out of state midwestern kids that apply. That is about the same as UCR and lower than UCM. Every other UC is more selective. Moreover, the University of Michigan is overseen by an ELECTED in statewide elections board of governors. Guess what, Big Blue football success is a POLTICIAL issue. It is also why Michigan prays it never goes red because....florida.
Texas: Probably the most instructive. But I think you can not underestimate the improtance of Football to Texas culture. Nearly EVERY school in Texas is at least decent in football and there is a strong culture of giving and support that just doesn't exist in California. Lots of reasons why and this post is already too long. Moreover, be sure to look at several scandals that UT has been somewhat "relaxed" about in in the past and whether tolerating that kind of action by players would be accepted at Cal. We suspended a coach for awkward passes at a blogger.
I'm not happy about it, but can accept that winning football is not in our culture. What I'm not fine with is deflecting criticism of our on field performance with Berkeley's academic superiority.
Cal plays this game (with some areas of justification) with one arm tied behind back
1) Cal refuses to fudge its admission standards lower while it competes with programs whose GENERAL STUDENT admission standards are very low. Kids don't NEED waivers to get admitted to for Oregon (or most schools at 80% acceptance rate) - they get in on their record. Cal not only refuses to do that - it imposes admission standards HIGHER than UCLA
2) Cal would not tolerate off field transgressions. Other programs allow accused rapists to compete while the "investigation" is slow walked.
3) (stupidly self imposed) at a time when No Cal football is in decline Cal has always had an ambivilent relationship to the East Bay where most talent is groomed. Limited HS outreach, limited community connection, limited willingness to embrace its non-alumni neighbors.
So many of this board's posters just say "Fire the Coach and AD and hire the "right ones". I am not disagreeing with that. But Cal's problems go FAR deeper than that and a realistic view of the college sports (especially football) landscape is not pretty when you look at what it takes to win over multiple seasons.
PS. The WORST thing to ever happen to Cal was that Furd, for a brief moment in time, did well. Hairball's success (which arguably was because of JIm Hairball and not furd) lead far to many to believe that "it was possible", before stepping back and thinking about why Northwestern, Duke, Rice, Boston College, NC (football) struggled. They might have said "Hmmmm.....maybe there are some serious tensions between what how a football power operates and why it operates that way vs. highly selective universities).
A desire to generally be aligned with academic peers is a thing for literally every B1G administration. Didn't realize all those admins were posters here.DoubtfulBear said:No it's not a Cal thing, it's only a thing for those on this board feeling insecure about how garbage our revenue sports are and needing to compensate by talking about academics. Thankfully most Cal alumni are much more well adjusted to reality than people here.MTbear22 said:Preferring to associate with schools with strong academics is not a Cal thing. No, it should not be the only or even primary consideration. But it can certainly be A consideration.LunchTime said:socaltownie said:
If the travel can be solved the ACC could be a fit
But I wanted to look at something
Acceptance Rate
GTech - 16%
UN C - 20%
Duke - 5.9%
Wake - 25%
Clemson - 43%
FSU - 36%
Oregon 81%
Washington 52%
Arizona -87%
Colorado - 84%
Cal/Furd is a better fit in the ACC
Hit the nail on the head for why no one wants Cal.
The arrogant elitism of the fan base has restricted growth of the product to the point that B1G can own Bay Area TV with Oregon and UCLA.
This type of post is a great example of how Cal fans go out of their to show how disconnected Cal is from everyone around Cal.
MTbear22 said:LunchTime said:socaltownie said:
If the travel can be solved the ACC could be a fit
But I wanted to look at something
Acceptance Rate
GTech - 16%
UN C - 20%
Duke - 5.9%
Wake - 25%
Clemson - 43%
FSU - 36%
Oregon 81%
Washington 52%
Arizona -87%
Colorado - 84%
Cal/Furd is a better fit in the ACC
Hit the nail on the head for why no one wants Cal.
The arrogant elitism of the fan base has restricted growth of the product to the point that B1G can own Bay Area TV with Oregon and UCLA.
This type of post is a great example of how Cal fans go out of their to show how disconnected Cal is from everyone around Cal.
Overreact much? I suppose you hate how the B1G greatly prefers (almost mandates) that its members be AAU?
Preferring to associate with schools with strong academics is not a Cal thing. No, it should not be the only or even primary consideration. But it can certainly be A consideration.
I couldn't help but laugh at your comment.
Why are you talking about the AAU in this context? Who here cares about the AAU? Colorado, ASU, Washington are all dumped on as not good enough for our prestigious Cal... But somehow I am the one who has a problem with the B1Gs "almost requirement"? Here is why I can't help but laugh at you: this conversation was started by dumping on AAU schools as below us. And you, in your great Muppet arrogance think I have an issue with the B1G having AAU members?
Here is the problem: Cal doesn't have fans. No one cares about Cal sports. What Cal has is academics. Cal alumni believe that their chit makes them above the riffraff.
The B1G presidents can look at it and say "yes" but the money doesn't follow, because Cal brings no fans. But Cal fans still lean into the acceptance rates to showcase why we belong in the low acceptance rate conference, not with those AAU morons who accept anyone?
Boasting about how "Cal is better than them" isn't just a casual statement. It's a theme. It encapsulates why we don't draw better, even from our alumni.
LunchTime said:MTbear22 said:LunchTime said:socaltownie said:
If the travel can be solved the ACC could be a fit
But I wanted to look at something
Acceptance Rate
GTech - 16%
UN C - 20%
Duke - 5.9%
Wake - 25%
Clemson - 43%
FSU - 36%
Oregon 81%
Washington 52%
Arizona -87%
Colorado - 84%
Cal/Furd is a better fit in the ACC
Hit the nail on the head for why no one wants Cal.
The arrogant elitism of the fan base has restricted growth of the product to the point that B1G can own Bay Area TV with Oregon and UCLA.
This type of post is a great example of how Cal fans go out of their to show how disconnected Cal is from everyone around Cal.
Overreact much? I suppose you hate how the B1G greatly prefers (almost mandates) that its members be AAU?
Preferring to associate with schools with strong academics is not a Cal thing. No, it should not be the only or even primary consideration. But it can certainly be A consideration.
I couldn't help but laugh at your comment.
Why are you talking about the AAU in this context? Who here cares about the AAU? Colorado, ASU, Washington are all dumped on as not good enough for our prestigious Cal... But somehow I am the one who has a problem with the B1Gs "almost requirement"? Here is why I can't help but laugh at you: this conversation was started by dumping on AAU schools as below us. And you, in your great Muppet arrogance think I have an issue with the B1G having AAU members?
Here is the problem: Cal doesn't have fans. No one cares about Cal sports. What Cal has is academics. Cal alumni believe that their chit makes them above the riffraff.
The B1G presidents can look at it and say "yes" but the money doesn't follow, because Cal brings no fans. But Cal fans still lean into the acceptance rates to showcase why we belong in the low acceptance rate conference, not with those AAU morons who accept anyone?
Boasting about how "Cal is better than them" isn't just a casual statement. It's a theme. It encapsulates why we don't draw better, even from our alumni.
Doubling down on your overreaction eh? Since you couldn't quite understand the point apparently, let me re-explain: many universities care about the academic standing of their athletic conference peers. An example of this is the B1G greatly preferring AAU institutions. Another example is a random Cal fan pointing out that the ACC has some academically strong/ selective institutions.
I hope this helps
There is a reason why UCLA, Cal, Texas and others like us are excited by the portal. We only have to take kids now who have a reasonable college transcript, not fully qualify out of high school based on UC standards. UCLA has terrible high school recruiting now. Cal similar. Texas does well but they are in Texas and everyone there plays football. Cal and UCLA are in California where college football is a low ranked activity, basically since everyone in California is a transplant and people are more in tune with pro teams.oski003 said:DoubtfulBear said:I'll say it again, why does UCLA not have this problem? Why does Texas not have this problem? Why does Michigan not have this problem? There are many examples of top tier public schools that are still able to get top athletic talent. Playing mediocre football against BC isn't going to increase game attendance or TV viewership.Rushinbear said:I don't get the snobbery accusation. It's about turning away good players who want to come to Cal, but don't have the grades to meet our standards. So, they get in at our rivals. That's one of the challenges we face every year. In that regard, the ACC would be the best fit for us, among the major conferences.DoubtfulBear said:No it's not a Cal thing, it's only a thing for those on this board feeling insecure about how garbage our revenue sports are and needing to compensate by talking about academics. Thankfully most Cal alumni are much more well adjusted to reality than people here.MTbear22 said:Preferring to associate with schools with strong academics is not a Cal thing. No, it should not be the only or even primary consideration. But it can certainly be A consideration.LunchTime said:socaltownie said:
If the travel can be solved the ACC could be a fit
But I wanted to look at something
Acceptance Rate
GTech - 16%
UN C - 20%
Duke - 5.9%
Wake - 25%
Clemson - 43%
FSU - 36%
Oregon 81%
Washington 52%
Arizona -87%
Colorado - 84%
Cal/Furd is a better fit in the ACC
Hit the nail on the head for why no one wants Cal.
The arrogant elitism of the fan base has restricted growth of the product to the point that B1G can own Bay Area TV with Oregon and UCLA.
This type of post is a great example of how Cal fans go out of their to show how disconnected Cal is from everyone around Cal.
UCLA does have this problem. When they hired Chip Kelley, they made some concessions here, along with infusing cash into the program while Cal siphoned it to other sports. UCLA has been winning lately (they kicked butt in the portal before we even started Cal Legends), but let's not pretend they are a football giant.
Of course Texas and Michigan are football blue bloods. Cal at one point - say pre-1955 - was a football blue blood. It can all change.
socaltownie said:UCLA: THe presence of a Chancellor (Young) who was there for 30+ years and consolidated power in the office of the Chancellor to a degree that Cal (might) only dream about. He was strongly committed to sports AND because of the tenure was able to move the battle ship that is ANY university in a way to get there.DoubtfulBear said:I'll say it again, why does UCLA not have this problem? Why does Texas not have this problem? Why does Michigan not have this problem? There are many examples of top tier public schools that are still able to get top athletic talent. Playing mediocre football against BC isn't going to increase game attendance or TV viewership.Rushinbear said:I don't get the snobbery accusation. It's about turning away good players who want to come to Cal, but don't have the grades to meet our standards. So, they get in at our rivals. That's one of the challenges we face every year. In that regard, the ACC would be the best fit for us, among the major conferences.DoubtfulBear said:No it's not a Cal thing, it's only a thing for those on this board feeling insecure about how garbage our revenue sports are and needing to compensate by talking about academics. Thankfully most Cal alumni are much more well adjusted to reality than people here.MTbear22 said:Preferring to associate with schools with strong academics is not a Cal thing. No, it should not be the only or even primary consideration. But it can certainly be A consideration.LunchTime said:socaltownie said:
If the travel can be solved the ACC could be a fit
But I wanted to look at something
Acceptance Rate
GTech - 16%
UN C - 20%
Duke - 5.9%
Wake - 25%
Clemson - 43%
FSU - 36%
Oregon 81%
Washington 52%
Arizona -87%
Colorado - 84%
Cal/Furd is a better fit in the ACC
Hit the nail on the head for why no one wants Cal.
The arrogant elitism of the fan base has restricted growth of the product to the point that B1G can own Bay Area TV with Oregon and UCLA.
This type of post is a great example of how Cal fans go out of their to show how disconnected Cal is from everyone around Cal.
UCLA #2: Has never been afraid to be seen as a university connected to LOS ANGELES and this, in turn, fostered great relationships with ULCA alumni involved in professional sports.
Contrast to Cal: Look at this board's ambivelent relationship/feelings about Jason Kidd ("He didn't graduate!!" "He was dumb" "Got only into Cal cause of being the best PG of all time". ) The lack of outreach by the university in both sports and non-sports to the East Bay - ESPECIALLY Richmond, Oakland, and non-faculty brat Berkeley. Hell, this board is ambivlent at best of calling itself "UC Berkeley". ****, do the Bruins go around wanted to be UC Southern California????
Michigan: 40% admit rate for instate (the numbers get pulled down a lot by out of state midwestern kids that apply. That is about the same as UCR and lower than UCM. Every other UC is more selective. Moreover, the University of Michigan is overseen by an ELECTED in statewide elections board of governors. Guess what, Big Blue football success is a POLTICIAL issue. It is also why Michigan prays it never goes red because....florida.
Texas: Probably the most instructive. But I think you can not underestimate the improtance of Football to Texas culture. Nearly EVERY school in Texas is at least decent in football and there is a strong culture of giving and support that just doesn't exist in California. Lots of reasons why and this post is already too long. Moreover, be sure to look at several scandals that UT has been somewhat "relaxed" about in in the past and whether tolerating that kind of action by players would be accepted at Cal. We suspended a coach for awkward passes at a blogger.
Months after the incidents, suspended the coach and announced an investigation into the head coach with headlines implying he too was accused of sexual harassment the day before the team left for the NCAA Tournament with our highest seed in our history.
No other school does that. Not even close. It is like we are trying to sabotage ourselves.
This is a bad thing?socaltownie said:DoubtfulBear said:I agree with you, but I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you saying that its in our DNA to not value revenue sports and therefore we should be content to be with the BCs and UVAs of the world?socaltownie said:UCLA: THe presence of a Chancellor (Young) who was there for 30+ years and consolidated power in the office of the Chancellor to a degree that Cal (might) only dream about. He was strongly committed to sports AND because of the tenure was able to move the battle ship that is ANY university in a way to get there.DoubtfulBear said:I'll say it again, why does UCLA not have this problem? Why does Texas not have this problem? Why does Michigan not have this problem? There are many examples of top tier public schools that are still able to get top athletic talent. Playing mediocre football against BC isn't going to increase game attendance or TV viewership.Rushinbear said:I don't get the snobbery accusation. It's about turning away good players who want to come to Cal, but don't have the grades to meet our standards. So, they get in at our rivals. That's one of the challenges we face every year. In that regard, the ACC would be the best fit for us, among the major conferences.DoubtfulBear said:No it's not a Cal thing, it's only a thing for those on this board feeling insecure about how garbage our revenue sports are and needing to compensate by talking about academics. Thankfully most Cal alumni are much more well adjusted to reality than people here.MTbear22 said:Preferring to associate with schools with strong academics is not a Cal thing. No, it should not be the only or even primary consideration. But it can certainly be A consideration.LunchTime said:socaltownie said:
If the travel can be solved the ACC could be a fit
But I wanted to look at something
Acceptance Rate
GTech - 16%
UN C - 20%
Duke - 5.9%
Wake - 25%
Clemson - 43%
FSU - 36%
Oregon 81%
Washington 52%
Arizona -87%
Colorado - 84%
Cal/Furd is a better fit in the ACC
Hit the nail on the head for why no one wants Cal.
The arrogant elitism of the fan base has restricted growth of the product to the point that B1G can own Bay Area TV with Oregon and UCLA.
This type of post is a great example of how Cal fans go out of their to show how disconnected Cal is from everyone around Cal.
UCLA #2: Has never been afraid to be seen as a university connected to LOS ANGELES and this, in turn, fostered great relationships with ULCA alumni involved in professional sports.
Contrast to Cal: Look at this board's ambivelent relationship/feelings about Jason Kidd ("He didn't graduate!!" "He was dumb" "Got only into Cal cause of being the best PG of all time". ) The lack of outreach by the university in both sports and non-sports to the East Bay - ESPECIALLY Richmond, Oakland, and non-faculty brat Berkeley. Hell, this board is ambivlent at best of calling itself "UC Berkeley". ****, do the Bruins go around wanted to be UC Southern California????
Michigan: 40% admit rate for instate (the numbers get pulled down a lot by out of state midwestern kids that apply. That is about the same as UCR and lower than UCM. Every other UC is more selective. Moreover, the University of Michigan is overseen by an ELECTED in statewide elections board of governors. Guess what, Big Blue football success is a POLTICIAL issue. It is also why Michigan prays it never goes red because....florida.
Texas: Probably the most instructive. But I think you can not underestimate the improtance of Football to Texas culture. Nearly EVERY school in Texas is at least decent in football and there is a strong culture of giving and support that just doesn't exist in California. Lots of reasons why and this post is already too long. Moreover, be sure to look at several scandals that UT has been somewhat "relaxed" about in in the past and whether tolerating that kind of action by players would be accepted at Cal. We suspended a coach for awkward passes at a blogger.
I'm not happy about it, but can accept that winning football is not in our culture. What I'm not fine with is deflecting criticism of our on field performance with Berkeley's academic superiority.
2) Cal would not tolerate off field transgressions. Other programs allow accused rapists to compete while the "investigation" is slow walked.
For academics the ACC is a good fit. It's the travel.
And for FOOTBALL, ACC is overall not strong. For BASKETBALL, it's considerably stronger than the Pac 12, like not even close.
And for FOOTBALL, ACC is overall not strong. For BASKETBALL, it's considerably stronger than the Pac 12, like not even close.
In my opinion, the additional cost of travel is overblown for existing ACC schools. With the addition of three West Coast/Texas schools, on average only three of every 16 trips are longer than they currently are. The pain and cost of additional travel falls almost entirely on Cal and Furd, not on the existing ACC schools.
bruh, it was a ****ing joke. relax. go take an entire 1000mg korova bar as a suppository, cuz you desperately need to calm your a** down. lolLunchTime said:BarcaBear said:bro, sounds like you had it really hard coming out of Cal. feel bad for you.DoubtfulBear said:The snobbery that some of you guys have is ridiculous. I wonder how you adjusted to the real world after college, dealing with bosses from supposedly inferior schools with higher acceptance rates.BearBoarBlarney said:This realignment talk must be getting to us because this takes the cake for overreacting.golden sloth said:
Seriously? Who cares what the acceptance rate of a school you did not attend is? Why do you feel compelled to be exclusive, why is this a point of competition to you?
The acceptance rates of the colleges you play against in football and basketball has zero impact on your life, so why do you care?
My experience at Cal taught me to be accepting and open minded to all people, not look down on those that didnt get in.
I went to Oxford for grad school, so the snobbery only got bigger. It's why I can never carpool, there is only enough room in the car for me and my ego.
Is oxford trying to get a spot in B1G or ACC to play sportball?
I did go to Oxford, but I posted the joke as a way to needle y'all for being so wound up tight. seriously, get therapy, get help.
This is a GOOD thing. It is also important to understand that this creates an uneven playing field so *****ing about going 7 and 5 rather than 8 and 4/9 and 3 needs to be contextualized.concernedparent said:This is a bad thing?socaltownie said:DoubtfulBear said:I agree with you, but I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you saying that its in our DNA to not value revenue sports and therefore we should be content to be with the BCs and UVAs of the world?socaltownie said:UCLA: THe presence of a Chancellor (Young) who was there for 30+ years and consolidated power in the office of the Chancellor to a degree that Cal (might) only dream about. He was strongly committed to sports AND because of the tenure was able to move the battle ship that is ANY university in a way to get there.DoubtfulBear said:I'll say it again, why does UCLA not have this problem? Why does Texas not have this problem? Why does Michigan not have this problem? There are many examples of top tier public schools that are still able to get top athletic talent. Playing mediocre football against BC isn't going to increase game attendance or TV viewership.Rushinbear said:I don't get the snobbery accusation. It's about turning away good players who want to come to Cal, but don't have the grades to meet our standards. So, they get in at our rivals. That's one of the challenges we face every year. In that regard, the ACC would be the best fit for us, among the major conferences.DoubtfulBear said:No it's not a Cal thing, it's only a thing for those on this board feeling insecure about how garbage our revenue sports are and needing to compensate by talking about academics. Thankfully most Cal alumni are much more well adjusted to reality than people here.MTbear22 said:Preferring to associate with schools with strong academics is not a Cal thing. No, it should not be the only or even primary consideration. But it can certainly be A consideration.LunchTime said:socaltownie said:
If the travel can be solved the ACC could be a fit
But I wanted to look at something
Acceptance Rate
GTech - 16%
UN C - 20%
Duke - 5.9%
Wake - 25%
Clemson - 43%
FSU - 36%
Oregon 81%
Washington 52%
Arizona -87%
Colorado - 84%
Cal/Furd is a better fit in the ACC
Hit the nail on the head for why no one wants Cal.
The arrogant elitism of the fan base has restricted growth of the product to the point that B1G can own Bay Area TV with Oregon and UCLA.
This type of post is a great example of how Cal fans go out of their to show how disconnected Cal is from everyone around Cal.
UCLA #2: Has never been afraid to be seen as a university connected to LOS ANGELES and this, in turn, fostered great relationships with ULCA alumni involved in professional sports.
Contrast to Cal: Look at this board's ambivelent relationship/feelings about Jason Kidd ("He didn't graduate!!" "He was dumb" "Got only into Cal cause of being the best PG of all time". ) The lack of outreach by the university in both sports and non-sports to the East Bay - ESPECIALLY Richmond, Oakland, and non-faculty brat Berkeley. Hell, this board is ambivlent at best of calling itself "UC Berkeley". ****, do the Bruins go around wanted to be UC Southern California????
Michigan: 40% admit rate for instate (the numbers get pulled down a lot by out of state midwestern kids that apply. That is about the same as UCR and lower than UCM. Every other UC is more selective. Moreover, the University of Michigan is overseen by an ELECTED in statewide elections board of governors. Guess what, Big Blue football success is a POLTICIAL issue. It is also why Michigan prays it never goes red because....florida.
Texas: Probably the most instructive. But I think you can not underestimate the improtance of Football to Texas culture. Nearly EVERY school in Texas is at least decent in football and there is a strong culture of giving and support that just doesn't exist in California. Lots of reasons why and this post is already too long. Moreover, be sure to look at several scandals that UT has been somewhat "relaxed" about in in the past and whether tolerating that kind of action by players would be accepted at Cal. We suspended a coach for awkward passes at a blogger.
I'm not happy about it, but can accept that winning football is not in our culture. What I'm not fine with is deflecting criticism of our on field performance with Berkeley's academic superiority.
2) Cal would not tolerate off field transgressions. Other programs allow accused rapists to compete while the "investigation" is slow walked.
Frankly I am totally sick of the old farts on this board who do this. I doubly am "not a fan" of those that seem blithly ready go put a university unable to house its undergrads or which needs to balance it books by admitting more foreign students than California residents further in debt because they want to seem "relvent" on sat afternoon TV>
One other thing to note about Texas is that the competition between academics and athletics for resources may not be so severe, because of other sources of revenue. Specifically, many if not all of the public universities in Texas receive oil revenues. I believe each may even have specific wells whose revenue is dedicated to that campus. My brother went to Houston (Hilton School of Hospitality Management), and after making the dean's list his freshman year, paid in-state tuition for the rest of his time there. It was about as cheap as what I paid to go to Cal in the 70s-80s.
CMHBear said:
In my opinion, the additional cost of travel is overblown for existing ACC schools. With the addition of three West Coast/Texas schools, on average only three of every 16 trips are longer than they currently are. The pain and cost of additional travel falls almost entirely on Cal and Furd, not on the existing ACC schools.
Assuming Cal, Stanford and SMU are a pod, each have 3 home games against the current 14. That means every year 9 schools have 1 trip to California or Texas and 5 do not.
Featured Stories
See All
A Sit Down With Cal GM Ron Rivera
by Jim McGill
Cal Football Fall Camp Kicks Off
by Jim McGill
Cal Announces 2025-26 Nonconference Schedule
by Cal Athletics
2025 ACC Football Kickoff: Cal Senior DT Aidan Keanaaina
by Jim McGill
2025 ACC Football Kickoff: Cal MLB Cade Uluave
by Jim McGill