GoCal80 said:

---

CarmelBear said:

---

For starters - is there any sense whether the new chancellor will be pro-Cal athletics. Even better, a Cal alum? I've heard rumors. Some good. Honestly, having Cal focused chancellor who understands the importance of a successful football program is where the change starts.

---

The Chancellor search is just getting started. You can read about the process and who is on the search committee here: https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/chancellor-search-2023-24

There is an online form at the above site asking for input into the qualities that would make for a good Chancellor. The executive search firm being used is WittKieffer.

---

Search over, this is all free of charge:

Chancellor: Adela de la Torre

AD: Shaney Fink

See that wasn't so tough and took no time. Hell saved hundreds of thousands $$$ as well.

Cal Strong! said:

---

But another problematic claim is that that the administration needs to step up more in terms of greater financial commitments. This flows from Sebastabear's (mistaken) view that the administration has under-invested in revenue sports.

Cal Strong was in communication with Chancellor Christ's team in the early days of the conference meltdown -- shortly after Oregon and UW left -- long before the decision was made to go full speed ahead at petitioning the ACC. There were discussions of bringing Cal Strong on as a consultant.

From these meetings, Cal Strong can tell you that there were serious voices in the room about shutting football down entirely -- because it is perceived that the University invests WAAAAAYYYYYY too much in it considering the outcomes it produces.

---

Can you explain why you think Sebastabear is "mistaken" here? He provided the numbers for how much Cal spends on football and compared to how much other Pac-12 schools spend and showed it is less. Are those numbers wrong?

Your only rebuttal is, effectively, to say that other people at Cal FEEL like they are spending too much on football. Well, no s***. That doesn't make them right.

UrsineMaximus said:

---

GoCal80 said:

---

CarmelBear said:

---

For starters - is there any sense whether the new chancellor will be pro-Cal athletics. Even better, a Cal alum? I've heard rumors. Some good. Honestly, having Cal focused chancellor who understands the importance of a successful football program is where the change starts.

---

The Chancellor search is just getting started. You can read about the process and who is on the search committee here: https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/chancellor-search-2023-24

There is an online form at the above site asking for input into the qualities that would make for a good Chancellor. The executive search firm being used is WittKieffer.

---

Search over, this is all free of charge:

Chancellor: Adela de la Torre

AD: Shaney Fink

See that wasn't so tough and took no time. Hell saved hundreds of thousands $$$ as well.

---

Patrick Chun at WSU or if a Cal alum, Shareef, Amy Trask….

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

But another problematic claim is that that the administration needs to step up more in terms of greater financial commitments. This flows from Sebastabear's (mistaken) view that the administration has under-invested in revenue sports.

Cal Strong was in communication with Chancellor Christ's team in the early days of the conference meltdown -- shortly after Oregon and UW left -- long before the decision was made to go full speed ahead at petitioning the ACC. There were discussions of bringing Cal Strong on as a consultant.

From these meetings, Cal Strong can tell you that there were serious voices in the room about shutting football down entirely -- because it is perceived that the University invests WAAAAAYYYYYY too much in it considering the outcomes it produces.

---

Can you explain why you think Sebastabear is "mistaken" here? He provided the numbers for how much Cal spends on football and compared to how much other Pac-12 schools spend and showed it is less. Are those numbers wrong?

Your only rebuttal is, effectively, to say that other people at Cal FEEL like they are spending too much on football. Well, no s***. That doesn't make them right.

---

Yes, Sebastabear is mistaken on some of the numbers. But this is not an indictment of him. Cal Strong has no interest in dumping on Sebastabear. And he is not permitted to share work product.

But that really isn't what this is about. Please read Cal Strong's previous post about over-investment vs. under-investment.

This not about feelings. Feelings is what has led people to lobby for extending Wilcox. Facts are that we spend more money per win than most any program in the Pac-12.

Cal Strong! said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

But another problematic claim is that that the administration needs to step up more in terms of greater financial commitments. This flows from Sebastabear's (mistaken) view that the administration has under-invested in revenue sports.

Cal Strong was in communication with Chancellor Christ's team in the early days of the conference meltdown -- shortly after Oregon and UW left -- long before the decision was made to go full speed ahead at petitioning the ACC. There were discussions of bringing Cal Strong on as a consultant.

From these meetings, Cal Strong can tell you that there were serious voices in the room about shutting football down entirely -- because it is perceived that the University invests WAAAAAYYYYYY too much in it considering the outcomes it produces.

---

Can you explain why you think Sebastabear is "mistaken" here? He provided the numbers for how much Cal spends on football and compared to how much other Pac-12 schools spend and showed it is less. Are those numbers wrong?

Your only rebuttal is, effectively, to say that other people at Cal FEEL like they are spending too much on football. Well, no s***. That doesn't make them right.

---

Yes, Sebastabear is mistaken on some of the numbers. But this is not an indictment of him. Cal Strong has no interest in dumping on Sebastabear. And he is not permitted to share work product.

---

So Cal is not spending less on football than Utah? Where does Cal land in terms of spending on revenue sports, relative to peer schools?

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

But another problematic claim is that that the administration needs to step up more in terms of greater financial commitments. This flows from Sebastabear's (mistaken) view that the administration has under-invested in revenue sports.

Cal Strong was in communication with Chancellor Christ's team in the early days of the conference meltdown -- shortly after Oregon and UW left -- long before the decision was made to go full speed ahead at petitioning the ACC. There were discussions of bringing Cal Strong on as a consultant.

From these meetings, Cal Strong can tell you that there were serious voices in the room about shutting football down entirely -- because it is perceived that the University invests WAAAAAYYYYYY too much in it considering the outcomes it produces.

---

Can you explain why you think Sebastabear is "mistaken" here? He provided the numbers for how much Cal spends on football and compared to how much other Pac-12 schools spend and showed it is less. Are those numbers wrong?

Your only rebuttal is, effectively, to say that other people at Cal FEEL like they are spending too much on football. Well, no s***. That doesn't make them right.

---

Yes, Sebastabear is mistaken on some of the numbers. But this is not an indictment of him. Cal Strong has no interest in dumping on Sebastabear. And he is not permitted to share work product.

---

So Cal is not spending less on football than Utah? Where does Cal land in terms of spending on revenue sports, relative to peer schools?

---

You are letting your FEELings into this. Please read above.

Cal Strong! said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

But another problematic claim is that that the administration needs to step up more in terms of greater financial commitments. This flows from Sebastabear's (mistaken) view that the administration has under-invested in revenue sports.

Cal Strong was in communication with Chancellor Christ's team in the early days of the conference meltdown -- shortly after Oregon and UW left -- long before the decision was made to go full speed ahead at petitioning the ACC. There were discussions of bringing Cal Strong on as a consultant.

From these meetings, Cal Strong can tell you that there were serious voices in the room about shutting football down entirely -- because it is perceived that the University invests WAAAAAYYYYYY too much in it considering the outcomes it produces.

---

Can you explain why you think Sebastabear is "mistaken" here? He provided the numbers for how much Cal spends on football and compared to how much other Pac-12 schools spend and showed it is less. Are those numbers wrong?

Your only rebuttal is, effectively, to say that other people at Cal FEEL like they are spending too much on football. Well, no s***. That doesn't make them right.

---

Yes, Sebastabear is mistaken on some of the numbers. But this is not an indictment of him. Cal Strong has no interest in dumping on Sebastabear. And he is not permitted to share work product.

---

So Cal is not spending less on football than Utah? Where does Cal land in terms of spending on revenue sports, relative to peer schools?

---

You are letting your FEELings into this. Please read above.

---

Pretty sure that was just a direct request for facts, but okay.

Cal Strong! said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

But another problematic claim is that that the administration needs to step up more in terms of greater financial commitments. This flows from Sebastabear's (mistaken) view that the administration has under-invested in revenue sports.

Cal Strong was in communication with Chancellor Christ's team in the early days of the conference meltdown -- shortly after Oregon and UW left -- long before the decision was made to go full speed ahead at petitioning the ACC. There were discussions of bringing Cal Strong on as a consultant.

From these meetings, Cal Strong can tell you that there were serious voices in the room about shutting football down entirely -- because it is perceived that the University invests WAAAAAYYYYYY too much in it considering the outcomes it produces.

---

Can you explain why you think Sebastabear is "mistaken" here? He provided the numbers for how much Cal spends on football and compared to how much other Pac-12 schools spend and showed it is less. Are those numbers wrong?

Your only rebuttal is, effectively, to say that other people at Cal FEEL like they are spending too much on football. Well, no s***. That doesn't make them right.

---

Yes, Sebastabear is mistaken on some of the numbers. But this is not an indictment of him. Cal Strong has no interest in dumping on Sebastabear. And he is not permitted to share work product.

But that really isn't what this is about. Please read Cal Strong's previous post about over-investment vs. under-investment.

This not about feelings. Feelings is what has led people to lobby for extending Wilcox. Facts are that we spend more money per win than most any program in the Pac-12.

---

Does any PAC-12 program spend more per conference win? I can't imagine so.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

STEAKKNIVES4LIFE said:

---

It's really this simple.

Do the opposite of what brought Cal to it's current day athletic reality,

Me : Well here's your chance to try the opposite. Instead of a names on buildings and being a doormat program, why not be more engaged with your money and demand accountability.
Cal donor : Yeah, I should do the opposite, I should.
Me : If every instinct Calcostanza has is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right.

---

George doing the opposite when he introduced himself said "I'm George. I'm unemployed and I live with my parents."

So Cal should go to donors and say "I'm Cal. My sports program is a total failure and I have no plan to turn it around".

and watch the money roll in.

---

Might not be a bad idea. I think people didn't assume it was a dire situation and that we just had some bad luck.

I think our groveling to get into the ACC should have dispelled those illusions but perhaps not.

Be upfront with everyone including students, alumni, donors, administrators, and faculty that unless something changes Cal won't be competing at the highest levels in most sports.

Maybe we are okay with that as a collective group but it should be a conscious decision.

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

But another problematic claim is that that the administration needs to step up more in terms of greater financial commitments. This flows from Sebastabear's (mistaken) view that the administration has under-invested in revenue sports.

Cal Strong was in communication with Chancellor Christ's team in the early days of the conference meltdown -- shortly after Oregon and UW left -- long before the decision was made to go full speed ahead at petitioning the ACC. There were discussions of bringing Cal Strong on as a consultant.

From these meetings, Cal Strong can tell you that there were serious voices in the room about shutting football down entirely -- because it is perceived that the University invests WAAAAAYYYYYY too much in it considering the outcomes it produces.

---

Can you explain why you think Sebastabear is "mistaken" here? He provided the numbers for how much Cal spends on football and compared to how much other Pac-12 schools spend and showed it is less. Are those numbers wrong?

Your only rebuttal is, effectively, to say that other people at Cal FEEL like they are spending too much on football. Well, no s***. That doesn't make them right.

---

Yes, Sebastabear is mistaken on some of the numbers. But this is not an indictment of him. Cal Strong has no interest in dumping on Sebastabear. And he is not permitted to share work product.

---

So Cal is not spending less on football than Utah? Where does Cal land in terms of spending on revenue sports, relative to peer schools?

---

You are letting your FEELings into this. Please read above.

---

Pretty sure that was just a direct request for facts, but okay.

---

I'm not here to dump on either guy's portrayal of the numbers, but according to the financial statements released by Cal, in 2022 Cal's operating expenses for football were $29,536,009. It was $29M in 2020 and $30M in 2019. (it was $19M in 2021, but that was because of Covid)

Those numbers don't include the $5M per year debt service on SAHPC which are not operating expenses.

Just providing straight numbers as asked.

Utah on the other hand, had $40M in football operating expenses in 2022. (again off their public financial statements. However, in fairness, $4M was directly attributable to its bowl game (travel expenses and coaching bonuses).and they made money on that as well. And then the last difficult part is that $40M includes leases, rentals and debt service of $11M (mainly for facilities). Technically debt service is not operating expenses, but the others are. It's not broken out separately, so I can't tell what that number is. The best I can do is say Utah's football operating expense + debt service is $40M, and Cal's is $34.5M. However, I don't think attributing the one time bowl expenses is fair and that would bring Utah down to $36M. Or if you think that IS fair, I think at most you should acknowledge that Utah also made $3.2M on the bowl, so I think like for like, the number is $36M or $36.8M to $34.5M.

Here's a problem. Donations to Cal football = $3M. Donations to Utah football = $19M.

Total Donations to Cal athletics = $15.5M. Total donations to Utah athletics = $28.5M

Cal's institutional support = $31M, Utah =$5.3M

On the flip side,

Cal student fees = $0, Utah =$6.3M

If I take out the institutional support and student fee numbers from revenue, Utah's total athletic revenue was $102M. Cal's was $89M. Note the donations make up that difference.

On the one hand, Utah is spending a smidge more on football operating expenses. On the other hand, Cal is contributing A LOT MORE, university dollars to operating expenses while Utah's DONORS are spending a lot more on operating expenses.

And before people start saying "yeah, but the university charges us for scholarships, Utah does to and our line items are almost the same for that.

I'm just providing numbers off the financial statements. I'm not making commentary. Except that I will make this one, these are officially reported financial statements and unlike the common refrain, it is not easy to fudge them. They may have some differences in which buckets they report things in, (like Cal breaking out debt on SAHPC separately), but they have to pass accounting muster.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

But another problematic claim is that that the administration needs to step up more in terms of greater financial commitments. This flows from Sebastabear's (mistaken) view that the administration has under-invested in revenue sports.

Cal Strong was in communication with Chancellor Christ's team in the early days of the conference meltdown -- shortly after Oregon and UW left -- long before the decision was made to go full speed ahead at petitioning the ACC. There were discussions of bringing Cal Strong on as a consultant.

From these meetings, Cal Strong can tell you that there were serious voices in the room about shutting football down entirely -- because it is perceived that the University invests WAAAAAYYYYYY too much in it considering the outcomes it produces.

---

Can you explain why you think Sebastabear is "mistaken" here? He provided the numbers for how much Cal spends on football and compared to how much other Pac-12 schools spend and showed it is less. Are those numbers wrong?

Your only rebuttal is, effectively, to say that other people at Cal FEEL like they are spending too much on football. Well, no s***. That doesn't make them right.

---

Yes, Sebastabear is mistaken on some of the numbers. But this is not an indictment of him. Cal Strong has no interest in dumping on Sebastabear. And he is not permitted to share work product.

---

So Cal is not spending less on football than Utah? Where does Cal land in terms of spending on revenue sports, relative to peer schools?

---

You are letting your FEELings into this. Please read above.

---

Pretty sure that was just a direct request for facts, but okay.

---

I'm not here to dump on either guy's portrayal of the numbers, but according to the financial statements released by Cal, in 2022 Cal's operating expenses for football were $29,536,009. It was $29M in 2020 and $30M in 2019. (it was $19M in 2021, but that was because of Covid)

Those numbers don't include the $5M per year debt service on SAHPC which are not operating expenses.

Just providing straight numbers as asked.

Utah on the other hand, had $40M in football operating expenses in 2022. (again off their public financial statements. However, in fairness, $4M was directly attributable to its bowl game (travel expenses and coaching bonuses).and they made money on that as well. And then the last difficult part is that $40M includes leases, rentals and debt service of $11M (mainly for facilities). Technically debt service is not operating expenses, but the others are. It's not broken out separately, so I can't tell what that number is. The best I can do is say Utah's football operating expense + debt service is $40M, and Cal's is $34.5M. However, I don't think attributing the one time bowl expenses is fair and that would bring Utah down to $36M. Or if you think that IS fair, I think at most you should acknowledge that Utah also made $3.2M on the bowl, so I think like for like, the number is $36M or $36.8M to $34.5M.

Here's a problem. Donations to Cal football = $3M. Donations to Utah football = $19M.

Total Donations to Cal athletics = $15.5M. Total donations to Utah athletics = $28.5M

Cal's institutional support = $31M, Utah =$5.3M

On the flip side,

Cal student fees = $0, Utah =$6.3M

If I take out the institutional support and student fee numbers from revenue, Utah's total athletic revenue was $102M. Cal's was $89M. Note the donations make up that difference.

On the one hand, Utah is spending a smidge more on football operating expenses. On the other hand, Cal is contributing A LOT MORE, university dollars to operating expenses while Utah's DONORS are spending a lot more on operating expenses.

And before people start saying "yeah, but the university charges us for scholarships, Utah does to and our line items are almost the same for that.

I'm just providing numbers off the financial statements. I'm not making commentary. Except that I will make this one, these are officially reported financial statements and unlike the common refrain, it is not easy to fudge them. They may have some differences in which buckets they report things in, (like Cal breaking out debt on SAHPC separately), but they have to pass accounting muster.

---

Now, I'm going to make a comment. If Cal's students wanted to contribute at the same level as Utah, and if our donors contributed to operating expenses at the same level as Utah, we'd have $19M more to spend. Which again goes to what I've been saying - our community to date has not prioritized like others. Utah is not exactly USC. With Utah level support from donors and students, the institutional support is suddenly not egregious. Now I'm not saying that donors and students SHOULD give more. I'm just saying they don't. So that is the culture you need to change if you want to make serious inroads.

Now the problem is that we are going to have a lot less conference money (I think Sebasta said it was $20M) and a lot more expenses ($10M).

calumnus said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

But another problematic claim is that that the administration needs to step up more in terms of greater financial commitments. This flows from Sebastabear's (mistaken) view that the administration has under-invested in revenue sports.

Cal Strong was in communication with Chancellor Christ's team in the early days of the conference meltdown -- shortly after Oregon and UW left -- long before the decision was made to go full speed ahead at petitioning the ACC. There were discussions of bringing Cal Strong on as a consultant.

From these meetings, Cal Strong can tell you that there were serious voices in the room about shutting football down entirely -- because it is perceived that the University invests WAAAAAYYYYYY too much in it considering the outcomes it produces.

---

Can you explain why you think Sebastabear is "mistaken" here? He provided the numbers for how much Cal spends on football and compared to how much other Pac-12 schools spend and showed it is less. Are those numbers wrong?

Your only rebuttal is, effectively, to say that other people at Cal FEEL like they are spending too much on football. Well, no s***. That doesn't make them right.

---

Yes, Sebastabear is mistaken on some of the numbers. But this is not an indictment of him. Cal Strong has no interest in dumping on Sebastabear. And he is not permitted to share work product.

But that really isn't what this is about. Please read Cal Strong's previous post about over-investment vs. under-investment.

This not about feelings. Feelings is what has led people to lobby for extending Wilcox. Facts are that we spend more money per win than most any program in the Pac-12.

---

Does any PAC-12 program spend more per conference win? I can't imagine so.

---

Maybe Colorado. They're the only one who's won fewer Pac-12 games (27 to 24) but I don't know about the respective HC salary totals

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

But another problematic claim is that that the administration needs to step up more in terms of greater financial commitments. This flows from Sebastabear's (mistaken) view that the administration has under-invested in revenue sports.

Cal Strong was in communication with Chancellor Christ's team in the early days of the conference meltdown -- shortly after Oregon and UW left -- long before the decision was made to go full speed ahead at petitioning the ACC. There were discussions of bringing Cal Strong on as a consultant.

From these meetings, Cal Strong can tell you that there were serious voices in the room about shutting football down entirely -- because it is perceived that the University invests WAAAAAYYYYYY too much in it considering the outcomes it produces.

---

Can you explain why you think Sebastabear is "mistaken" here? He provided the numbers for how much Cal spends on football and compared to how much other Pac-12 schools spend and showed it is less. Are those numbers wrong?

Your only rebuttal is, effectively, to say that other people at Cal FEEL like they are spending too much on football. Well, no s***. That doesn't make them right.

---

Yes, Sebastabear is mistaken on some of the numbers. But this is not an indictment of him. Cal Strong has no interest in dumping on Sebastabear. And he is not permitted to share work product.

---

So Cal is not spending less on football than Utah? Where does Cal land in terms of spending on revenue sports, relative to peer schools?

---

You are letting your FEELings into this. Please read above.

---

Pretty sure that was just a direct request for facts, but okay.

---

I'm not here to dump on either guy's portrayal of the numbers, but according to the financial statements released by Cal, in 2022 Cal's operating expenses for football were $29,536,009. It was $29M in 2020 and $30M in 2019. (it was $19M in 2021, but that was because of Covid)

Those numbers don't include the $5M per year debt service on SAHPC which are not operating expenses.

Just providing straight numbers as asked.

Utah on the other hand, had $40M in football operating expenses in 2022. (again off their public financial statements. However, in fairness, $4M was directly attributable to its bowl game (travel expenses and coaching bonuses).and they made money on that as well. And then the last difficult part is that $40M includes leases, rentals and debt service of $11M (mainly for facilities). Technically debt service is not operating expenses, but the others are. It's not broken out separately, so I can't tell what that number is. The best I can do is say Utah's football operating expense + debt service is $40M, and Cal's is $34.5M. However, I don't think attributing the one time bowl expenses is fair and that would bring Utah down to $36M. Or if you think that IS fair, I think at most you should acknowledge that Utah also made $3.2M on the bowl, so I think like for like, the number is $36M or $36.8M to $34.5M.

Here's a problem. Donations to Cal football = $3M. Donations to Utah football = $19M.

Total Donations to Cal athletics = $15.5M. Total donations to Utah athletics = $28.5M

Cal's institutional support = $31M, Utah =$5.3M

On the flip side,

Cal student fees = $0, Utah =$6.3M

If I take out the institutional support and student fee numbers from revenue, Utah's total athletic revenue was $102M. Cal's was $89M. Note the donations make up that difference.

On the one hand, Utah is spending a smidge more on football operating expenses. On the other hand, Cal is contributing A LOT MORE, university dollars to operating expenses while Utah's DONORS are spending a lot more on operating expenses.

And before people start saying "yeah, but the university charges us for scholarships, Utah does to and our line items are almost the same for that.

I'm just providing numbers off the financial statements. I'm not making commentary. Except that I will make this one, these are officially reported financial statements and unlike the common refrain, it is not easy to fudge them. They may have some differences in which buckets they report things in, (like Cal breaking out debt on SAHPC separately), but they have to pass accounting muster.

---

Now, I'm going to make a comment. If Cal's students wanted to contribute at the same level as Utah, and if our donors contributed to operating expenses at the same level as Utah, we'd have $19M more to spend. Which again goes to what I've been saying - our community to date has not prioritized like others. Utah is not exactly USC. With Utah level support from donors and students, the institutional support is suddenly not egregious. Now I'm not saying that donors and students SHOULD give more. I'm just saying they don't. So that is the culture you need to change if you want to make serious inroads.

Now the problem is that we are going to have a lot less conference money (I think Sebasta said it was $20M) and a lot more expenses ($10M).

---

The ASUC agreed decades ago to subsidized IAC. Cal Strong not aware of Utah doing this.

The ASUC owned bookstore is giving free tickets to first responders for the ASU game.

These are not inconsiderable things considering how little they have received in return from the football team these past 11 years.

If/when Cal hires a coach like Wittingham, you will see far greater support among donors and fans for Cal in the Bay Area than one sees for Utah in Salt Lake City.

kal kommie said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

But another problematic claim is that that the administration needs to step up more in terms of greater financial commitments. This flows from Sebastabear's (mistaken) view that the administration has under-invested in revenue sports.

Cal Strong was in communication with Chancellor Christ's team in the early days of the conference meltdown -- shortly after Oregon and UW left -- long before the decision was made to go full speed ahead at petitioning the ACC. There were discussions of bringing Cal Strong on as a consultant.

From these meetings, Cal Strong can tell you that there were serious voices in the room about shutting football down entirely -- because it is perceived that the University invests WAAAAAYYYYYY too much in it considering the outcomes it produces.

---

Can you explain why you think Sebastabear is "mistaken" here? He provided the numbers for how much Cal spends on football and compared to how much other Pac-12 schools spend and showed it is less. Are those numbers wrong?

Your only rebuttal is, effectively, to say that other people at Cal FEEL like they are spending too much on football. Well, no s***. That doesn't make them right.

---

Yes, Sebastabear is mistaken on some of the numbers. But this is not an indictment of him. Cal Strong has no interest in dumping on Sebastabear. And he is not permitted to share work product.

But that really isn't what this is about. Please read Cal Strong's previous post about over-investment vs. under-investment.

This not about feelings. Feelings is what has led people to lobby for extending Wilcox. Facts are that we spend more money per win than most any program in the Pac-12.

---

Does any PAC-12 program spend more per conference win? I can't imagine so.

---

Maybe Colorado. They're the only one who's won fewer Pac-12 games (27 to 24) but I don't know about the respective HC salary totals

---

They were paying Dorell $3.6 million last year whike we pay Wilcox $5 million.

calumnus said:

---

kal kommie said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

But another problematic claim is that that the administration needs to step up more in terms of greater financial commitments. This flows from Sebastabear's (mistaken) view that the administration has under-invested in revenue sports.

Cal Strong was in communication with Chancellor Christ's team in the early days of the conference meltdown -- shortly after Oregon and UW left -- long before the decision was made to go full speed ahead at petitioning the ACC. There were discussions of bringing Cal Strong on as a consultant.

From these meetings, Cal Strong can tell you that there were serious voices in the room about shutting football down entirely -- because it is perceived that the University invests WAAAAAYYYYYY too much in it considering the outcomes it produces.

---

Can you explain why you think Sebastabear is "mistaken" here? He provided the numbers for how much Cal spends on football and compared to how much other Pac-12 schools spend and showed it is less. Are those numbers wrong?

Your only rebuttal is, effectively, to say that other people at Cal FEEL like they are spending too much on football. Well, no s***. That doesn't make them right.

---

Yes, Sebastabear is mistaken on some of the numbers. But this is not an indictment of him. Cal Strong has no interest in dumping on Sebastabear. And he is not permitted to share work product.

But that really isn't what this is about. Please read Cal Strong's previous post about over-investment vs. under-investment.

This not about feelings. Feelings is what has led people to lobby for extending Wilcox. Facts are that we spend more money per win than most any program in the Pac-12.

---

Does any PAC-12 program spend more per conference win? I can't imagine so.

---

Maybe Colorado. They're the only one who's won fewer Pac-12 games (27 to 24) but I don't know about the respective HC salary totals

---

They were paying Dorell $3.6 million last year while we pay Wilcox $5 million.

---

We're paying Wilcox $5M this year (to Deion's $5.5M) but according to Google only $4.2M last year.

When CU extended MacIntyre in Jan 2017 it was for 5 years, $16.3M. When Wilcox was hired at Cal that year it was for 5 years, $9.5M.

Seems like the two schools were usually within the same salary range but I wouldn't make a determination without seeing the full salary totals from the whole Pac-12 period for both schools

Cal Strong! said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

But another problematic claim is that that the administration needs to step up more in terms of greater financial commitments. This flows from Sebastabear's (mistaken) view that the administration has under-invested in revenue sports.

Cal Strong was in communication with Chancellor Christ's team in the early days of the conference meltdown -- shortly after Oregon and UW left -- long before the decision was made to go full speed ahead at petitioning the ACC. There were discussions of bringing Cal Strong on as a consultant.

From these meetings, Cal Strong can tell you that there were serious voices in the room about shutting football down entirely -- because it is perceived that the University invests WAAAAAYYYYYY too much in it considering the outcomes it produces.

---

Can you explain why you think Sebastabear is "mistaken" here? He provided the numbers for how much Cal spends on football and compared to how much other Pac-12 schools spend and showed it is less. Are those numbers wrong?

Your only rebuttal is, effectively, to say that other people at Cal FEEL like they are spending too much on football. Well, no s***. That doesn't make them right.

---

Yes, Sebastabear is mistaken on some of the numbers. But this is not an indictment of him. Cal Strong has no interest in dumping on Sebastabear. And he is not permitted to share work product.

---

So Cal is not spending less on football than Utah? Where does Cal land in terms of spending on revenue sports, relative to peer schools?

---

You are letting your FEELings into this. Please read above.

---

Pretty sure that was just a direct request for facts, but okay.

---

I'm not here to dump on either guy's portrayal of the numbers, but according to the financial statements released by Cal, in 2022 Cal's operating expenses for football were $29,536,009. It was $29M in 2020 and $30M in 2019. (it was $19M in 2021, but that was because of Covid)

Those numbers don't include the $5M per year debt service on SAHPC which are not operating expenses.

Just providing straight numbers as asked.

Utah on the other hand, had $40M in football operating expenses in 2022. (again off their public financial statements. However, in fairness, $4M was directly attributable to its bowl game (travel expenses and coaching bonuses).and they made money on that as well. And then the last difficult part is that $40M includes leases, rentals and debt service of $11M (mainly for facilities). Technically debt service is not operating expenses, but the others are. It's not broken out separately, so I can't tell what that number is. The best I can do is say Utah's football operating expense + debt service is $40M, and Cal's is $34.5M. However, I don't think attributing the one time bowl expenses is fair and that would bring Utah down to $36M. Or if you think that IS fair, I think at most you should acknowledge that Utah also made $3.2M on the bowl, so I think like for like, the number is $36M or $36.8M to $34.5M.

Here's a problem. Donations to Cal football = $3M. Donations to Utah football = $19M.

Total Donations to Cal athletics = $15.5M. Total donations to Utah athletics = $28.5M

Cal's institutional support = $31M, Utah =$5.3M

On the flip side,

Cal student fees = $0, Utah =$6.3M

If I take out the institutional support and student fee numbers from revenue, Utah's total athletic revenue was $102M. Cal's was $89M. Note the donations make up that difference.

On the one hand, Utah is spending a smidge more on football operating expenses. On the other hand, Cal is contributing A LOT MORE, university dollars to operating expenses while Utah's DONORS are spending a lot more on operating expenses.

And before people start saying "yeah, but the university charges us for scholarships, Utah does to and our line items are almost the same for that.

I'm just providing numbers off the financial statements. I'm not making commentary. Except that I will make this one, these are officially reported financial statements and unlike the common refrain, it is not easy to fudge them. They may have some differences in which buckets they report things in, (like Cal breaking out debt on SAHPC separately), but they have to pass accounting muster.

---

Now, I'm going to make a comment. If Cal's students wanted to contribute at the same level as Utah, and if our donors contributed to operating expenses at the same level as Utah, we'd have $19M more to spend. Which again goes to what I've been saying - our community to date has not prioritized like others. Utah is not exactly USC. With Utah level support from donors and students, the institutional support is suddenly not egregious. Now I'm not saying that donors and students SHOULD give more. I'm just saying they don't. So that is the culture you need to change if you want to make serious inroads.

Now the problem is that we are going to have a lot less conference money (I think Sebasta said it was $20M) and a lot more expenses ($10M).

---

If/when Cal hires a coach like Wittingham, you will see far greater support among donors and fans for Cal in the Bay Area than one sees for Utah in Salt Lake City.

---

Correct. Cal offers little to no ROI when it comes to how they operate and who they hire. If Cal had the current football infrastructure and facilities in place with the few decisions they got right, early Tedford or Snyder (in his final year), the University would be flush with support.

But Cal has never operated that way. It's their own myopic thinking that leads to their own self inflicted malaise.

We could talk Tedford but I would rather talk Snyder.

1991 10-2 (I have memory holed the BG implosion) w/ a dominate Citrus Bowl victory only to have Chancellor Tien let Bockwrath operate unchecked, tear up the deal Maggard had with Snyder, and on to the Gilby era the IAD went. Not Mooch, who the players wanted, awww hell naaah braaaa, it was Keith Gilby Gilbertson, a man who had the personality and demeanor of every porta-potty on the east side of CMS.

The fact that the old monied alums didn't step in at that point and start asking questions still pisses me off.

The recruiting class that year could have been one of Cal's greatest of all time but it went poof because Cal couldn't self correct in real time. Of course Snyder went on to lead ASU to an RB.

Cal's last RB appearance was 1959.

We could go on and on with scenarios like this at Cal.

So, to me, it really comes down to something as common sensical as giving people a reason to be invested both financially and emotionally. If Cal cannot master this simple mission statement they will continue to piss into their own headwinds and eventually onto their own demise.

And alums will have their names on coaching positions and buildings that no longer matter.

Therapy session ended.

Go Costanzas

Cal Strong! said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

But another problematic claim is that that the administration needs to step up more in terms of greater financial commitments. This flows from Sebastabear's (mistaken) view that the administration has under-invested in revenue sports.

Cal Strong was in communication with Chancellor Christ's team in the early days of the conference meltdown -- shortly after Oregon and UW left -- long before the decision was made to go full speed ahead at petitioning the ACC. There were discussions of bringing Cal Strong on as a consultant.

From these meetings, Cal Strong can tell you that there were serious voices in the room about shutting football down entirely -- because it is perceived that the University invests WAAAAAYYYYYY too much in it considering the outcomes it produces.

---

Can you explain why you think Sebastabear is "mistaken" here? He provided the numbers for how much Cal spends on football and compared to how much other Pac-12 schools spend and showed it is less. Are those numbers wrong?

Your only rebuttal is, effectively, to say that other people at Cal FEEL like they are spending too much on football. Well, no s***. That doesn't make them right.

---

Yes, Sebastabear is mistaken on some of the numbers. But this is not an indictment of him. Cal Strong has no interest in dumping on Sebastabear. And he is not permitted to share work product.

---

So Cal is not spending less on football than Utah? Where does Cal land in terms of spending on revenue sports, relative to peer schools?

---

You are letting your FEELings into this. Please read above.

---

Pretty sure that was just a direct request for facts, but okay.

---

I'm not here to dump on either guy's portrayal of the numbers, but according to the financial statements released by Cal, in 2022 Cal's operating expenses for football were $29,536,009. It was $29M in 2020 and $30M in 2019. (it was $19M in 2021, but that was because of Covid)

Those numbers don't include the $5M per year debt service on SAHPC which are not operating expenses.

Just providing straight numbers as asked.

Utah on the other hand, had $40M in football operating expenses in 2022. (again off their public financial statements. However, in fairness, $4M was directly attributable to its bowl game (travel expenses and coaching bonuses).and they made money on that as well. And then the last difficult part is that $40M includes leases, rentals and debt service of $11M (mainly for facilities). Technically debt service is not operating expenses, but the others are. It's not broken out separately, so I can't tell what that number is. The best I can do is say Utah's football operating expense + debt service is $40M, and Cal's is $34.5M. However, I don't think attributing the one time bowl expenses is fair and that would bring Utah down to $36M. Or if you think that IS fair, I think at most you should acknowledge that Utah also made $3.2M on the bowl, so I think like for like, the number is $36M or $36.8M to $34.5M.

Here's a problem. Donations to Cal football = $3M. Donations to Utah football = $19M.

Total Donations to Cal athletics = $15.5M. Total donations to Utah athletics = $28.5M

Cal's institutional support = $31M, Utah =$5.3M

On the flip side,

Cal student fees = $0, Utah =$6.3M

If I take out the institutional support and student fee numbers from revenue, Utah's total athletic revenue was $102M. Cal's was $89M. Note the donations make up that difference.

On the one hand, Utah is spending a smidge more on football operating expenses. On the other hand, Cal is contributing A LOT MORE, university dollars to operating expenses while Utah's DONORS are spending a lot more on operating expenses.

And before people start saying "yeah, but the university charges us for scholarships, Utah does to and our line items are almost the same for that.

I'm just providing numbers off the financial statements. I'm not making commentary. Except that I will make this one, these are officially reported financial statements and unlike the common refrain, it is not easy to fudge them. They may have some differences in which buckets they report things in, (like Cal breaking out debt on SAHPC separately), but they have to pass accounting muster.

---

Now, I'm going to make a comment. If Cal's students wanted to contribute at the same level as Utah, and if our donors contributed to operating expenses at the same level as Utah, we'd have $19M more to spend. Which again goes to what I've been saying - our community to date has not prioritized like others. Utah is not exactly USC. With Utah level support from donors and students, the institutional support is suddenly not egregious. Now I'm not saying that donors and students SHOULD give more. I'm just saying they don't. So that is the culture you need to change if you want to make serious inroads.

Now the problem is that we are going to have a lot less conference money (I think Sebasta said it was $20M) and a lot more expenses ($10M).

---

The ASUC agreed decades ago to subsidized IAC. Cal Strong not aware of Utah doing this.

The ASUC owned bookstore is giving free tickets to first responders for the ASU game.

These are not inconsiderable things considering how little they have received in return from the football team these past 11 years.

If/when Cal hires a coach like Wittingham, you will see far greater support among donors and fans for Cal in the Bay Area than one sees for Utah in Salt Lake City.

---

1. It was late and I missed that student fees account for $444K of revenue to the general AD (I put down the football #) which I assume is what you are mentioning with the ASUC because there is no other bucket that could be. That doesn't change the overall situation.

I'm sorry CalStrong, but the bolded language is not realistic when it comes to operating expenses, which is the discussion here. Cal has never done that. Ever. Even close. In fact, donations to operating expenses barely budge. In the height of Tedford, the contributions to operating expenses were not higher. The only thing I can see is a little bit more were earmarked to football instead of nonprogram specific (not much, total $5M instead of $3M)

What is true is that ticket sales were higher - but that was by about $5M. Which is good, but doesn't make much of a dent in the problem that Sebasta outlined.

We have to stop with the idea that winning alone is going to result in piles of cash coming into the department. All historical precedent is that it won't. Something more needs to take place. We can't ignore that or the something more will never happen. The "hiring a great coach and winning will solve all the problems" argument is just not true. The only advantage it has is that as our problem risea from $5M-$10M-$30M to $50M, to $10 quadrillion, we can all pretend like that number can still make up the number with a mystical surge in donations from an "easy" solution that is all the athletic departments fault. When the deficit was $5M that was reasonable. Now that it is $30M - and I think last year will be more - and we are about to lose $30M more, it is not going to happen just by winning even if there was an easy button to that.

Once again: Bake sales.

calumnus said:

---

UrsineMaximus said:

---

GoCal80 said:

---

CarmelBear said:

---

For starters - is there any sense whether the new chancellor will be pro-Cal athletics. Even better, a Cal alum? I've heard rumors. Some good. Honestly, having Cal focused chancellor who understands the importance of a successful football program is where the change starts.

---

The Chancellor search is just getting started. You can read about the process and who is on the search committee here: https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/chancellor-search-2023-24

There is an online form at the above site asking for input into the qualities that would make for a good Chancellor. The executive search firm being used is WittKieffer.

---

Search over, this is all free of charge:

Chancellor: Adela de la Torre

AD: Shaney Fink

See that wasn't so tough and took no time. Hell saved hundreds of thousands $$$ as well.

---

Patrick Chun at WSU or if a Cal alum, Shareef, Amy Trask….

---

Chun fine, Stop with the outside the box crap like with Amy. Let's get people who actually know college sports. No Larry, no George, no Mike.. Need someone who actually knows how to run a Power conference AD job and in particular knows college football and knows college football people. I would have Amy run my NFL team, not my college sports program.

I know we are getting to a lot of side issues, but hope all posters focus on the wanring sent by Sebasterbear. WE fix Cal sports now, or kiss them good bye.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

But another problematic claim is that that the administration needs to step up more in terms of greater financial commitments. This flows from Sebastabear's (mistaken) view that the administration has under-invested in revenue sports.

Cal Strong was in communication with Chancellor Christ's team in the early days of the conference meltdown -- shortly after Oregon and UW left -- long before the decision was made to go full speed ahead at petitioning the ACC. There were discussions of bringing Cal Strong on as a consultant.

From these meetings, Cal Strong can tell you that there were serious voices in the room about shutting football down entirely -- because it is perceived that the University invests WAAAAAYYYYYY too much in it considering the outcomes it produces.

---

Can you explain why you think Sebastabear is "mistaken" here? He provided the numbers for how much Cal spends on football and compared to how much other Pac-12 schools spend and showed it is less. Are those numbers wrong?

Your only rebuttal is, effectively, to say that other people at Cal FEEL like they are spending too much on football. Well, no s***. That doesn't make them right.

---

Yes, Sebastabear is mistaken on some of the numbers. But this is not an indictment of him. Cal Strong has no interest in dumping on Sebastabear. And he is not permitted to share work product.

---

So Cal is not spending less on football than Utah? Where does Cal land in terms of spending on revenue sports, relative to peer schools?

---

You are letting your FEELings into this. Please read above.

---

Pretty sure that was just a direct request for facts, but okay.

---

I'm not here to dump on either guy's portrayal of the numbers, but according to the financial statements released by Cal, in 2022 Cal's operating expenses for football were $29,536,009. It was $29M in 2020 and $30M in 2019. (it was $19M in 2021, but that was because of Covid)

Those numbers don't include the $5M per year debt service on SAHPC which are not operating expenses.

Just providing straight numbers as asked.

Utah on the other hand, had $40M in football operating expenses in 2022. (again off their public financial statements. However, in fairness, $4M was directly attributable to its bowl game (travel expenses and coaching bonuses).and they made money on that as well. And then the last difficult part is that $40M includes leases, rentals and debt service of $11M (mainly for facilities). Technically debt service is not operating expenses, but the others are. It's not broken out separately, so I can't tell what that number is. The best I can do is say Utah's football operating expense + debt service is $40M, and Cal's is $34.5M. However, I don't think attributing the one time bowl expenses is fair and that would bring Utah down to $36M. Or if you think that IS fair, I think at most you should acknowledge that Utah also made $3.2M on the bowl, so I think like for like, the number is $36M or $36.8M to $34.5M.

Here's a problem. Donations to Cal football = $3M. Donations to Utah football = $19M.

Total Donations to Cal athletics = $15.5M. Total donations to Utah athletics = $28.5M

Cal's institutional support = $31M, Utah =$5.3M

On the flip side,

Cal student fees = $0, Utah =$6.3M

If I take out the institutional support and student fee numbers from revenue, Utah's total athletic revenue was $102M. Cal's was $89M. Note the donations make up that difference.

On the one hand, Utah is spending a smidge more on football operating expenses. On the other hand, Cal is contributing A LOT MORE, university dollars to operating expenses while Utah's DONORS are spending a lot more on operating expenses.

And before people start saying "yeah, but the university charges us for scholarships, Utah does to and our line items are almost the same for that.

I'm just providing numbers off the financial statements. I'm not making commentary. Except that I will make this one, these are officially reported financial statements and unlike the common refrain, it is not easy to fudge them. They may have some differences in which buckets they report things in, (like Cal breaking out debt on SAHPC separately), but they have to pass accounting muster.

---

One thing missing from the Cal financial statements is the ESP endowment fund to pay for the stadium bonds when they become more than interest only in 2031 (and payments essentially double for years 21-40).

The athletic department use to public a yearly statement, but hasn't since 2017.

https://calbears.com/sports/2013/4/17/208204189.aspx

Money from club seats sales goes directly to the stadium endowment and many large donors pre bought for the entire term. I would guess yearly revenue is $5-10 million from seat sales (I don't know the ratio of seats that were prepaid vs yearly). When comparing football ticket sales/donations to other universities, it's important to note that this revenue is not listed as football revenue and not available for operations, but generous donor are definitely paying it. Corporate revenues from buying seats and having events at the stadium would also go to the stadium fund.

The fund value was $68 million in 2017, and I would hope the endowment over $100 million by now, and would be around $200 million in 2031. While central campus its paying half of the interest only payments right now (~9 million), I'm not sure they intend to pay half forever, especially if the endowment is sufficient to cover payments. I mean if paying half for 40 years were the intent, wouldn't club tickets prices be cut in half? I'm also not sure what would happen to money paid up front for a 40 year term if Cal had no football team - would money have to be returned? It might not even be addressed in the contracts as contingency.

Another thing to note is that Utah reports income from a lot of sponsors as football revenue, while Cal has typically allocated similar funds (under armor and Learfield are two examples) to the department as a whole on the balance sheet. Thus I feel like the revenue gap between what Cal football earns and Utah earns is not as great as the accounts are showing us (and I believe Utah and Cal do this intentionally - Utah want to have a large. Utha out there as a matter of pride, while Cal wants a small number out there to get more donations and maybe as an excuse too). But that doesn't translate to spending on football, and spending in a higher cost of living area.

I'm curious how administrative expenses at Cal compare to other similar schools, but there aren't too many that publish easy to find accounting sheets like Cal.

The USA today database is for subs only nowadays, but I recall other UC's and CSUs are pushing 50% institutional support, which is often split 50/50 between student fees and other central campus funding. But of course those are much smaller totals. I think UC Davis is at $10 million+ in student fees.

I will be too old to be able to see how this will all play out in the end. But I think you are still left with two potential models: 1) The UC Davis model; 2) The Professional College Sports Model.

Under the UCD model, they have 23 sports, all of which lose money, supported by a modest institutional subsidy and a $700 student athletics fee which allows them to break-even. They also make some money by losing away games to FBS 1-A schools.

Alternatively, under the Professional sports model, you will need a great deal of money coming from a a wide variety of sources, including donors, fan attendance, tv contracts, endorsement deals, and large institutional contributions. To survive under this second model, you had better be able to win and to make the decisions that are required to win.

annarborbear said:

---

I will be too old to be able to see how this will all play out in the end. But I think you are still left with two potential models: 1) The UC Davis model; 2) The Professional College Sports Model.

Under the UCD model, they have 23 sports, all of which lose money, supported by a modest institutional subsidy and a $700 student athletics fee which allows them to break-even. They also make some money by losing away games to FBS 1-A schools.

Alternatively, under the Professional sports model, you will need a great deal of money coming from a a wide variety of sources, including donors, fan attendance, tv contracts, endorsement deals, and large institutional contributions. To survive under this second model, you had better be able to win and to make the decisions that are required to win.

---

A succinct summation.

annarborbear said:

---

I will be too old to be able to see how this will all play out in the end. But I think you are still left with two potential models: 1) The UC Davis model; 2) The Professional College Sports Model.

Under the UCD model, they have 23 sports, all of which lose money, supported by a modest institutional subsidy and a $700 student athletics fee which allows them to break-even. They also make some money by losing away games to FBS 1-A schools.

Alternatively, under the Professional sports model, you will need a great deal of money coming from a a wide variety of sources, including donors, fan attendance, tv contracts, endorsement deals, and large institutional contributions. To survive under this second model, you had better be able to win and to make the decisions that are required to win.

---

$700 seems like a lot per student. Davis might be better off without football and getting an allotment from Cal for UCD students to have some weekenders.

Cal will likely retain endowments /donations/support relating to successful Olympic sports with or without big time football, but who would they compete against? UW, UO, USC, and UCLA will have a lot of money to pour into non rev sports. A lot more.

ColoradoBear said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

I will be too old to be able to see how this will all play out in the end. But I think you are still left with two potential models: 1) The UC Davis model; 2) The Professional College Sports Model.

Under the UCD model, they have 23 sports, all of which lose money, supported by a modest institutional subsidy and a $700 student athletics fee which allows them to break-even. They also make some money by losing away games to FBS 1-A schools.

Alternatively, under the Professional sports model, you will need a great deal of money coming from a a wide variety of sources, including donors, fan attendance, tv contracts, endorsement deals, and large institutional contributions. To survive under this second model, you had better be able to win and to make the decisions that are required to win.

---

$700 seems like a lot per student. Davis might be better off without football and getting an allotment from Cal for UCD students to have some weekenders.

Cal will likely retain endowments /donations/support relating to successful Olympic sports with or without big time football, but who would they compete against? UW, UO, USC, and UCLA will have a lot of money to pour into non rev sports. A lot more.

---

This is already happening. College baseball is a good example. 30 years ago, Cal State Fullerton had one of the top baseball programs. 10-15 years ago, Oregon State built a great program because they were the only school in the PNW that was even trying to win at baseball.

Now, the SEC has gone from having only a couple strong teams to being the best conference in college baseball -- 10 of the 14 SEC teams were in this year's NCAA tournament, and both finalists were SEC teams. SEC schools have being using some of their football money to build new baseball facilities, hire top-notch coaches, bulk up their coaching staffs with good recruiters, etc. There are similar stories in other so-called "non-revenue sports".

I would love to see Cal athletics get more support from wealthy alumni. That's not me unfortunately.

Throwing more money at the problem won't help if it is the same knuckleheads running the show. Couple that with UC bureaucracy, any money will get soaked up into places that would not increase our competitiveness in football and basketball.

I don't know how to fix either the IAD incompetence or the UC bureaucracy problems. They're likely tightly coupled. But those are the first problems to solve to ensure that any large donor money doesn't disappear into a black hole.

ColoradoBear said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

I will be too old to be able to see how this will all play out in the end. But I think you are still left with two potential models: 1) The UC Davis model; 2) The Professional College Sports Model.

Under the UCD model, they have 23 sports, all of which lose money, supported by a modest institutional subsidy and a $700 student athletics fee which allows them to break-even. They also make some money by losing away games to FBS 1-A schools.

Alternatively, under the Professional sports model, you will need a great deal of money coming from a a wide variety of sources, including donors, fan attendance, tv contracts, endorsement deals, and large institutional contributions. To survive under this second model, you had better be able to win and to make the decisions that are required to win.

---

$700 seems like a lot per student. Davis might be better off without football and getting an allotment from Cal for UCD students to have some weekenders.

Cal will likely retain endowments /donations/support relating to successful Olympic sports with or without big time football, but who would they compete against? UW, UO, USC, and UCLA will have a lot of money to pour into non rev sports. A lot more.

---

No one will be able to divert much of that money into non-revenue sports and still have a competitive football program because their competitors won't.

In some ways I do think maybe we should just drop football entirely and become a basketball school. It's a lot less expensive and it is easier to field a successful team. We have a great basketball tradition, much better than football over the last few decades, and diverting resources such as NIL into the basketball team instead of into a dying football team that has no hope of competing in the new landscape of college football seems to make more sense. Call it the Princeton model.

The only reason not to do that is the stadium debt, but at some point you need to stop throwing good money after bad. I would be happy if Cal made a name for itself in basketball like Gonzaga. I think we have a lot better chances of doing that than ever making a college football playoff.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

We have to stop with the idea that winning alone is going to result in piles of cash coming into the department. All historical precedent is that it won't. Something more needs to take place. We can't ignore that or the something more will never happen. The "hiring a great coach and winning will solve all the problems" argument is just not true.

---

But it is true. It just happened at Colorado, Washington, Washington State, and Oregon State.

We need to START with this idea. We have never gone with it since 2002. And it worked back then. We were a 1-11 team, we hired the right coach, and we raised enough to get a stadium going.

Cal Strong! said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

We have to stop with the idea that winning alone is going to result in piles of cash coming into the department. All historical precedent is that it won't. Something more needs to take place. We can't ignore that or the something more will never happen. The "hiring a great coach and winning will solve all the problems" argument is just not true.

---

But it is true. It just happened at Colorado, Washington, Washington State, and Oregon State.

We need to START with this idea. We have never gone with it since 2002. And it worked back then. We were a 1-11 team, we hired the right coach, and we raised enough to get a stadium going.

---

"[W]e raised enough to get a stadium going." I don't think so…

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

We have to stop with the idea that winning alone is going to result in piles of cash coming into the department. All historical precedent is that it won't. Something more needs to take place. We can't ignore that or the something more will never happen. The "hiring a great coach and winning will solve all the problems" argument is just not true.

---

But it is true. It just happened at Colorado, Washington, Washington State, and Oregon State.

We need to START with this idea. We have never gone with it since 2002. And it worked back then. We were a 1-11 team, we hired the right coach, and we raised enough to get a stadium going.

---

"[W]e raised enough to get a stadium going." I don't think so…

---

But we did. Cal Strong don't know if you remember, but we used to play in a terrible stadium and our players had a weight room that would be condemned in any Egyptian middle school.

Then we got a coach who generated a ton of wins and momentum. We were flirting with a Rose Bowl. And there was a big campaign, and enough money came in to break ground on the stadium and SAHPC.

Look at Colorado, UW, Oregon State, and WSU. You get a good coach, generate momentum, and people get interested.

This a chicken and egg situation. We can't raise money until we show competence. But it doesn't look like we can show on-field progress without firing our AD and coach . . . which requires money.

Bobodeluxe need to check his ellipses.

Cal Strong! said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

We have to stop with the idea that winning alone is going to result in piles of cash coming into the department. All historical precedent is that it won't. Something more needs to take place. We can't ignore that or the something more will never happen. The "hiring a great coach and winning will solve all the problems" argument is just not true.

---

But it is true. It just happened at Colorado, Washington, Washington State, and Oregon State.

We need to START with this idea. We have never gone with it since 2002. And it worked back then. We were a 1-11 team, we hired the right coach, and we raised enough to get a stadium going.

---

Delusion not strong. Delusion weak. Reality strong. Thinking we raise 4 times what we have raised in history, even with top 10 team is Delusional. Be strong.

Cal Strong! said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

We have to stop with the idea that winning alone is going to result in piles of cash coming into the department. All historical precedent is that it won't. Something more needs to take place. We can't ignore that or the something more will never happen. The "hiring a great coach and winning will solve all the problems" argument is just not true.

---

But it is true. It just happened at Colorado, Washington, Washington State, and Oregon State.

We need to START with this idea. We have never gone with it since 2002. And it worked back then. We were a 1-11 team, we hired the right coach, and we raised enough to get a stadium going.

---

"[W]e raised enough to get a stadium going." I don't think so…

---

But we did. Cal Strong don't know if you remember, but we used to play in a terrible stadium and our players had a weight room that would be condemned in any Egyptian middle school.

Then we got a coach who generated a ton of wins and momentum. We were flirting with a Rose Bowl. And there was a big campaign, and enough money came in to break ground on the stadium and SAHPC.

Look at Colorado, UW, Oregon State, and WSU. You get a good coach, generate momentum, and people get interested.

This a chicken and egg situation. We can't raise money until we show competence. But it doesn't look like we can show on-field progress without firing our AD and coach . . . which requires money.

Bobodeluxe need to check his ellipses.

---

Cal build stadium on crazy loan no one tried before. Not on donations. Loan blow up in Cal's face. Cal hundreds of millions in debt. Debt not Strong.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

We have to stop with the idea that winning alone is going to result in piles of cash coming into the department. All historical precedent is that it won't. Something more needs to take place. We can't ignore that or the something more will never happen. The "hiring a great coach and winning will solve all the problems" argument is just not true.

---

But it is true. It just happened at Colorado, Washington, Washington State, and Oregon State.

We need to START with this idea. We have never gone with it since 2002. And it worked back then. We were a 1-11 team, we hired the right coach, and we raised enough to get a stadium going.

---

"[W]e raised enough to get a stadium going." I don't think so…

---

But we did. Cal Strong don't know if you remember, but we used to play in a terrible stadium and our players had a weight room that would be condemned in any Egyptian middle school.

Then we got a coach who generated a ton of wins and momentum. We were flirting with a Rose Bowl. And there was a big campaign, and enough money came in to break ground on the stadium and SAHPC.

Look at Colorado, UW, Oregon State, and WSU. You get a good coach, generate momentum, and people get interested.

This a chicken and egg situation. We can't raise money until we show competence. But it doesn't look like we can show on-field progress without firing our AD and coach . . . which requires money.

Bobodeluxe need to check his ellipses.

---

Cal build stadium on crazy loan no one tried before. Not on donations. Loan blow up in Cal's face. Cal hundreds of millions in debt. Debt not Strong.

---

Cal Strong love BearlyCareAnymore's diction. BearlyCareAnymore should keep writing strong. It make Cal Strong start to suspect that he probably strong in body and heart.

So if the progress made in facilities was not built on the progress of Cal's football performance under Tedford, does BearlyCareAnymore think we would have done the SAHPC and Memorial retrofit if Holmoe had stayed on as our coach?

Cal Strong distinctly remember the refrain of: "look at what Tedford is doing with the worst facilities in America. Just wait and see what happens if we can get him elite facilities."

He also remember the endowed seating pitches at big donor events. The pitches were absolutely steeped in the football team's progress.

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

UrsineMaximus said:

---

GoCal80 said:

---

CarmelBear said:

---

For starters - is there any sense whether the new chancellor will be pro-Cal athletics. Even better, a Cal alum? I've heard rumors. Some good. Honestly, having Cal focused chancellor who understands the importance of a successful football program is where the change starts.

---

The Chancellor search is just getting started. You can read about the process and who is on the search committee here: https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/chancellor-search-2023-24

There is an online form at the above site asking for input into the qualities that would make for a good Chancellor. The executive search firm being used is WittKieffer.

---

Search over, this is all free of charge:

Chancellor: Adela de la Torre

AD: Shaney Fink

See that wasn't so tough and took no time. Hell saved hundreds of thousands $$$ as well.

---

Patrick Chun at WSU or if a Cal alum, Shareef, Amy Trask….

---

Chun fine, Stop with the outside the box crap like with Amy. Let's get people who actually know college sports. No Larry, no George, no Mike.. Need someone who actually knows how to run a Power conference AD job and in particular knows college football and knows college football people. I would have Amy run my NFL team, not my college sports program.

---

Except the future of power conference college football is increasingly more like the NFL. Smart people (like Chun) with expertise in the old model can adapt, so yes, smart people with P5 success that we can afford (Chun and?) but we need to hire for the skills of the future, not the past. However, anybody is better than Knowlton, who has neither.

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

UrsineMaximus said:

---

GoCal80 said:

---

CarmelBear said:

---

For starters - is there any sense whether the new chancellor will be pro-Cal athletics. Even better, a Cal alum? I've heard rumors. Some good. Honestly, having Cal focused chancellor who understands the importance of a successful football program is where the change starts.

---

The Chancellor search is just getting started. You can read about the process and who is on the search committee here: https://chancellor.berkeley.edu/chancellor-search-2023-24

There is an online form at the above site asking for input into the qualities that would make for a good Chancellor. The executive search firm being used is WittKieffer.

---

Search over, this is all free of charge:

Chancellor: Adela de la Torre

AD: Shaney Fink

See that wasn't so tough and took no time. Hell saved hundreds of thousands $$$ as well.

---

Patrick Chun at WSU or if a Cal alum, Shareef, Amy Trask….

---

Chun fine, Stop with the outside the box crap like with Amy. Let's get people who actually know college sports. No Larry, no George, no Mike.. Need someone who actually knows how to run a Power conference AD job and in particular knows college football and knows college football people. I would have Amy run my NFL team, not my college sports program.

---

Except the future of power conference college football is increasingly more like the NFL. Smart people (like Chun) with expertise in the old model can adapt, so yes, smart people with P5 success that we can afford (Chun and?) but we need to hire for the skills of the future, not the past. However, anybody is better than Knowlton, who has neither.

---

People skills (and a lot of connections in college athletics) are going to be at least as important for a good AD in the future. The sad saga of this last year proves that.