He told the donors for the Mens Olympic sports that if they want to keep them, they need to raise money to get them endowed - that the revenue sports will be spending their revenue on their sports. They got a timeline to get that done essentially - basically the time that the UC will be giving both Cal and UCLA extra resources (Money) to get the athletic house in order (Cal is getting 10 million from UCLA and 15 additional million from the UC to keep sports afloat for at least three years). In other words, he told them that we were all in on football and they need to write the checks on the other stuff if they want it to continue. Weeks later we got a $23 million dollar gift to Golf.01Bear said:mbBear said:No one prior, including your cited Tien has said a (men's) sport has to be self-sustaining; Barbour at least raised the temperature in the room...not sure what you are looking for, either they can or can't make it...the only question there is timeline right?01Bear said:mbBear said:Yes, there was a big conference call with boosters. It's been posted about before, and I believe (not certain) there is a transcript.01Bear said:mbBear said:01Bear said:mbBear said:Damn, we should have set an over/under and made wagers to help NIL. Didn't even get to 5 months of Lyons on the job before the posts came!01Bear said:Hawaii Haas said:ColoradoBear said:
Larry Scott's supposed Asia focus was a smokescreen for how poorly the pac 12 was doing in the US market. I don't see any benefits to continuing that blunder. As sloth alludes to, there is only one way Cal athletics remains relevant - success at football in our local and national markets. Anything else is a waste of time and effort.
College Gameday and the Miami game (fan experiences mostly) does me give hope that it's possible to regain some national prominence. Will Cal get more college applications or fans at CMS by playing American sports overseas? Doubt it. Foreign countries barely even grasp the concept of American college athletics - these one off games are drawing interest out of novelty only.
While I agree the biggest impact comes from that, we are seeing a proliferation of new media tv and streaming options that will allow anyone in the world to watch American Football (an entertaining product for a long tail of fans). This will only grow in time. The time is now to build a brand.
So, why couldn't Cal and Hawaii play a game there every 4 (or 6 or 8) years. Ask, beg an ESPN to invest a bit of marketing dollars, and show these games on ESPN+, YouTube TV, or some other platform?
November is a perfect time to be showing live college football because it's in between their other sports seasons. I could see evening Cal home games then followed by a Hawaii home games. That would be late morning and then early afternoon Sunday start times in AUS.
While novelty is one thing, and the bigger prize (casual American viewer) is what everyone is sought after - what about our Identity as a Pacific school and a little long term thinking?
My guess is Lyons would see the value.
I'm not impressed by what Lyons has done with the athletic side at Cal so far. Or rather his lack of action (especially with regard to firing Knowlton and Wilcox) suggest to me that he's little different than Tien. Worse, his capitulating to the UC system and surrendering the "California" and "University of California" monikers suggest he's worse than Tien.
I've been saying from the start that Lyons needs to can Knowlton. I've been repeatedly placated by Cal alumni who went to school with Lyons and insisted that he would be a good Chancellor for the AD department, including replacing Knowlton with a competent AD. Yet, they had nothing to support their assertion besides hopium. They projected their desires on to Lyons as they drank the Koolaid, all because (1) they knew Lyons when they were in school (2) Lyons is a Cal alumnus and fan, and/or (3) Lyons was a competent/good/great dean at Haas. In the meantime, Lyons has done nothing to show he's not just Tien with a Cal degree.
No Cal Chancellor has ever said that men's sports have to be fully endowed; clearly runs opposite to what Knowlton was pushing.
No Cal Chancellor has ever linked the success of football to being as important to the mission of the University.
Why anyone thought anything would happen by November 1? Knowlton is a lackey, that was clear on the big call with the boosters and that was clear at the reception before the Auburn game.
Unless Knowlton is fired for cause because of the women's swimming debacle, he is getting paid... he needs to go, but he represents nothing for the future of Cal sports....
I'm not sure to what the first two paragraphs are responding. Did Lyons make statements along those lines? If so, what plan did he propose to achieve those goals?
As for Knowlton, he should've been canned for cause over the McKeever situation. Either he was aware of the abuse and did nothing or he didn't know what was going on in his own department. Either way, he's proven to be incompetent at fulfilling his duties. That should be sufficient for a finding of cause foe termination.
Also, I have been repeatedly assured that Knowlton is a fan of Cal football. If that's the case, he should know just how badly Knowlton and Wilcox have screwed the pooch. That he didn't have a plan to dismiss Knowlton immediately and replace him with a competent AD is not encouraging. Again, based solely on what I've seen from Lyons relative to the athletic department, he's proven to be no better than Tien.
Thanks for the response. Did Lyons lay out his plans for achieving the goals he stated? If not, I still fail to see how he's any different from Tien.
I am not aware if Lyons said how we achieve the level of success for football that is aligned with the goals and direction of the University.
I want no part of a plan that was devised in a 2 month window, or whatever we are talking about....where Cal has been and where Cal HOPEFULLY is going isn't a quick fix, especially with NIL adding to the complexity. Maybe you are in a business that can be changed around in a few weeks, or you are smart enough to have your own business and have changed up quickly and easily...my opinion is that isn't Cal Athletics.
Without concrete plans, it's all just so much hot air. In short, the end result is the same as when Tien was chancellor: a lot of wasted breath purporting to support Cal athletics but really nothing solid to back that up.
As for a two month plan, heck, I was assured that Lyons was a Cal alum and fan. Surely, he would've had a plan in place to replace Knowlton from day one if he were truly a fan. That is, coming into the job, he would have known just how badly Knowlton and Wilcox had screwed the pooch and he would know that they (or at a minimum, Knowlton) need to be replaced immediately. Also, if he can identify the problem before being installed as chancellor, what kept him from formulating plans to fix said problems?
As I see it, the Lyons supporters are being blinded by confirmation bias instead of applying critical thinking skills. They believe that Lyons is a fellow Cal alumnus and fan, so they buy into the idea that he will turn around Cal's athletic department even though Lyons has provided no plans for how he will do this. While I'm not suggesting Lyons can't or won't turn around the Cal athletic department, what he has done so far is not significantly different from what Tien did, which was provide a lot of lip service but no actual actions.
The fact that even Lyons supporters cannot point to any action he has taken to turn around the athletic department speaks volumes, IMHO. Again, he could have and should have terminated Knowlton immediately upon being appointed Chancellor. Knowlton was either complicit in the McKeever abuse and covered it up or had no control over his own department. Either way, that should be sufficient grounds for termination with cause. Also, given that Dan Guerrero (among others) is available to be athletic director, it shouldn't be hard to find a replacement for Knowlton. Instead, here we are nearing the end of football season and Cal's absentee athletic director is still MIA from the campus from where he's drawing paychecks.
He also essentially said that women sports and title 9 would be adhered to and that the revenue from that would be gotten from somewhere at the university - which is essentially what Carol was doing with her AD contributions. So basically the men's sports have to pay for themselves only - not women's athletics. I expect that they want to raise endowment on the women's side as well obviously, but there is less money coming in on that side.
No one has said how Cal will deal with the house agreement. I don't know if there is an extra 20 million lying around but I doubt it.
He did not torch the building to rebuild on the run, as many here think he should have. But he definitely was clear on the direction - donate more to endow your sports - like a real endowment that generates the true revenue requirement for full scholarships, travel, coaching, practice space, etc - or you are done.
Dan Guerrero would be a disaster as he was at UCLA.