calumnus said:

---

SBGold said:

---

calumnus said:

---

SBGold said:

---

6956bear said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

BearoutEast67 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

BearoutEast67 said:

---

As a backhanded compliment, the transfer portal seems to be a reflection of Cal's ability to develop most players well. Now, until there's some NIL governance, we need the funds to keep our best players, who will be more likely to stay the more successful our team is.

The Cal degree remains a valued product for student-athletes who are not only focused on NIL money.

Consider this:
Number of High School Football players (2023-2024): 1,118,705
Number of FCS Football players: 14,837
Number of FBS Football players: 18,518
Number of College players invited to the NFL Combine (2025): 329
Number of players drafted into the NFL: 257
The average NFL career length is 3.3 years
Guaranteed NFL Rookie salary (2025): $840, 000.

There's only a 1.7% chance of being drafted into the NFL from an FCS program. And only a 0.022 % chance to make the NFL among high school players. That college degree still matters, as that NIL money will not be enough to support one for a lifetime of living.

---

Too bad most of those players never take a Prob/Stats class . . . they'd rather go with the "never stop reaching for your dream" approach. But to be fair, the demands placed on college players effectively eliminates many college majors for them to consider.

---

The college football world has passed you guys by. This argument is completely faulty in today's world. In fact, it cuts against you.

1. If there is only a 1.7% chance of being drafted all the more reason you need to maximize your earning coming from alums who are willing to pay you way more than your market value to where their universities logo. If we were talking about a guy choosing between $50K or a better degree, you guys might be right. Those aren't the guys we are talking about. When you are getting into 6 or 7 figures, as we are talking about here, the obvious smart play is to take the bird in the hand. If a guy gets $1m today and invests it with a piddly 5% return, he is looking at retiring with $7M. It's not like he will have no job after college. A lot of these guys will never earn the money that is being thrown at them outside of football even over a lifelong career. To say that NIL money won't last forever seems to be naive to what these guys are getting paid.

2. There may be a 1.7% chance ON AVERAGE that a guy gets drafted from an FCS program. But the 5th string CB at SJSU does not have the same chance as a starting QB in the Big Ten. We are talking about players on the high end. They have a much greater chance of being drafted. Do you think Marshawn Lynch had a 1.7% chance of getting drafted? And, not coincidentally, programs that pay more for players also generally offer a better chance to get to the next level. So they are maximizing both their current income and their chance of succeeding in their chosen field.

3. This analysis assumes a Cal degree magically gives one value. It does a little bit. But Cal alums mostly have higher lifetime earnings because they are elite students who choose to succeed academically at an elite level, who are exposed to an elite education and are highly motivated to take advantage of it and then are highly motivated in whatever they do after college. To the extent that is not you, you serious devalue the impact of that degree. Most football players are not elite students who are highly motivated to take advantage of the education and skills a high level academic institution can give them. They are highly motivated ATHLETES who are highly motivated to take advantage of the skills a high level athletic institution can give them. Most of these guys at the highest level are professional football players who are maximizing their football value, not their academic value. The value of an elite education at a school where they are practicing football is flat out lower for most of them.

The differential value between a Cal education and a Nebraska/Indiana/Texas education for someone who is mostly practicing football is simply not going to make up for a significant differential in pay and exposure and better football training. I don't know what the comparative NIL offers were for some of the high end players we lost, but with the dollars we are throwing around I think it is a hard argument to say you don't maximize your earnings now instead of choosing a path that may or may not make up the difference over 40 years. The lost opportunity cost on the investment alone is going to swamp the extra money they can make in a better nonfootball job that they might be able to make with a more elite education.

I think if these were your kids instead of guys you wish would play on your football team, you would suddenly see the wisdom of their decisions.

Again, there is a level at which your argument might still make sense. It is not the level that moves the needle on an ESPN analysis of how we did this offseason. ESPN cares that we lost Ott, Jet, Mendoza, Endries, not whether we lost guys who won't command large NIL payments.

---

I don't think Cal football should be steered by what ESPN thinks. Those idiots and FOX helped create this current college football mess. If my son were in the mix, h@ll no would I encourage him to think in your one-track manner. Always, always, develop 2-4 options for your future.

---

I give you too much credit to think anything but you are kidding yourself because you aren't stupid . If someone offers you $2m today + and more exposure and better training, you don't give up that opportunity to develop more much less value multiple alternatives. The saying isn't 10 birds across 4 potential bushes is worth 2 million birds in the hand.

You absolutely missed 90% of the point. If they want it, they are getting a college education that is worth almost as much to them + they are getting significantly more money.


Again, if it weren't for the fact that the reality of that decision means your football team isn't as good and you care about that a million times more than the value the player gets, you would see that. The attitude of some on this board seems to be that the 99% of college football players who make essentially the same decision are all stupid and if only they weren't such idiots they'd be coming here. Any neutral party would not only say they are making the right decision, they would say they would be damned fools not too.


So the bottom line is that you can convince yourself they are all dumb or you can provide a program with great coaching and administration and exposure plus cash offers that are competitive. Only one of those options works.

---

To make this simpler, I would ask everyone here if they would pay $1m to go to Cal instead of another college? Because in asking athletes to forgo that kind of cash, that is exactly what you are doing.


These are no longer the days where we are only comparing the better Cal education to the better Alabama football program and making an argument that the education is worth it. There are actual huge sums of (now above the table) money involved.

---

Many of the people on this board never had the ability to play a sport at this level. I played through JC. But when I was advised that my talent was not good enough to play high level I chose the academic path. I did not have the options of playing for many top notch programs. It made it an easy choice.

I had options in baseball (not football) after JC. But none were really good and did not offer full scholarships. But believe me if I would have had better options I likely would have gone for it. Regardless of the academic prestige. I think many do not understand the mindset of the elite athlete. They believe they are delusional. It hurts when somebdy tells you that your playing days are over. I was not an elite player but it still stings when your days are done. Especially when you want to continue.

My son played D1 soccer. He never once got a full scholarship. Those scholies are divided among the entire team. But when faced with making a decision he made a mostly soccer decision. I was not in full agreement though I understand how he felt. What drove the decision.

He chose an easier academic path for what he believed would be a better soccer experience. His life has turned out just fine. He is an environmental scientist making a good living in Washington state. Could he have made more money if he chose a higher academic school? Perhaps. But now these players are faced with taking the money and playing in a high profile program. And guess what if it does not work out as hoped they can now transfer and get paid again and hopefully play.

I was very mediocre in football. But there is nothing quite like a football locker room after a win. if you never lived that it is very hard to understand. I was better at baseball ( by a lot) but it never carried the same excitement or passion.

It is very easy to pick apart decisions made by others, when you have never been in a similar position. So if Cal is to become good at football they will need to commit. The value of the Cal degree is still a thing. But when faced with playing elite football and getting a bag it does not hold up. That is what we see with recruiting all over the nation. The best football programs with the most money win. So yes commit to support, provide good coaching and training, give the program the best exposure possible and provide competitive compensation. That is what the market is showing.

Cal is a great school. It is bad at the revenue sports. There is a reason. It is not bad decisions by potential student athletes it is poor support by the University. Excusing weak coaching and training. It is working to provide the best exposure possible. And now it also involves being competitive in compensation. Today. Not in years down the road when the Cal degree begins to pay dividends.

We have seen what selling the 40 year plan has brought. It has provided years of mediocre or worse teams. If Cal and its fans want more they need to commit to that idea. But it seems to me that Cal is getting exactly what they want. And then complaining that the athletes are just delusional or stupid.

Great athletes want a great experience from their sport. Cal needs to decide if that is what they want to provide or just simply be a participant. The decision is much harder for these athletes today than ever. Many here denigrate the entire NIL process. I am not a big fan but it is here. It is a big part of the decision making process.

Support, coaching and training, exposure and compensation matter. The 40 year plan for high level athletes is no longer the thing it used to be. There are great experiences to be had a lot of places. Cal needs to up its game in athletics. The school is too good to accept the consistent low performing revenue sports programs.

---

we have decided to just be a participant for far too long. I'm just tired of accepting mediocrity here in athletics when we do not in other parts of the University (which is rightly so).

Go Bears Forever

---

The thing is, just bring a participant used to be a sustainable option. There was enforcement of amateurism. We got as much from the PAC-12 as USC did whether we tried or not. The only consequence of not trying was being the PAC-8 school that didn't go the Rose Bowl since 1959.

We are in a different era now. Mediocre is not sustainable. And "mediocre" is a generous description of a coach that has lost twice as many conference games as he has won.

---

Looking back on it, why did we ever accept not going to the Rose Bowl since 1959 as being acceptable? I started following Cal in the Marc Hicks era (84ish), and having not been to the Rose Bowl since 59 at that time was an embarrassment.

Go Bears Forever

---

I said "sustainable" not "acceptable."

We made as much from the PAC-12 as USC did, whether we won or not. Mediocrity and worse might have been an embarrassment, but it was sustainable, it lasted for more than 6 decades. We can say it was "never acceptable" but the fact is we accepted it because here we are.

If mediocre wasn't "acceptable" why did we give a six year extension to a coach with a losing record who loses twice as many conference games as he wins? With the vast majority of this board celebrating it? People here consider "getting to a bowl" alone to be a "successful" season even if we go 2-6 in conference and get to 6-6 with an easy OOC schedule including an annual FCS win.

But it doesn't matter what we think is "acceptable." Going into the era of conference realignment mediocre or worse was/is no longer sustainable. We can no longer put out consistently mediocre or worse teams and expect to continue to be subsidized by others. There are now consequences.

---

Agree 100%

Go Bears Forever

SBGold said:

---

calumnus said:

---

SBGold said:

---

6956bear said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

BearoutEast67 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

BearoutEast67 said:

---

As a backhanded compliment, the transfer portal seems to be a reflection of Cal's ability to develop most players well. Now, until there's some NIL governance, we need the funds to keep our best players, who will be more likely to stay the more successful our team is.

The Cal degree remains a valued product for student-athletes who are not only focused on NIL money.

Consider this:
Number of High School Football players (2023-2024): 1,118,705
Number of FCS Football players: 14,837
Number of FBS Football players: 18,518
Number of College players invited to the NFL Combine (2025): 329
Number of players drafted into the NFL: 257
The average NFL career length is 3.3 years
Guaranteed NFL Rookie salary (2025): $840, 000.

There's only a 1.7% chance of being drafted into the NFL from an FCS program. And only a 0.022 % chance to make the NFL among high school players. That college degree still matters, as that NIL money will not be enough to support one for a lifetime of living.

---

Too bad most of those players never take a Prob/Stats class . . . they'd rather go with the "never stop reaching for your dream" approach. But to be fair, the demands placed on college players effectively eliminates many college majors for them to consider.

---

The college football world has passed you guys by. This argument is completely faulty in today's world. In fact, it cuts against you.

1. If there is only a 1.7% chance of being drafted all the more reason you need to maximize your earning coming from alums who are willing to pay you way more than your market value to where their universities logo. If we were talking about a guy choosing between $50K or a better degree, you guys might be right. Those aren't the guys we are talking about. When you are getting into 6 or 7 figures, as we are talking about here, the obvious smart play is to take the bird in the hand. If a guy gets $1m today and invests it with a piddly 5% return, he is looking at retiring with $7M. It's not like he will have no job after college. A lot of these guys will never earn the money that is being thrown at them outside of football even over a lifelong career. To say that NIL money won't last forever seems to be naive to what these guys are getting paid.

2. There may be a 1.7% chance ON AVERAGE that a guy gets drafted from an FCS program. But the 5th string CB at SJSU does not have the same chance as a starting QB in the Big Ten. We are talking about players on the high end. They have a much greater chance of being drafted. Do you think Marshawn Lynch had a 1.7% chance of getting drafted? And, not coincidentally, programs that pay more for players also generally offer a better chance to get to the next level. So they are maximizing both their current income and their chance of succeeding in their chosen field.

3. This analysis assumes a Cal degree magically gives one value. It does a little bit. But Cal alums mostly have higher lifetime earnings because they are elite students who choose to succeed academically at an elite level, who are exposed to an elite education and are highly motivated to take advantage of it and then are highly motivated in whatever they do after college. To the extent that is not you, you serious devalue the impact of that degree. Most football players are not elite students who are highly motivated to take advantage of the education and skills a high level academic institution can give them. They are highly motivated ATHLETES who are highly motivated to take advantage of the skills a high level athletic institution can give them. Most of these guys at the highest level are professional football players who are maximizing their football value, not their academic value. The value of an elite education at a school where they are practicing football is flat out lower for most of them.

The differential value between a Cal education and a Nebraska/Indiana/Texas education for someone who is mostly practicing football is simply not going to make up for a significant differential in pay and exposure and better football training. I don't know what the comparative NIL offers were for some of the high end players we lost, but with the dollars we are throwing around I think it is a hard argument to say you don't maximize your earnings now instead of choosing a path that may or may not make up the difference over 40 years. The lost opportunity cost on the investment alone is going to swamp the extra money they can make in a better nonfootball job that they might be able to make with a more elite education.

I think if these were your kids instead of guys you wish would play on your football team, you would suddenly see the wisdom of their decisions.

Again, there is a level at which your argument might still make sense. It is not the level that moves the needle on an ESPN analysis of how we did this offseason. ESPN cares that we lost Ott, Jet, Mendoza, Endries, not whether we lost guys who won't command large NIL payments.

---

I don't think Cal football should be steered by what ESPN thinks. Those idiots and FOX helped create this current college football mess. If my son were in the mix, h@ll no would I encourage him to think in your one-track manner. Always, always, develop 2-4 options for your future.

---

I give you too much credit to think anything but you are kidding yourself because you aren't stupid . If someone offers you $2m today + and more exposure and better training, you don't give up that opportunity to develop more much less value multiple alternatives. The saying isn't 10 birds across 4 potential bushes is worth 2 million birds in the hand.

You absolutely missed 90% of the point. If they want it, they are getting a college education that is worth almost as much to them + they are getting significantly more money.


Again, if it weren't for the fact that the reality of that decision means your football team isn't as good and you care about that a million times more than the value the player gets, you would see that. The attitude of some on this board seems to be that the 99% of college football players who make essentially the same decision are all stupid and if only they weren't such idiots they'd be coming here. Any neutral party would not only say they are making the right decision, they would say they would be damned fools not too.


So the bottom line is that you can convince yourself they are all dumb or you can provide a program with great coaching and administration and exposure plus cash offers that are competitive. Only one of those options works.

---

To make this simpler, I would ask everyone here if they would pay $1m to go to Cal instead of another college? Because in asking athletes to forgo that kind of cash, that is exactly what you are doing.


These are no longer the days where we are only comparing the better Cal education to the better Alabama football program and making an argument that the education is worth it. There are actual huge sums of (now above the table) money involved.

---

Many of the people on this board never had the ability to play a sport at this level. I played through JC. But when I was advised that my talent was not good enough to play high level I chose the academic path. I did not have the options of playing for many top notch programs. It made it an easy choice.

I had options in baseball (not football) after JC. But none were really good and did not offer full scholarships. But believe me if I would have had better options I likely would have gone for it. Regardless of the academic prestige. I think many do not understand the mindset of the elite athlete. They believe they are delusional. It hurts when somebdy tells you that your playing days are over. I was not an elite player but it still stings when your days are done. Especially when you want to continue.

My son played D1 soccer. He never once got a full scholarship. Those scholies are divided among the entire team. But when faced with making a decision he made a mostly soccer decision. I was not in full agreement though I understand how he felt. What drove the decision.

He chose an easier academic path for what he believed would be a better soccer experience. His life has turned out just fine. He is an environmental scientist making a good living in Washington state. Could he have made more money if he chose a higher academic school? Perhaps. But now these players are faced with taking the money and playing in a high profile program. And guess what if it does not work out as hoped they can now transfer and get paid again and hopefully play.

I was very mediocre in football. But there is nothing quite like a football locker room after a win. if you never lived that it is very hard to understand. I was better at baseball ( by a lot) but it never carried the same excitement or passion.

It is very easy to pick apart decisions made by others, when you have never been in a similar position. So if Cal is to become good at football they will need to commit. The value of the Cal degree is still a thing. But when faced with playing elite football and getting a bag it does not hold up. That is what we see with recruiting all over the nation. The best football programs with the most money win. So yes commit to support, provide good coaching and training, give the program the best exposure possible and provide competitive compensation. That is what the market is showing.

Cal is a great school. It is bad at the revenue sports. There is a reason. It is not bad decisions by potential student athletes it is poor support by the University. Excusing weak coaching and training. It is working to provide the best exposure possible. And now it also involves being competitive in compensation. Today. Not in years down the road when the Cal degree begins to pay dividends.

We have seen what selling the 40 year plan has brought. It has provided years of mediocre or worse teams. If Cal and its fans want more they need to commit to that idea. But it seems to me that Cal is getting exactly what they want. And then complaining that the athletes are just delusional or stupid.

Great athletes want a great experience from their sport. Cal needs to decide if that is what they want to provide or just simply be a participant. The decision is much harder for these athletes today than ever. Many here denigrate the entire NIL process. I am not a big fan but it is here. It is a big part of the decision making process.

Support, coaching and training, exposure and compensation matter. The 40 year plan for high level athletes is no longer the thing it used to be. There are great experiences to be had a lot of places. Cal needs to up its game in athletics. The school is too good to accept the consistent low performing revenue sports programs.

---

we have decided to just be a participant for far too long. I'm just tired of accepting mediocrity here in athletics when we do not in other parts of the University (which is rightly so).

Go Bears Forever

---

The thing is, just bring a participant used to be a sustainable option. There was enforcement of amateurism. We got as much from the PAC-12 as USC did whether we tried or not. The only consequence of not trying was being the PAC-8 school that didn't go the Rose Bowl since 1959.

We are in a different era now. Mediocre is not sustainable. And "mediocre" is a generous description of a coach that has lost twice as many conference games as he has won.

---

Looking back on it, why did we ever accept not going to the Rose Bowl since 1959 as being acceptable? I started following Cal in the Marc Hicks era (84ish), and having not been to the Rose Bowl since 59 at that time was an embarrassment.

Go Bears Forever

---

I think what you guys don't understand is that to some extent it wasn't that it was acceptable. It was that Cal chose it. The fact that 1959 is the year we went to the Rosebowl in football and won the national title in basketball and then started a massive drought is not a coincidence. Cal clearly took actions in 1960 and the next few years to deemphasize revenue sports. (and if it weren't for Cal doing that, UCLA probably never becomes UCLA) And it "makes sense" in a way. That was the time when revenue sports became revenue sports. When things went beyond taking some guys who were ringers who weren't really students and became a big money outlay, much of it under the table and in nefarious ways. Things were getting dirtier and dirtier and costlier and costlier. If you were going to get out, that was the time to get out. I do scratch my head at people's reactions today because I remember when college sports was an absolute sewer. When in the 80's they instituted a 700 SAT score requirement and most of Oklahoma's recruiting class failed. When guys were actually functionally illiterate. When USC and Alabama would recruit dozens of players they never intended to play just so other schools couldn't get them. When schools would have players beaten up to get them to leave their scholarships. When most of the power schools didn't pass the football because they had the other schools so overmatched that they could just predictably run the ball every play like you were playing Playstation and know you can get 9 yards a carry every time you run one play. (watch a classic game from the 70's and appreciate just how boring big time college football was back then. I remember watching a (I think) Notre Dame - Michigan game from the 70's and laughing because the team that was behind in the fourth quarter brought in their passing QB to try and catch up and he was 1) billed as a weird specialist; and 2) completed like 40% of his passes and it was deemed a desperation move like pulling the goalie in hockey.)

The problem is, Cal didn't get out because getting out completely would mean getting out of the conference which would mean giving up Olympic sports in a meaningful way too. So they hamstrung revenue sports and kept competing in Olympic sports. Meanwhile, this was also the time that blue bloods became blue bloods. It was a pivotal time to effectively drop out.

So was it "acceptable" not to go to a Rosebowl? Is it acceptable not to achieve something you weren't trying to achieve? Honestly, I don't think Cal well and truly tried in football until they fired Holmoe. Even Snyder was more of a fluke. (Snyder was hired over Steve Spurrier, was a RB coach for the Rams, and was hired under the regime of Ira Heyman, who I personally think was a very good chancellor but who was notoriously distrustful of revenue sports). I think that level of trying was very short lived and to the extent that they have tried since then, there is a clear lack of understanding what it takes to succeed in this business and that it is always going to be an ever growing arms race if you want to stay relevant.

SBGold said:

---

calumnus said:

---

SBGold said:

---

calumnus said:

---

SBGold said:

---

6956bear said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

BearoutEast67 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

BearoutEast67 said:

---

As a backhanded compliment, the transfer portal seems to be a reflection of Cal's ability to develop most players well. Now, until there's some NIL governance, we need the funds to keep our best players, who will be more likely to stay the more successful our team is.

The Cal degree remains a valued product for student-athletes who are not only focused on NIL money.

Consider this:
Number of High School Football players (2023-2024): 1,118,705
Number of FCS Football players: 14,837
Number of FBS Football players: 18,518
Number of College players invited to the NFL Combine (2025): 329
Number of players drafted into the NFL: 257
The average NFL career length is 3.3 years
Guaranteed NFL Rookie salary (2025): $840, 000.

There's only a 1.7% chance of being drafted into the NFL from an FCS program. And only a 0.022 % chance to make the NFL among high school players. That college degree still matters, as that NIL money will not be enough to support one for a lifetime of living.

---

Too bad most of those players never take a Prob/Stats class . . . they'd rather go with the "never stop reaching for your dream" approach. But to be fair, the demands placed on college players effectively eliminates many college majors for them to consider.

---

The college football world has passed you guys by. This argument is completely faulty in today's world. In fact, it cuts against you.

1. If there is only a 1.7% chance of being drafted all the more reason you need to maximize your earning coming from alums who are willing to pay you way more than your market value to where their universities logo. If we were talking about a guy choosing between $50K or a better degree, you guys might be right. Those aren't the guys we are talking about. When you are getting into 6 or 7 figures, as we are talking about here, the obvious smart play is to take the bird in the hand. If a guy gets $1m today and invests it with a piddly 5% return, he is looking at retiring with $7M. It's not like he will have no job after college. A lot of these guys will never earn the money that is being thrown at them outside of football even over a lifelong career. To say that NIL money won't last forever seems to be naive to what these guys are getting paid.

2. There may be a 1.7% chance ON AVERAGE that a guy gets drafted from an FCS program. But the 5th string CB at SJSU does not have the same chance as a starting QB in the Big Ten. We are talking about players on the high end. They have a much greater chance of being drafted. Do you think Marshawn Lynch had a 1.7% chance of getting drafted? And, not coincidentally, programs that pay more for players also generally offer a better chance to get to the next level. So they are maximizing both their current income and their chance of succeeding in their chosen field.

3. This analysis assumes a Cal degree magically gives one value. It does a little bit. But Cal alums mostly have higher lifetime earnings because they are elite students who choose to succeed academically at an elite level, who are exposed to an elite education and are highly motivated to take advantage of it and then are highly motivated in whatever they do after college. To the extent that is not you, you serious devalue the impact of that degree. Most football players are not elite students who are highly motivated to take advantage of the education and skills a high level academic institution can give them. They are highly motivated ATHLETES who are highly motivated to take advantage of the skills a high level athletic institution can give them. Most of these guys at the highest level are professional football players who are maximizing their football value, not their academic value. The value of an elite education at a school where they are practicing football is flat out lower for most of them.

The differential value between a Cal education and a Nebraska/Indiana/Texas education for someone who is mostly practicing football is simply not going to make up for a significant differential in pay and exposure and better football training. I don't know what the comparative NIL offers were for some of the high end players we lost, but with the dollars we are throwing around I think it is a hard argument to say you don't maximize your earnings now instead of choosing a path that may or may not make up the difference over 40 years. The lost opportunity cost on the investment alone is going to swamp the extra money they can make in a better nonfootball job that they might be able to make with a more elite education.

I think if these were your kids instead of guys you wish would play on your football team, you would suddenly see the wisdom of their decisions.

Again, there is a level at which your argument might still make sense. It is not the level that moves the needle on an ESPN analysis of how we did this offseason. ESPN cares that we lost Ott, Jet, Mendoza, Endries, not whether we lost guys who won't command large NIL payments.

---

I don't think Cal football should be steered by what ESPN thinks. Those idiots and FOX helped create this current college football mess. If my son were in the mix, h@ll no would I encourage him to think in your one-track manner. Always, always, develop 2-4 options for your future.

---

I give you too much credit to think anything but you are kidding yourself because you aren't stupid . If someone offers you $2m today + and more exposure and better training, you don't give up that opportunity to develop more much less value multiple alternatives. The saying isn't 10 birds across 4 potential bushes is worth 2 million birds in the hand.

You absolutely missed 90% of the point. If they want it, they are getting a college education that is worth almost as much to them + they are getting significantly more money.


Again, if it weren't for the fact that the reality of that decision means your football team isn't as good and you care about that a million times more than the value the player gets, you would see that. The attitude of some on this board seems to be that the 99% of college football players who make essentially the same decision are all stupid and if only they weren't such idiots they'd be coming here. Any neutral party would not only say they are making the right decision, they would say they would be damned fools not too.


So the bottom line is that you can convince yourself they are all dumb or you can provide a program with great coaching and administration and exposure plus cash offers that are competitive. Only one of those options works.

---

To make this simpler, I would ask everyone here if they would pay $1m to go to Cal instead of another college? Because in asking athletes to forgo that kind of cash, that is exactly what you are doing.


These are no longer the days where we are only comparing the better Cal education to the better Alabama football program and making an argument that the education is worth it. There are actual huge sums of (now above the table) money involved.

---

Many of the people on this board never had the ability to play a sport at this level. I played through JC. But when I was advised that my talent was not good enough to play high level I chose the academic path. I did not have the options of playing for many top notch programs. It made it an easy choice.

I had options in baseball (not football) after JC. But none were really good and did not offer full scholarships. But believe me if I would have had better options I likely would have gone for it. Regardless of the academic prestige. I think many do not understand the mindset of the elite athlete. They believe they are delusional. It hurts when somebdy tells you that your playing days are over. I was not an elite player but it still stings when your days are done. Especially when you want to continue.

My son played D1 soccer. He never once got a full scholarship. Those scholies are divided among the entire team. But when faced with making a decision he made a mostly soccer decision. I was not in full agreement though I understand how he felt. What drove the decision.

He chose an easier academic path for what he believed would be a better soccer experience. His life has turned out just fine. He is an environmental scientist making a good living in Washington state. Could he have made more money if he chose a higher academic school? Perhaps. But now these players are faced with taking the money and playing in a high profile program. And guess what if it does not work out as hoped they can now transfer and get paid again and hopefully play.

I was very mediocre in football. But there is nothing quite like a football locker room after a win. if you never lived that it is very hard to understand. I was better at baseball ( by a lot) but it never carried the same excitement or passion.

It is very easy to pick apart decisions made by others, when you have never been in a similar position. So if Cal is to become good at football they will need to commit. The value of the Cal degree is still a thing. But when faced with playing elite football and getting a bag it does not hold up. That is what we see with recruiting all over the nation. The best football programs with the most money win. So yes commit to support, provide good coaching and training, give the program the best exposure possible and provide competitive compensation. That is what the market is showing.

Cal is a great school. It is bad at the revenue sports. There is a reason. It is not bad decisions by potential student athletes it is poor support by the University. Excusing weak coaching and training. It is working to provide the best exposure possible. And now it also involves being competitive in compensation. Today. Not in years down the road when the Cal degree begins to pay dividends.

We have seen what selling the 40 year plan has brought. It has provided years of mediocre or worse teams. If Cal and its fans want more they need to commit to that idea. But it seems to me that Cal is getting exactly what they want. And then complaining that the athletes are just delusional or stupid.

Great athletes want a great experience from their sport. Cal needs to decide if that is what they want to provide or just simply be a participant. The decision is much harder for these athletes today than ever. Many here denigrate the entire NIL process. I am not a big fan but it is here. It is a big part of the decision making process.

Support, coaching and training, exposure and compensation matter. The 40 year plan for high level athletes is no longer the thing it used to be. There are great experiences to be had a lot of places. Cal needs to up its game in athletics. The school is too good to accept the consistent low performing revenue sports programs.

---

we have decided to just be a participant for far too long. I'm just tired of accepting mediocrity here in athletics when we do not in other parts of the University (which is rightly so).

Go Bears Forever

---

The thing is, just bring a participant used to be a sustainable option. There was enforcement of amateurism. We got as much from the PAC-12 as USC did whether we tried or not. The only consequence of not trying was being the PAC-8 school that didn't go the Rose Bowl since 1959.

We are in a different era now. Mediocre is not sustainable. And "mediocre" is a generous description of a coach that has lost twice as many conference games as he has won.

---

Looking back on it, why did we ever accept not going to the Rose Bowl since 1959 as being acceptable? I started following Cal in the Marc Hicks era (84ish), and having not been to the Rose Bowl since 59 at that time was an embarrassment.

Go Bears Forever

---

I said "sustainable" not "acceptable."

We made as much from the PAC-12 as USC did, whether we won or not. Mediocrity and worse might have been an embarrassment, but it was sustainable, it lasted for more than 6 decades. We can say it was "never acceptable" but the fact is we accepted it because here we are.

If mediocre wasn't "acceptable" why did we give a six year extension to a coach with a losing record who loses twice as many conference games as he wins? With the vast majority of this board celebrating it? People here consider "getting to a bowl" alone to be a "successful" season even if we go 2-6 in conference and get to 6-6 with an easy OOC schedule including an annual FCS win.

But it doesn't matter what we think is "acceptable." Going into the era of conference realignment mediocre or worse was/is no longer sustainable. We can no longer put out consistently mediocre or worse teams and expect to continue to be subsidized by others. There are now consequences.

---

Agree 100%

Go Bears Forever

---

I've said this for years that people did not understand the financial fundamentals here. That most of the money for Cal was in participating, not winning. The conference/TV money dwarfed the ticket sales and game day revenue. From a financial perspective investing a lot of money to win more was just not a good play. You had to see a really high value in the intangibles. This was much more pronounced in basketball than football, but it was still there. And "but football does makes money" misses the point. If you make $10M a year in gross revenue now, you don't invest $10M more a year in hopes that you MIGHT gross $15M (or might not). The extra investment is a net loss.

This has clearly guided Cal since Sandy, Tedford, and Monty left. The problem is, as calumnus points out, that dynamic changed rapidly with the Pac-12 crashing and burning. The cash cow died. Without being able to offer a competitive program, Cal had to accept a conference/tv deal that sucks. The value of mere participation dropped precipitously. The question is whether Cal can switch gears and even if they do, can they make it work as a financial proposition