<blockquote><div class="name-said">heartofthebear;687207 said:</div><hr>Thank you for keeping it real. In other words we don't have the resources to compete with the big boys who have already established top tier football programs in the conference. That is what I thought, just wanted to hear somebody say it and wondering why we are acting like we do. So, next question. When do you think we should join the big east?<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Do you understand nothing about the history of Cal's football program? You would rather that Cal just amble off to the Big East instead of staying in the Pac-12? What are you talking about?<br /><br /><blockquote><div class="name-said">heartofthebear;687207 said:</div><hr>My point is that you can't have it both ways. You can't act like you are a player in the conference if your football program is constrained like it is at Cal because football drives everything and the top schools in the conference can out compete Cal financially. What is your plan to change this? My plan is to replace the AD with someone who has the organizational sophistication to free up the football program from it's current constraints which, quite frankly seem a little Neolithic in nature. I would like a AD that puts more weight and importance on the football program than Sandy currently does. Facilities aside, the football program is being characterised with the administration as a spending liability rather than a wise investment. That exists because Sandy does not have the type of personality to really sell football to the power that be at Berkeley. That is my humble opinion. I'd like to see Gladstone back.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Oh, I see. You'd rather that SB and JT not even try. <br /><br />Never mind that the ESP is underway with the explicit goal of putting Cal's AD on a competitive footing with other Pac-12 ADs. <br /><br />Never mind that there has been a huge investment in upgrading facilities (read: infrastructure necessary to build championships). <br /><br />Never mind that many people are working hard to overcome administrative and academic hostility to the football program, community inertia, and resources not on a par with institutions like USC, Oregon, Washington, and even UCLA.<br /><br />And you want to win a Rose Bowl, how? Compete for a National Championship, how? You want your Rose Bowl berths yesterday, now, immediately, and post haste. Sure, no problem. <br /><br />You don't have a plan; you've got a case of hemorrhoids.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">heartofthebear;687207 said:</div><hr>Thank you for keeping it real. In other words we don't have the resources to compete with the big boys who have already established top tier football programs in the conference. That is what I thought, just wanted to hear somebody say it and wondering why we are acting like we do. So, next question. When do you think we should join the big east?<br /><br />My point is that you can't have it both ways. You can't act like you are a player in the conference if your football program is constrained like it is at Cal because football drives everything and the top schools in the conference can out compete Cal financially. What is your plan to change this? My plan is to replace the AD with someone who has the organizational sophistication to free up the football program from it's current constraints which, quite frankly seem a little Neolithic in nature. I would like a AD that puts more weight and importance on the football program than Sandy currently does. Facilities aside, the football program is being characterised with the administration as a spending liability rather than a wise investment. That exists because Sandy does not have the type of personality to really sell football to the power that be at Berkeley. That is my humble opinion. I'd like to see Gladstone back.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Sandy attempted to change the direction of the program when she proposed reducing the deficit by cutting the five sports, and she got slammed for it. The alumni can't simultaneously:<br /><br />1) Demand that the football program join the arms race.<br />2) Demand that the AD support the numerous non-revenue male sports that give us a 29-sport program, and create part of the drain on the athletic department.<br />3) Sit on their hands when it comes to fundraising. My contribution level is somewhere between 1K and 2K per year, which represents about 1.3% of my gross income. I'd give more if I could afford it, which is why I'm not in ESP.<br /><br />As long as we don't have a Phil Knight or a John Arrillaga to fund the athletic program, and as long as U$C basically functions as pro football for the LA metroplex, we're going to struggle to compete with them, because of the financial gap. That's not going to change unless people are willing to pony up more money. Based on the widespread bitching and moaning and refusal to make contributions by many for this past season at AT & T, I don't think our fanbase is willing to do what's needed.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">NewYorkCityBear;687296 said:</div><hr>If some on the board used those terms (certainly not me because I personally think the importance of the recruiting ratings game is ridiculously inflated) , it's typical hyperbole. There is rarely ANYTHING "historical" about what a group of 17-year olds decides to do.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Good play. Presence or absence of one "recruiting" coach should not be a game-changer when one should be considering a whole host of other more important factors, 17, or not. Somebody please give 'em some wisdom, not a sales pitch from a paid mouth.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">FiatSlug;687380 said:</div><hr>Do you understand nothing about the history of Cal's football program? You would rather that Cal just amble off to the Big East instead of staying in the Pac-12? What are you talking about?<br /><br /><br /><br />Oh, I see. You'd rather that SB and JT not even try. <br /><br />Never mind that the ESP is underway with the explicit goal of putting Cal's AD on a competitive footing with other Pac-12 ADs. <br /><br />Never mind that there has been a huge investment in upgrading facilities (read: infrastructure necessary to build championships). <br /><br />Never mind that many people are working hard to overcome administrative and academic hostility to the football program, community inertia, and resources not on a par with institutions like USC, Oregon, Washington, and even UCLA.<br /><br />And you want to win a Rose Bowl, how? Compete for a National Championship, how? You want your Rose Bowl berths yesterday, now, immediately, and post haste. Sure, no problem. <br /><br />You don't have a plan; you've got a case of hemorrhoids.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I apologize if it sounds like I don't appreciate those actions, but according to comments from this board on this topic, the new facilities have put us in such debt that we are in a spending freeze. How can we be competitive if we have a spending freeze until the debt is paid off? How long is that-- 10 years? By that time we will be so far behind other programs that we will never be competitive with them. It seems dysfunctional to allocate all the Pac 12 network money to prior expenses and not leave some available to use if $$ is needed now.<br /><br />Cal fans have been waiting for generations and you imply that we are impatient. Great marketing strategy to blame the fans for the shortcomings at AT&T etc. As I have said before, it makes more sense for Cal to donate to itself because they would get a return on that investment. I am spending all I can and it pisses me off that some are trying to manipulate me in to spending more by implying that I am not credible unless I do. So the wealthy only get to have a voice on this board. I hope this elitist crap isn't coming from within the admin because if it is, you are no less sleazy than Sark.

Cal fans have been waiting...and with the exception of the major donors, Cal fans haven't done diddly squat. Do you understand? <br /><br />I did not blame the fans for the AT&T shortcomings: that's all on the Athletic Department. At the same time, it takes more than a few hundred people to build up the equity needed to get the program over the hump and on the Road to Pasadena. No one is trying to manipulate you into giving more than what is reasonable. If you wanna be mad at anyone, be made at your fellow alums who could give more, but don't.<br /><br />Contrary to what you might think, I am not wealthy.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">FiatSlug;687619 said:</div><hr>Cal fans have been waiting...and with the exception of the major donors, Cal fans haven't done diddly squat. Do you understand? <br /><br />I did not blame the fans for the AT&T shortcomings: that's all on the Athletic Department. At the same time, it takes more than a few hundred people to build up the equity needed to get the program over the hump and on the Road to Pasadena. No one is trying to manipulate you into giving more than what is reasonable. If you wanna be mad at anyone, be made at your fellow alums who could give more, but don't.<br /><br />Contrary to what you might think, I am not wealthy.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I think a bigger problem than lack of alumni support is a legacy of chancellors that want to make an example of the football program every chance they get. It's hard enough to compete in this conference when we are united and supporting one another. It is impossible when one department fights another over funds. I was under the impression that the university would want to put $$ towards football because it tends to pay off. But I guess I was wrong about that. The university officials are in an infinitely better positon than I am to assess what is a wise investment football or otherwise. But my guess is that our competitors have a different set of priorities that allows them a competitive advantage when funding football. And I am of the opinion that a funding advantage is a performance advantage. So I guess I will have to accept that, at least for the next few years, we will be Holiday bowl bound at best, unless we get lucky and the BCS fairy magically graces us with a special year.

I think you are hoping for an additional 1,000 alums to give $10,000 each. That's all good, but I say let's start with 10,000 more people showing up for the games(I don't even mean per game, I mean for the season)...and Heart: you want a more responsive University? Fine, create a bigger lobbying force(aka. people at the game).

<blockquote><div class="name-said">FiatSlug;687119 said:</div><hr>No, what is shows is that there are any number of self-important and self-righteous "fans" who imagine that the sky is falling.<br /><br />For Lupoi, it's apparently all about the bucks. If he really believed the rhetoric he was selling to Cal recruits, he would have been thrilled with a raise to $300K and would have told Sarkisian that he's staying at Cal. <br /><br />Lupoi also didn't understand the value of honoring his word because he reneged on the deal he had with Tedford to stay at Cal if Cal matched UW's offer of $300K. In short, Lupoi has debased the value of his word for money.<br /><br />Apparently you think that SB and JT could have taken care of Lupoi by simply snapping their fingers and saying, "Done!".<br /><br />This ignores so many things. Just off the top of my head, it ignores:<br /><ul><li>the pressures on the AD from the administrative and academic sides to eliminate fiscal deficits,<br /><li>the announced elimination (temporary as it was) of five sports in September 2010,<br /><li>with the exception of Stanf*rd, Cal's AD supports more sports (29) than any other Pac-12 Athletic Department (Stanf*rd supports 34)<br /><li>servicing the debt on the construction of desperately needed facilities represented by the SAHPC and the renovation of Cal Memorial,<br /><li>revenues from the new Pac-12 TV contracts don't kick in until after July 1, 2012,<br /><li>2012-2013 revenues are already committed towards meeting obligations related to ending marketing contracts and Pac-12 network startup costs,<br /><li>Pac-12 TV contract revenues in future years are already committed towards eliminating the AD's operating deficit,<br /><li>raising the salary of an assistant coach to 3x the previous amount would have had a concomitant effect on the salaries of all the other assistants (9 assistants and coordinators total).<br /></ul><br /><br />I'm sure others on this board could come up with other important factors that I haven't mentioned here.<br /><br />In short, it's not as simple as you would have us believe.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />As usual, you bring solid facts and wise perspective to the debate.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">heartofthebear;687628 said:</div><hr>The university officials are in an infinitely better positon than I am to assess what is a wise investment football or otherwise. <hr></blockquote><br /><br />Yes they are.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">mbBear;687788 said:</div><hr>I think you are hoping for an additional 1,000 alums to give $10,000 each. That's all good, but I say let's start with 10,000 more people showing up for the games(I don't even mean per game, I mean for the season)...and Heart: you want a more responsive University? Fine, create a bigger lobbying force(aka. people at the game).<hr></blockquote><br /><br />It is interesting you bring up those #s. I was thinking that 10,000 more for one game at say an average $50 per ticket is.... guess what <b>[SIZE="2"]$500,000.00[/SIZE]</b> Gee where have I seen that figure before. <br /><br />And I always wondered why they closed off certain sections of the stadium over the last few years, reducing the capacity by approximately 10,000 seats. so when USC or Stanford come to memorial there are approx. 10,000 less seats to sell. In the past I remember many such games where 70,000+ would show up. Some games got close to 80,000 as the total capacity was around 78,000. It has been years since that has happened because it no longer can happen no matter how many new fans come.<br /><br />Anyway, I imagine there were good reasons for the closures but the impact on revenue is undeniable.