Playing at the P12 level of major sports is causing major headaches that often appear to be unsolvable and don't produce the long-term rewards that its fans want. Here is an interesting article about college presidents who threw in the towel trying to justify the student-athlete dilemma and are much happier for it. This article is just fyi about an ongoing issue and not cause to throw a hissy-fit.

http://www.theolympian.com/2013/11/03/2808152/college-presidents-find-smaller.html

That ship has sailed unless we donate the stadium to the Panoramic Hill people for a community garden

tenplay;842213322 said:

---

Playing at the P12 level of major sports is causing major headaches that often appear to be unsolvable and don't produce the long-term rewards that its fans want. Here is an interesting article about college presidents who threw in the towel trying to justify the student-athlete dilemma and are much happier for it. This article is just fyi about an ongoing issue and not cause to throw a hissy-fit.

http://www.theolympian.com/2013/11/03/2808152/college-presidents-find-smaller.html

---

How do you propose paying off the stadium in an Ivy League model?

Final answer to OP question: NO.

Stanford's a de facto Ivy League school and they make it work. So should we.

It's too late. We have the most expensive facilities in the history of college athletics.

paul916;842213392 said:

---

Stanford's a de facto Ivy League school and they make it work. So should we.

---

We don't measure ourselves against Stanford anymore. Cal is the hardest school in the history of the world and Stanford by contrast is the easiest. Oh and they have money and we don't.

+1 new facilities = NO

That said, I could see football going out of style in 30-40 years just like horse racing and boxing.

paul916;842213392 said:

---

Stanford's a de facto Ivy League school and they make it work. So should we.

---

Stanford is not even close to the Ivy League model.

The Ivy League model is to de-emphasize spending on the rev sports, have no athletic scholarships, and play like minded institutions. They do play games with 'academic' grants for recruited athletes (usually replacing loans with grants up to the level of financial aid need). Ivy League schools all do this and compete against each other and smaller schools, so it's often not top competition in the non-rev sports, though there are some great teams if emphasized. Those schools are also bloody rich, so they don't care if athletics break even like public schools do, but they also don't join the arms race and spend on out of control facilities and coaches.

Stanford would wipe the floor of Ivy's in practically every sport due to the scholarships and the fact they compete against other top scholarship athletes (which is also a HUGE draw for top athletes).

If Cal were to entertain an 'Ivy League' model, it firstly couldn't have stadium debt, so it's too late. But it would also be wise to look at peer schools and try to come up with a LEAGUE with similar values. And that's not going to be schools like St. Marys or Pacific....it going to be schools like UCLA, Washington, etc. It's not going to work without that. It's also not going to happen withe massive amount of TV money coming in for the next decade or so.

ColoradoBear1;842213407 said:

---

If Cal were to entertain an 'Ivy League' model, it firstly couldn't have stadium debt, so it's too late. But it would also be wise to look at peer schools and try to come up with a LEAGUE with similar values. And that's not going to be schools like St. Marys or Pacific....it going to be schools like UCLA, Washington, etc. It's not going to work without that. It's also not going to happen withe massive amount of TV money coming in for the next decade or so.

---

So other than all those little details, it could happen. :p

Maybe it'll happen 50-100 years down the road, and at that point we very well could see UCLA and Washington joining us because they have similar reasons. But that far out, who knows?

Speaking of peer schools, Cal's the flagship school of California and thus will play D1 football, per the current definition of what a flagship school does in the U.S. Other example and peers include: Michigan, tOSU, Maryland, UDuh, North Carolina, etc.

I also am of the opinion that football may not be a very popular sport in 20 years or so.

Here is a problem that I see. The 59 rose Bowl Bears had an offensive line that averaged right around 200 lbs. Todays offensive lines average around 300 lbs and the other players are correspondingly much bigger than 50 years ago. Now have knee, elbow, shoulders etc become correspondingly less susceptible to injury. the answer is no and heads are also in the equation.

The average middle class family is going to steer their kids away from football and into games like baseball where when u retire u have a chance of living out a normal life.

I have been saying over the past few years that the best thing that can happen to a college football player is to have a collegiate career that is not quite good enough to move on to the Pros.

This is a problem for the game of football.

Cal had a ton of players flunk out or leave school 50 years ago so that problem is not new. The fact tho is that a number of schools already named in this post have solid football programs with good grad rates. It can be done but national championships are probably not going to accompany hi grad rates at Cal.

Academically cal is very tough and that means a high attrition rate. The only answer is too recruit good students who are also good athletes but that means the recruiting pool is smaller and pretty competitive.

waltwa;842213504 said:

---

The average middle class family is going to steer their kids away from football and into games like baseball where when u retire u have a chance of living out a normal life.

---

Soccer is the future. Don't believe me? Look at the average attendance in MLS. If you go to a game you'll see a large portion of the ppl attending are 13 and younger.

name any sport that u can play professionally and then expect to live a normal life after that sport and u have the wave of the future.

The dangerous contact sports will be the sports that poor kids around the world see as a way to a better life and in some cases it will be just that but not for the majority.

Phantomfan;842213387 said:

---

How do you propose paying off the stadium in an Ivy League model?

---

Ask Barsky
Apparently he's got it all figured out.

SoCalBear323;842213519 said:

---

Soccer is the future. Don't believe me? Look at the average attendance in MLS. If you go to a game you'll see a large portion of the ppl attending are 13 and younger.

---

I absolutely believe you because soccer was the future 30 years ago when I was a kid. They scoffed back then and they are still scoffing now. They never learn.

waltwa;842213552 said:

---

name any sport that u can play professionally and then expect to live a normal life after that sport and u have the wave of the future.

The dangerous contact sports will be the sports that poor kids around the world see as a way to a better life and in some cases it will be just that but not for the majority.

---

Sorry, but most professional sports have always been dominated by poor and lower middle class kids. Middle class and wealthy parents want their kids to focus on school. Football at the highest level will not suffer for being limited to poor kids.

When soccer in the U.S. is played unregulated and un-coached in the street, in alleys, sandlots, backyards, the playground after school, etc., for sheer fun, then it can become the dominate sport. I don't ever see that happening in the U.S., not for the foreseeable future and/or not without some kind of major change socially or what not.

Kids simply don't gain the creative and innate edge (like Lionel Messi) playing organized soccer. One can make the same argument for basketball and football to a lesser extent. In other words, it has to be grassroots and cultural for its players to excel and that's why there's no true American born soccer superstars.

Baseball in Latin America is the same way. Of course there are economic push/pull factors but without exceptional home grown players, it's very difficult to become a major spectator and cultural sport.

The alternative is not the Ivy model which would never work here and isn't necessary.
What could work is a program with an openly academic bias like Stanford.
Respond to the scandal of Cal football by doing a 180 and and remake the program to emphasize that academics is the priority. Yes, we would be recruiting out of a smaller pool but it would put football in sync with the rest of the university.
For those who worry that the teams wouldn't be good enough to generate the giving to pay for the facilities, how are we doing now?
It could even help. People might be more inclined to support the program-ESP and direct donations-if they felt that football complemented Cal's academic mission.

Until today I would have agreed with you, but check out this piece in the NYT today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/opinion/sunday/in-the-nba-zip-code-matters.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Bottom line: the more advantages you have as a kid the better your chances of making it as a pro. Of course, this may be different in football; and is likely to be more so in the future as the data on injuries accumulates, but at least in basketball, being poor appears to be a disadvantage (like it is for everything else).

I agree with a couple of points, but I may be the only one who thinks that Cal football reached its zenith with JT as it stands now..We won't see 10 wins in my lifetime in terms of our university culture and real commitment (I am not talking just money). Football is dying. Look at the high school football programs that Cal needs for obvious reasons. Boys are into all sorts of other sports now and it shows in the many programs that have had to drop divisions, and then look again, at the incredible separation of the super power schools, which happen to openly recruit and also have money for football. Lacrosse Tyler?
I agree that one practical direction would be to go all out on the academics - like Stanford and the Ivys - and let the university at least see achievement in terms of student success across the board. Beat the Ducks in the classroom? One of my lifetime dreams has been to see our football team resemble the excellence of our university. At it stands now, that won't happen. Scholar athletes? They are there if we want them. Pay for Memorial? Maybe we need rock concerts, roller derby and monster trucks.

Do any of you actually watch Ivy League football and basketball? The games are quite entertaining with skill and strategy emphasized more than brute strength and speed. A good example is the way Harvard took us apart in basketball last season. In the Ivies, we would probably be a front runner in football instead of the occasionally contending for a minor bowl in the P12. With Monty as our coach, we would be dominant like Kentucky in the Ivies and qualify for the Big Dance every year. With other lesser past coaches, we would still be in the hunt regularly. Perhaps we should be happy being what we are and set more reasonable goals for our teams.

barefan1;842213619 said:

---

The alternative is not the Ivy model which would never work here and isn't necessary.
What could work is a program with an openly academic bias like Stanford.
Respond to the scandal of Cal football by doing a 180 and and remake the program to emphasize that academics is the priority. Yes, we would be recruiting out of a smaller pool but it would put football in sync with the rest of the university.
For those who worry that the teams wouldn't be good enough to generate the giving to pay for the facilities, how are we doing now?
It could even help. People might be more inclined to support the program-ESP and direct donations-if they felt that football complemented Cal's academic mission.

---

Agree completely. We should seize on our current troubles as an opportunity to recast the entire football program.

OaktownBear;842213583 said:

---

I absolutely believe you because soccer was the future 30 years ago when I was a kid. They scoffed back then and they are still scoffing now. They never learn.

---

The first wave in the 70s failed to sweep the US, but it did set up some roots for the current revival. I think the sport has reached critical mass now, it's going to continue growing in the US. You now have soccer games every week on major networks, both from England and the MLS, and score updates from many European leagues on college football broadcasts from ABC and NBC. You have discussions about European football on college message boards across the country. Soccer's footprint in the US already looms large with younger fans and it's going to continue growing.

ColoradoBear1;842213407 said:

---

Stanford is not even close to the Ivy League model.

The Ivy League model is to de-emphasize spending on the rev sports, have no athletic scholarships, and play like minded institutions. They do play games with 'academic' grants for recruited athletes (usually replacing loans with grants up to the level of financial aid need). Ivy League schools all do this and compete against each other and smaller schools, so it's often not top competition in the non-rev sports, though there are some great teams if emphasized. Those schools are also bloody rich, so they don't care if athletics break even like public schools do, but they also don't join the arms race and spend on out of control facilities and coaches.

Stanford would wipe the floor of Ivy's in practically every sport due to the scholarships and the fact they compete against other top scholarship athletes (which is also a HUGE draw for top athletes).

If Cal were to entertain an 'Ivy League' model, it firstly couldn't have stadium debt, so it's too late. But it would also be wise to look at peer schools and try to come up with a LEAGUE with similar values. And that's not going to be schools like St. Marys or Pacific....it going to be schools like UCLA, Washington, etc. It's not going to work without that. It's also not going to happen withe massive amount of TV money coming in for the next decade or so.

---

Good post. Furd has approximately 900 plus athletes in an undergrad school of approximately 7,500. That means granting huge preferences (even in terms of qualified students) in admissions to athletes. Try selling that to our faculty. Furd's faculty has a completely different mindset to those who play on teams - they think they become leaders, well rounded people who can manage their time, and who will donate in larger percentages than the average student. They also think athletic teams will bring in donor money to academics, and they make that model work. They also have much larger operating deficits than Cal, which the Provost is happy to fund based on donor input. That could not be more further from an Ivy League model.

I think with Kline at QB and us in the Ivy League we roll over Columbia and Cornell

SoCalBear323;842213519 said:

---

Soccer is the future. Don't believe me? Look at the average attendance in MLS. If you go to a game you'll see a large portion of the ppl attending are 13 and younger.

---

They've been saying that since the 1970s and the NASL. Hasn't happened...

beelzebear;842213405 said:

---

+1 new facilities = NO

That said, I could see football going out of style in 30-40 years just like horse racing and boxing.

---

Not even that long.

GB54;842213968 said:

---

I think with Kline at QB and us in the Ivy League we roll over Columbia and Cornell

---

Kline will be at Stanford next year so we can all see how does under those conditions.

OaktownBear;842213583 said:

---

I absolutely believe you because soccer was the future 30 years ago when I was a kid. They scoffed back then and they are still scoffing now. They never learn.

---

Those in the know aren't scoffing now. Sorry man but in the United States Lionel Messi is more popular than Aaron Rodgers.