There was a letter to the editor of the Chronic this morning essentially demanding that Sandy Barbour be fired. No big news, except for the fact that the author was Bob O'Donnell, major Cal donor, past president of the UC Berkeley Foundation, and member of the Chancellor's advisory committee (or at least he was under Birgeneau).

Could mean that Sandy has lost the major alumni, or the fact that Bob went public could mean that there's resistance from the Chancellor's office and he's trying to exert pressure.

UrsaMajor;842234776 said:

---

There was a letter to the editor of the Chronic this morning essentially demanding that Sandy Barbour be fired. No big news, except for the fact that the author was Bob O'Donnell, major Cal donor, past president of the UC Berkeley Foundation, and member of the Chancellor's advisory committee (or at least he was under Birgeneau).

Could mean that Sandy has lost the major alumni, or the fact that Bob went public could mean that there's resistance from the Chancellor's office and he's trying to exert pressure.

---

Yup. That's the one. I thought by some strange coincidence it might be some other O'Donnell...but no. It's him.

Here are the 2 letters...one from Sandy and other from O'Donnell.



Cal's working on it

The story about the academic performance of Cal's student-athletes was an example of reporting that is accurate yet surprisingly incomplete.

While the headline "Many Cal athletes fall short - why?" (Nov. 23) is suggestive, it is never noted in the story that, in fact, 78 percent of our student-athletes graduate (on nine teams, more than 90 percent), compared to 91 percent for the entire undergraduate population. Are we satisfied with that? No, we're not, and won't be until we get to 100 percent. But that's a number worth reporting.

We have also acknowledged that the academic performance of our football program has been of serious concern. We have been working hard to address it for more than a year, long before the recent flurry of articles about past performance. So why not report the initial results of the campus' efforts? The latest data provided by the NCAA for the Cal football program show an estimated graduation rate of 65 percent for students admitted in 2007, an improvement of almost 50 percent from the only number cited in the reporting.

The team's most recent GPA was the best it has been in five years, and there has been significant improvement in its estimated Academic Progress Rate, moving from a 923 a year ago to an estimated 969.

The bottom line: Administrators, faculty and students have been working hard together on this issue. We have more work to do. We are seeing signs of progress, and that too should be known.

Sandy Barbour,

director of athletics, UC Berkeley


-------------------

She's the problem

Cal Athletic Director Sandy Barbour's admission ("Tackling 'serious' athletics problem, Nov. 20) that "pressure to win" resulted in less focus on academic standards is sufficient grounds for termination.

Instead, we are now supposed to believe that she is the solution to the problem created during her nine years in this role?

Come on, Cal! The solution is obvious.

Robert O'Donnell, Atherton

UrsaMajor;842234776 said:

---

There was a letter to the editor of the Chronic this morning essentially demanding that Sandy Barbour be fired. No big news, except for the fact that the author was Bob O'Donnell, major Cal donor, past president of the UC Berkeley Foundation, and member of the Chancellor's advisory committee (or at least he was under Birgeneau).

Could mean that Sandy has lost the major alumni, or the fact that Bob went public could mean that there's resistance from the Chancellor's office and he's trying to exert pressure.

---

Why make these comments in the "Letters to the Editor" page of the SF Chronicle? Isn't there another more appropriate focused forum? How about face to face? Significant contributors divided about important issues should not resort to desperate rhetorical negativity and innuendo. Sadly, shame on us and shame on him.

Go Sandy and go Bears!

What's wrong with a letter to the editor?

"Bungling" Barbour's job performance is not, and should not be, exempt from criticism and public scrutiny.

Go Cal Alumni who Care! Go Bears!

I think the strategy is to create a public consensus that she should be fired-there have already been other editorials and opinion pieces. The consensus then snowballs and overwhelms the chancellor.

Oh man . . . .

Dissension on the team and among the rich alums—

What's next?!!!

Rally committee ultimate fighting championship !

Bearacious;842234853 said:

---

Dissension on the team and among the rich alums

What's next?!!!

---

Dissension on Bear Insider? Oh wait, that has already happened.

oskihasahearton;842234816 said:

---

Why make these comments in the "Letters to the Editor" page of the SF Chronicle? Isn't there another more appropriate focused forum? How about face to face? Significant contributors divided about important issues should not resort to desperate rhetorical negativity and innuendo. Sadly, shame on us and shame on him.

Go Sandy and go Bears!

---

I don't believe everything I read and I don't believe ANYTHING I read in the
Chronicle until it is published in a credible newpaper.

I wish I had so much money that my opinion was posted on the web by others rather than myself.

oskihasahearton;842234816 said:

---

Why make these comments in the "Letters to the Editor" page of the SF Chronicle? Isn't there another more appropriate focused forum? How about face to face? Significant contributors divided about important issues should not resort to desperate rhetorical negativity and innuendo. Sadly, shame on us and shame on him.

Go Sandy and go Bears!

---

My guess is that he has already talked to the chancellor, and that did not work for him. So as someone else posted, he is trying to drum up public support for his position.

Phantomfan;842234871 said:

---

I wish I had so much money that my opinion was posted on the web by others rather than myself.

---

Gosh, all these posts on BI, why isn't the money rolling in?

Whatever "Bob" money isn't everything. Stop paying but don't extort.

He has a point.

BeachyBear;842234916 said:

---

Gosh, all these posts on BI, why isn't the money rolling in?

---

I stopped putting banner ads in my sig.

Good for him. He did the right thing. He came out publicly against an AD that is wasting his money on terrible football coaches.

hanky1;842234787 said:

---

She's the problem

Cal Athletic Director Sandy Barbour's admission ("Tackling 'serious' athletics problem, Nov. 20) that "pressure to win" resulted in less focus on academic standards is sufficient grounds for termination.

Instead, we are now supposed to believe that she is the solution to the problem created during her nine years in this role?

Come on, Cal! The solution is obvious.

Robert O'Donnell, Atherton

---

From what I understand, the stats released by the NCAA concern graduation rates from 1998 to 2006. Sandy started in 2004, right? Do we have more recent statistics available, ones which are more indicative of her tenure?

UrsaMajor;842234776 said:

---

There was a letter to the editor of the Chronic this morning essentially demanding that Sandy Barbour be fired. No big news, except for the fact that the author was Bob O'Donnell, major Cal donor, past president of the UC Berkeley Foundation, and member of the Chancellor's advisory committee (or at least he was under Birgeneau).

Could mean that Sandy has lost the major alumni, or the fact that Bob went public could mean that there's resistance from the Chancellor's office and he's trying to exert pressure.

---

I guess no bowl tickets for Bob. (Good for you Bob)

BearyWhite;842235014 said:

---

From what I understand, the stats released by the NCAA concern graduation rates from 1998 to 2006. Sandy started in 2004, right? Do we have more recent statistics available, ones which are more indicative of her tenure?

---

Sandy wrote a letter addressing this. It's shown in post #2, and below.

hanky1;842234787 said:

---

Cal's working on it

The story about the academic performance of Cal's student-athletes was an example of reporting that is accurate yet surprisingly incomplete.

While the headline "Many Cal athletes fall short - why?" (Nov. 23) is suggestive, it is never noted in the story that, in fact, 78 percent of our student-athletes graduate (on nine teams, more than 90 percent), compared to 91 percent for the entire undergraduate population. Are we satisfied with that? No, we're not, and won't be until we get to 100 percent. But that's a number worth reporting.

We have also acknowledged that the academic performance of our football program has been of serious concern. We have been working hard to address it for more than a year, long before the recent flurry of articles about past performance. So why not report the initial results of the campus' efforts? The latest data provided by the NCAA for the Cal football program show an estimated graduation rate of 65 percent for students admitted in 2007, an improvement of almost 50 percent from the only number cited in the reporting.

The team's most recent GPA was the best it has been in five years, and there has been significant improvement in its estimated Academic Progress Rate, moving from a 923 a year ago to an estimated 969.

The bottom line: Administrators, faculty and students have been working hard together on this issue. We have more work to do. We are seeing signs of progress, and that too should be known.

Sandy Barbour,

director of athletics, UC Berkeley

---

Bob's background is interesting.

Cal Geek;842235066 said:

---

Sandy wrote a letter addressing this. It's shown in post #2, and below.

---

Every year Cal says the stats are a lagging indicator and we are doing better now, but it hasn't shown up in the stats yet.

BearyWhite;842235014 said:

---

From what I understand, the stats released by the NCAA concern graduation rates from 1998 to 2006. Sandy started in 2004, right? Do we have more recent statistics available, ones which are more indicative of her tenure?

---

Just some thoughts, but while, more recent statistics may help flesh out this picture, I believe her statement admitting "pressure to win" indicates that academic standards were overlooked, perhaps as a test, perhaps as only a convenient but temporary risk, to see if it would be either tolerated or overlooked in order to continue cash flow. There certainly appeared to be enough alumni distracted by winning to suspend judgement until damaging evidence became public. Who knows, it may not have been calculating, merely convenient on her part, she had a lot of bills to pay. She may have even convinced herself that this was Tedford's job, she did not need to check back with him to see if the academic aspect was actually working. Anyway, I have certainly seen a lot of high level management people in the corporate world operate under the presumption that once they had delegated a responsibility, their hands were clean, they would never need to check back, somehow, they could count on reassurances, the results were not theirs to own. Read the litany of wall street testimony. I think she may have made that mistake, but the operable word is "may".

BearyWhite;842235014 said:

---

From what I understand, the stats released by the NCAA concern graduation rates from 1998 to 2006. Sandy started in 2004, right? Do we have more recent statistics available, ones which are more indicative of her tenure?

---

Why understanding is that those stats cover students who ENROLLED during those years, which definitely means it covers Sandy's tenure (i.e Freshman enrolling as late as 2006).

Form task force to review Sandy's performance. Engage faculty, staff, students and community to discuss and review dynamics of her tenure. Have symposium on subject in Maui. Make recommendations to Chancellor in 2016.

hanky1;842234787 said:

---

...Cal Athletic Director Sandy Barbour's admission ("Tackling 'serious' athletics problem, Nov. 20) that "pressure to win" resulted in less focus on academic standards is sufficient grounds for termination.

---

So, "pressure to win" from Cal fans got her between a rock and a hard placeand now "everyone" wants to fire her. Who is being hypocritical, here.

She has since enumerated what caused the problem and has instituted corrective actions, so what would be the purpose of firing her? Pretty dumb, in my view.

It is going to take some time to turn "this ship" around, so we must be all patient. Hiring someone else will make little difference.

:gobears:

BeggarEd;842235082 said:

---

Why understanding is that those stats cover students who ENROLLED during those years, which definitely means it covers Sandy's tenure (i.e Freshman enrolling as late as 2006).

---

ah if that's true then yes, would definitely be on her watch.

manus;842235124 said:

---

So, "pressure to win" from Cal fans got her between a rock and a hard placeand now "everyone" wants to fire her. Who is being hypocritical, here.

She has since enumerated what caused the problem and has instituted corrective actions, so what would be the purpose of firing her? Pretty dumb, in my view.

It is going to take some time to turn "this ship" around, so we must be all patient. Hiring someone else will make little difference.

:gobears:

---

I'm sorry. What?

1. The pressure to win at Cal is low compared to most places. If she can't handle it, she is not qualified to be AD anywhere.

2. Dealing with the pressure and managing the department correctly is her job

3. If this is an excuse for Barbour, why isn't it an excuse for Tedford.

4. The fans have absolutely no responsibility for this. Zero. Zip. Nada. Remotely implying it is garbage.

5. Regarding measures to fix the problem, it's the same old song. Why didn't they take steps 3 years ago when the problem surfaced?

Honestly, so much has been done wrong in the AD, and it has become such a massive embarrassment, that I'm afraid those in favor of deemphasis might get their wish. The people that want Sandy gone have a long list of reasons. The academic issue is just the beginning.

BearyWhite;842235166 said:

---

ah if that's true then yes, would definitely be on her watch.

---

Yeah... looked it up on my phone but it's a PDF so I can't link it. Basically, it calculates new enrolled students, and then calculates the graduation rate within a 6 year window. Thus the 2006-7 frosh/transfer class wouldn't be fully available until 2012-3.

This is Sandy's legacy.

OaktownBear;842235168 said:

---

I'm sorry. What?

1. The pressure to win at Cal is low compared to most places. If she can't handle it, she is not qualified to be AD anywhere.

2. Dealing with the pressure and managing the department correctly is her job

3. If this is an excuse for Barbour, why isn't it an excuse for Tedford.

4. The fans have absolutely no responsibility for this. Zero. Zip. Nada. Remotely implying it is garbage.

5. Regarding measures to fix the problem, it's the same old song. Why didn't they take steps 3 years ago when the problem surfaced?

Honestly, so much has been done wrong in the AD, and it has become such a massive embarrassment, that I'm afraid those in favor of deemphasis might get their wish. The people that want Sandy gone have a long list of reasons. The academic issue is just the beginning.

---

You've got it exactly right! The pressure to win at Cal is among the lowest in the Pac-12. That's a ridiculous excuse for Barbour to use. The fact is that both she and Tedford were asleep at the wheel. We ended up with both the worst academic performance and the worst on-field performance in the conference. I wonder how long it will take before she says that our poor on-field performance is due to the pressure to improve academically. She has been AD long enough that she has to take ownership of our atrocious performance in both metrics. She has to go, and the sooner the better.

What is a new AD going to do? As much as the coaching change did this year?

Sandy's doing fine.

Classic Sandy Barbour. She tries to deflect criticism of the poor football academic performance by quoting statistics from all the minor sports. She does the same thing when it comes to athletic performance. Will she ever learn that it's football that drives the entire athletic department? If our football program is sick (on the field and in the classroom), than the athletic program is sick. Period. She seems to be too dense to recognize that. She has outlived her usefulness and must be fired.

She has been asleep at the wheel for at least 5 years. We can't afford to continue her inept leadership of the athletic department. The sooner she departs the better. She has sunk to Bockrath level.

I agree with your "go Sandy" statement. But I mean "go away Sandy". The sooner the better.

Golden One;842235222 said:

---

I agree with your "go Sandy" statement. But I mean "go away Sandy". The sooner the better.

---

I want Sandy to go but I would rather the powers to be take their time and have the right person to replace her.