BearyWhite;842250286 said:

---

You know, I don't recall Holmoe looking quite so much like a 22-year-old..

---

Is that Troy Taylor in that pic...he was the QB coach and that's Vedder and Clemons(?) in there as well.

The Duke!;842250137 said:

---

Unfortunately, Athletic Department officials knew what was going on but failed to investigate or put an end to it. Ronnie Davenport and Mike Ainsworth took classes from an associate professor of Ethnic Studies (not a vice chancellor). Football programs know what classes their players are taking, and should have been aware of the situation.

http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/27/sports/sp-cal27

Some publications ranked the #6 dirtiest college football program of all time shortly after it happened (dirtier even than Washington). Fortunately, other programs got quite a bit dirtier since then, while we seem to have rehabilitated.

---

Who the hell do you think you are, bringing facts to a BI thread?

barabbas;842250288 said:

---

The photo in the article is of Troy Taylor not Tom Holmoe LOL!

---

That's hilarious...I just clicked the link and saw the pic in the article...I thought it was just someone googling for a pic and missed...lol...they also spelled Sam Clem(m)on's name wrong as well...here's to modern journalism.

CAL6371;842250129 said:

---

Golden One - Absolutely on the money - what a string of bums. Maggard a mega failure at choosing head coaches (White was not his choice), Bockrath (worst ever), Kasser (should have kept to selling cars) and now Barbour. Gladstone was the only decent one.

---

When will you guys start to understand that Cal as an institution (at levels way above any athletic director) does not value football and basketball like most other schools?

There's a common denominator here, and it is Cal. I know way too many former Cal coaches that will tell you that Cal is it's own worst emeny. A few of those coaches have gone on to better things after languishing in Berkeley...

DrDanger;842250360 said:

---

When will you guys start to understand that Cal as an institution (at levels way above any athletic director) does not value football and basketball like most other schools?

---

Maybe this was once the case. But considering we just spent more money on our stadium retrofit and SAHPC than any school has ever spent in the history of college sports, I think it is safe to say that the administration is committed to a winning football program.

We had a basketball team in the final four last year. We have made an amazing basketball hire in Gottlieb, and a pretty darn good hire in Monty.

So take that noise somewhere else. The problem hasn't been with institutional commitment for a long time now. The problem has been with IAD and football program execution of that commitment.

The Duke!;842250545 said:

---

Maybe this was once the case. But considering we just spent more money on our stadium retrofit and SAHPC than any school has ever spent in the history of college sports, I think it is safe to say that the administration is committed to a winning football program.

We had a basketball team in the final four last year. We have made an amazing basketball hire in Gottlieb, and a pretty darn good hire in Monty.

So take that noise somewhere else. The problem hasn't been with institutional commitment for a long time now. The problem has been with IAD and football program execution of that commitment.

---

thats where your wrong its still a lack of institutional commitment thats what is wrong with Cal. its program committed to making money off of its very forgivable fanbase and will accept mediocrity as long as we make a meaningless bowl. the problem is that theyve been so inept that theyre actually falling short of their goal. but i guarantee you that the goal of the AD is not to become a top flight football program.

That doesn't make any sense. I believe cal football was generating quite a profit before we invested half a billion additional dollars into it.

gobears725;842250547 said:

---

thats where your wrong its still a lack of institutional commitment thats what is wrong with Cal. its program committed to making money off of its very forgivable fanbase and will accept mediocrity as long as we make a meaningless bowl. the problem is that theyve been so inept that theyre actually falling short of their goal. but i guarantee you that the goal of the AD is not to become a top flight football program.

---

The Duke!;842250555 said:

---

That doesn't make any sense. I believe cal football was generating quite a profit before we invested half a billion additional dollars into it.

---

what makes you believe that this has ever been a program that is committed to excellence. we were handing out ridiculous contract extensions for 8 win seasons. its because the goal at cal is to get 7 or 8 wins. they dont care about rose bowls. why should they? memorial would be sold out every game with a 7-8 win season. do you think that an athletic department truly commited to winning would put up with Tony's nonsense with promoting his system. do you think that a winning program would tolerate someone like Buh? its not a program that is committed to winning. its a program that would like to win enough not to lose money

gobears725;842250556 said:

---

what makes you believe that this has ever been a program that is committed to excellence. we were handing out ridiculous contract extensions for 8 win seasons. its because the goal at cal is to get 7 or 8 wins. they dont care about rose bowls. why should they? memorial would be sold out every game with a 7-8 win season. do you think that an athletic department truly commited to winning would put up with Tony's nonsense with promoting his system. do you think that a winning program would tolerate someone like Buh? its not a program that is committed to winning. its a program that would like to win enough not to lose money

---

I do agree that the administration seems to primarily view football as a business proposition. A money generator that helps pay (or might entirely pay) for the entire athletic budget and is a source of tradition and connection with the alumni. They are committed to winning in the way Billy Beane and the A's are committed to winning with Moneyball. It is not like the A's don't want to win the World Series, it is just that they are only willing to do it in a way that makes sense for the franchise.

I do think that the idea is 7-8 win seasons are acceptable only if the fan base has hope that eventually we might do better. That was the state of Cal football in 2002-2006. The fan base had hope. The administration made a HUGE commitment to football in re-building the stadium and building the SAHPC. What other school has invested as much in football? 2007-2012 were six seasons of deterioration and hope of improvement was gone. So the administration made a change. That shows SOME commitment to success, regardless of how it turned out.

Personally, I never thought the facilities were as important as Tedford thought they were (he was stuck on the Oregon model)--I would have preferred to do the retrofit and weight room on the cheap and spend more on new coaches, but I do love the new stadium and SAHPC now that we have them.

If things do not improve Sonny will be gone at the next opportunity for change--when the TV money is flowing and his buyout is lower. The fact that the administration views it as a business is not a bad thing. The problem many have is that we are the A's and not the Yankees, Dodgers or Red Sox (or USC, Texas or Alabama). We do not have unlimited funds to buy a championship or fire coaches two seasons in a row.

calumnus;842250611 said:

---

I do agree that the administration seems to primarily view football as a business proposition. A money generator that helps pay (or might entirely pay) for the entire athletic budget and is a source of tradition and connection with the alumni. They are committed to winning in the way Billy Beane and the A's are committed to winning with Moneyball. It is not like the A's don't want to win the World Series, it is just that they are only willing to do it in a way that makes sense for the franchise.

I do think that the idea is 7-8 win seasons are acceptable only if the fan base has hope that eventually we might do better. That was the state of Cal football in 2002-2006. The fan base had hope. The administration made a HUGE commitment to football in re-building the stadium and building the SAHPC. What other school has invested as much in football? 2007-2012 were six seasons of deterioration and hope of improvement was gone. So the administration made a change. That shows SOME commitment to success, regardless of how it turned out.

Personally, I never thought the facilities were as important as Tedford thought they were (he was stuck on the Oregon model)--I would have preferred to do the retrofit and weight room on the cheap and spend more on new coaches, but I do love the new stadium and SAHPC now that we have them.

If things do not improve Sonny will be gone at the next opportunity for change--when the TV money is flowing and his buyout is lower. The fact that the administration views it as a business is not a bad thing. The problem many have is that we are the A's and not the Yankees, Dodgers or Red Sox (or USC, Texas or Alabama). We do not have unlimited funds to buy a championship or fire coaches two seasons in a row.

---

I wish we were the A's-a team with intelligent leadership who competes for championships. We're more like the Kansas City Royals

It's one thing to view it as a business proposition which is intelligent and practical. It's quite another to view it as a business proposition and also make a commitment to excellence. The two are not the same.

ColoradoBear1;842249952 said:

---

Nice read, but I don't get these suggestions of Holmoe for our next AD.

A) he has no ties to Cal other than his failed 5 years at HC, plus he's Mormon and played at BYU, which is why he's there
B) BYU has no budget requirements as a private school funded by the Mormon church. There is no way they come close to breaking even.

---

BYU has no budget requirements?

The only entity in this country that has no budget requirements is the Federal Government. They ignore their own laws, and don't even write or pass budgets anymore, knowing full well that if it looks like they are too far in the red for the public to tolerate, they just print more money.

State and local governments have budget requirements, but they ignore them as well. Being unable to print money, however, there are often consequences, like in Detroit, Stockton, and many more in deep trouble.

Two cool things:

1) Tom was good to admit that he was in over his head in his Cal coaching gig. Uh, current staff anyone?

2) Tom wants to participate in the Rose Bowl festivities if Cal ever gets there. I really think that's cool. He has an affinity for Cal, and that makes him OK in my book. Look, even the Red Sox welcomed back Buckner for their recent WS festivities. It's all part of the history.

gobears725;842250556 said:

---

what makes you believe that this has ever been a program that is committed to excellence. we were handing out ridiculous contract extensions for 8 win seasons. its because the goal at cal is to get 7 or 8 wins. they dont care about rose bowls. why should they? memorial would be sold out every game with a 7-8 win season. do you think that an athletic department truly commited to winning would put up with Tony's nonsense with promoting his system. do you think that a winning program would tolerate someone like Buh? its not a program that is committed to winning. its a program that would like to win enough not to lose money

---

I agree 110% that the program is messed up. The AD has made some absolutely terrible decisions. No argument there.

But everything you listed are IAD and football program problems. None have been problems with the university as an institution (i.e. the chancellors office). The university has invested half a billion dollars for the stadium retrofit and SAHPC. If that is not a strong enough commitment to winning, then I don't know what is.

The AD and the football program have all the institutional support they need to succeed. Now it's on them to make better decisions with the phenomenal resources they have been given.

The Duke!;842250734 said:

---

I agree 110% that the program is messed up. The AD has made some absolutely terrible decisions. No argument there.

But everything you listed are IAD and football program problems. None have been problems with the university as an institution (i.e. the chancellors office). The university has invested half a billion dollars for the stadium retrofit and SAHPC. If that is not a strong enough commitment to winning, then I don't know what is.

The AD and the football program have all the institutional support they need to succeed. Now it's on them to make better decisions with the phenomenal resources they have been given.

---

its not just about resources though, its about a commitment from the chancellor that anything less than a winning team is unacceptable. UT just canned Mack because the president of the university couldnt take a mediocre team. could you imagine our chancellor doing something like that? i dont believe that the leaders of this university will ever demand results from our football team. they just kind of look at it and say well as long as it doesnt take money away from academics then whatever happens is fine. the program will never achieve greatness unless the leaders of the university demand greatness from it.

right now the program is in a position where the only way the program has a chance to get to a rose bowl with how its leadership is structured, is if the next aaron rodgers comes along and just carries the program

gobears725;842250782 said:

---

its not just about resources though, its about a commitment from the chancellor that anything less than a winning team is unacceptable. UT just canned Mack because the president of the university couldnt take a mediocre team. could you imagine our chancellor doing something like that? i dont believe that the leaders of this university will ever demand results from our football team. they just kind of look at it and say well as long as it doesnt take money away from academics then whatever happens is fine. the program will never achieve greatness unless the leaders of the university demand greatness from it.

right now the program is in a position where the only way the program has a chance to get to a rose bowl with how its leadership is structured, is if the next aaron rodgers comes along and just carries the program

---

UT has given Mack Brown quite a while before they fired him. To answer your question, yes. I can see our chancellor canning our AD if things continue like this for much longer.

calumnus;842250611 said:

---

The problem many have is that we are the A's and not the Yankees, Dodgers or Red Sox (or USC, Texas or Alabama).

---

We're not even close to being the A's. They win a division title now and then. We're more like the Houston Astros--at rock bottom and heading lower.

The Duke!;842250734 said:

---

I agree 110% that the program is messed up. The AD has made some absolutely terrible decisions. No argument there.

But everything you listed are IAD and football program problems. None have been problems with the university as an institution (i.e. the chancellors office). The university has invested half a billion dollars for the stadium retrofit and SAHPC. If that is not a strong enough commitment to winning, then I don't know what is.

---

If our chancellor had a strong commitment to winning, he would fire Sandy Barbour tomorrow. So long as she is athletic director, we will continue to be mired in mediocrity or worst. She is a very worthy successor to Dave Maggard, Bob Bockrath, and Dave Kasser. None of them were/are worth a damn.