Unit2Sucks;842328420 said:

---

This really could go either way. Would anyone be surprised if Dirks guts the athletic department and decides we need to get to $0 subsidy at the expense of a number of non-revenue sports? I don't know why everyone assumes we Dirks is going to make a big-time commitment to athletic excellence. I'm hoping this is good news, but we really don't know anything yet.

---

He has a ginormous stadium bill to pay and if he was going to gut the department he would have just hired Travis on the cheap which was he easy thing to do. Instead he hired Cuonzo, ticking off some people on the inside and having to spend more money to do it.

I think what you have is a guy that realizes that the revenue programs have become boring at best and embarassing at worst. AND that they are a drag on fundraising.

OaktownBear;842328434 said:

---

Some of us think there was a lot more downside than that. I like Sandy as a person and I like the effort she put in. I was a huge fan for a lot of years. But I woke up one day and found that I had a football program that I no longer enjoyed, and I don't mean wins and losses. I always enjoyed Cal football even when we lost. Honestly, when I look back, I enjoyed the Holmoe era more than the late Tedford era.

She came in and ran the football program like a business. I thought that was good. Unfortunately she ran it like a cheap, minor league, nickle and diming business and it showed. I accepted that Cal could not continue with its quaint Cal ways, but I didn't expect to trade it for an Arena Football league franchise.

Hopefully we will have a professionally run department that will also understand the value of tradition. Actually, a professionally run department WOULD understand the value of tradition.

---

I could see more downside but her upside balances things out pretty well. The downside on previous ADs, not so much except possibly Kasser. I won't argue any of it though.

About the running the AD on the cheap, given the recent UC wide/State of CA budget crisis, not sure that's her fault. I could see some weirdness or not great decision making but given the financial mess it seems hard to put blame on anything cheap.

As for professionalism, one could argue SB was the first truly professionalized AD along with maybe Kasser because the other ADs got so little done.

moonpod;842328414 said:

---

Heat is on for Dykes. Gonna have to impress! Dirks/Wilton not playing around.

SB had a mixed track record (but actually vs some of our previous AD not bad at all) but in the end just didn't run the revenue sports all that well and that is in the end a deal breaker. New blood coming

---

Forget the heat being on Dykes. The heat is now on Dirks and Wilton.

They've clearly made their choice, now it's time to produce!

Several on this thread have stated that Martin was a Dirks hire. I've also read in several places that it was actually Wilton who recommended Martin strongly, which Dirks ended up going with against Sandy's option of Decuire. I am wondering if Wilton is the guy pulling the strings on some of these decisions, what that might mean? He is a finance guy. Is he thinking cut the fat, or invest in the future? Cut the fat could mean bye bye to several non revenue sports we love. Invest in the future could mean that he has convinced Dirks that we have to as an institution go 110% for athletics or not go at all. The Martin hire leads me to think the later, but I just don't know.

Unit2Sucks;842328420 said:

---

This really could go either way. Would anyone be surprised if Dirks guts the athletic department and decides we need to get to $0 subsidy at the expense of a number of non-revenue sports? I don't know why everyone assumes we Dirks is going to make a big-time commitment to athletic excellence. I'm hoping this is good news, but we really don't know anything yet.

---

I certainly wouldn't be surprised if Dirks gutted three to five sports (and they'd probably have to be men's sports).

Think about it. Title IX restrictions, the argument that the IAD is too large (it supports too many sports) and CMS+SAHPC debt is $470+ million.

Are you ready to fight for those sports that might get cut (whatever they may be)? If so, how will you fight?

Let's really make the year better and fire dykes as co. As well. Clean slate baby. I never liked both sandy or dykes. Might happen after we get burned again this season. Would by surprise me with a new AD coming in and wantn his own people there

okaydo;842328428 said:

---

Still, it was weird that he'd be the one picking the new basketball coach. If that was the case, why not fire her three months ago? (I guess I'm now leaning to that -- him picking Cuonzo -- actually happening.)

---

Put another way...why would you fire Sandy three months ago?

NYCGOBEARS;842328411 said:

---

We may have additional reason to celebrate next week.

---

Please PM if necessary. Ths.

beeasyed;842328352 said:

---

Dirks ain't playin games!!

---

For many years the administrator over the AD has been incompetent with respect to I/A (though often a good academician). That has changed.

I have mixed emotions about Sandy leaving. As pointed out, who the replacement is the key.

No more blaming her and Tedford for our sh*thole of a football program!

Dirks > Tedford > Sandy > Dykes > Buh > Tosh

Let's convince Larry Scott to take a hefty pay cut and become the new AD.

beelzebear;842328441 said:

---

I could see more downside but her upside balances things out pretty well. The downside on previous ADs, not so much except possibly Kasser. I won't argue any of it though.

About the running the AD on the cheap, given the recent UC wide/State of CA budget crisis, not sure that's her fault. I could see some weirdness or not great decision making but given the financial mess it seems hard to put blame on anything cheap.

As for professionalism, one could argue SB was the first truly professionalized AD along with maybe Kasser because the other ADs got so little done.

---

I'm not saying she ran it cheaply. In fact, I think the opposite is true. I mean cheap as it every football game was one giant shameful attempt to wring every dollar out of fans and advertisers while sucking the life out of the experience. Everything that exuded class and tradition in the football experience was shoved aside for any two bit, tawdry promotion that could get a nickel in the short term.

Also, I agree that Sandy was the most professional AD we had, but it was the first time Cal really attempted to have a professional AD.

I'd also go back to the "Dykes will never be fired this year" argument. I've been saying Sandy was in trouble while others said she was ensconced. I don't see Dirks putting up with another year of excuses in football and I think when you look at the fact that he played such a large role in the hiring of Cuonzo, it is likely that the complete failure in football last year was the last straw for Sandy.

Yeah I'm not saying the move wasn't needed or wise.

It was needed and definitely wise. You can't have the top revenue producing product crumble on your watch and expect to stick around.

Maybe Dirks has a real vision and some people in mind.

Most definitely. He also slammed the door on Barbour's basketball coach pick, allegedly. Good for you Dirks!

Still, until we know who the next AD is, can't say it will be an upgrade or improvement.

With her treatment of football and wanting to hire TD in BB, You can have an empty chair or "grumpy cat" as your AD and it would be an improvement


We need a dude like they hired at ASU to turn around the football program.

In Dykes, I mean Dirks we trust
:p
:bravo

wifeisafurd;842328452 said:

---

Please PM if necessary. Ths.

---

No insider info. Flukes is giving me a visit next week and I'm hoping for good news to emerge from this.

CALiforniALUM;842328447 said:

---

Several on this thread have stated that Martin was a Dirks hire. I've also read in several places that it was actually Wilton who recommended Martin strongly, which Dirks ended up going with against Sandy's option of Decuire. I am wondering if Wilton is the guy pulling the strings on some of these decisions, what that might mean? He is a finance guy. Is he thinking cut the fat, or invest in the future? Cut the fat could mean bye bye to several non revenue sports we love. Invest in the future could mean that he has convinced Dirks that we have to as an institution go 110% for athletics or not go at all. The Martin hire leads me to think the later, but I just don't know.

---

There is no indication that sports will be cut, but if they wre, maybe it is cut he fat SO we can invest in the future.

It is absolutely obvious that if he wanted to cut the fat on revenue sports he would have hired DeCuire and be done with it. Why would he go with the expensive option.

As for cutting sports, Cal has needed to cut non-revenue sports for awhile. Cut sports, plow the money into football and basketball, make them healthy, and they can pay to bring back sports that were cut. Right now, too much of the TV money is going to keep the department afloat instead of investing in the two sports that can actually increase the revenue.

Heck, I'd even say Womens basketball could make some money if they invested properly.

CALiforniALUM;842328447 said:

---

Several on this thread have stated that Martin was a Dirks hire. I've also read in several places that it was actually Wilton who recommended Martin strongly, which Dirks ended up going with against Sandy's option of Decuire. I am wondering if Wilton is the guy pulling the strings on some of these decisions, what that might mean? He is a finance guy. Is he thinking cut the fat, or invest in the future? Cut the fat could mean bye bye to several non revenue sports we love. Invest in the future could mean that he has convinced Dirks that we have to as an institution go 110% for athletics or not go at all. The Martin hire leads me to think the later, but I just don't know.

---

http://vcaf.berkeley.edu/who-we-are/vice-chancellor-john-wilton

Quote:

---

...

I think one of the biggest differences is that risk aversion with respect to organizational change is high at Berkeley (a surprise for me), which greatly complicates the process of reform and the acceptance of innovation.

...

I think that trying to "balance the books" by only focusing on costs is incompatible with maintaining Berkeley's high standards of access and excellence. Put simply, while we have to demonstrate to our stakeholders that we are constantly trying to improve efficiency (and it is a never ending process), we cannot cut our way to growth.

---

OaktownBear;842328463 said:

---

There is no indication that sports will be cut, but if they wre, maybe it is cut he fat SO we can invest in the future.

It is absolutely obvious that if he wanted to cut the fat on revenue sports he would have hired DeCuire and be done with it. Why would he go with the expensive option.

As for cutting sports, Cal has needed to cut non-revenue sports for awhile. Cut sports, plow the money into football and basketball, make them healthy, and they can pay to bring back sports that were cut. Right now, too much of the TV money is going to keep the department afloat instead of investing in the two sports that can actually increase the revenue.

Heck, I'd even say Womens basketball could make some money if they invested properly.

---

Fair enough. I think my definition of cut the fat was to drop sports, not simply to take diet by taking a less expensive Decuire. From a financial perspective that doesn't move the needle one bit in the grand scheme of things. In fact, it actually could be subtraction by subtraction.

The intent or question in my post was to ask who between Wilton and Dirks is really influencing this situation and what does that mean based on their position, experience and potential for improving the situation going forward?

freshfunk;842328466 said:

---

http://vcaf.berkeley.edu/who-we-are/vice-chancellor-john-wilton

---

Great post.

freshfunk;842328466 said:

---

http://vcaf.berkeley.edu/who-we-are/vice-chancellor-john-wilton

---

Interesting. Thanks.

Does anybody know what Wilton's perspective is on the stadium financing structure?

OaktownBear;842328458 said:

---

I'm not saying she ran it cheaply. In fact, I think the opposite is true. I mean cheap as it every football game was one giant shameful attempt to wring every dollar out of fans and advertisers while sucking the life out of the experience. Everything that exuded class and tradition in the football experience was shoved aside for any two bit, tawdry promotion that could get a nickel in the short term.

Also, I agree that Sandy was the most professional AD we had, but it was the first time Cal really attempted to have a professional AD.

I'd also go back to the "Dykes will never be fired this year" argument. I've been saying Sandy was in trouble while others said she was ensconced. I don't see Dirks putting up with another year of excuses in football and I think when you look at the fact that he played such a large role in the hiring of Cuonzo, it is likely that the complete failure in football last year was the last straw for Sandy.

---

Okay I get what you mean by "cheap" now. What can I say, I didn't like the money grab (seat license, Kabaam field) either but given the bill for CMS and the weird financing and projections, it seems she wouldn't be doing her job if she didn't try to increase revenues. Given the debt and CA budget crisis, it looked like things were between a rock and hard place. Also if Wilton is the money guy, did he put the financing package for CMS together? Regardless, SB is gone. She wasn't perfect but overall more pluses than not. At least Cal moved forward in some ways. (Agree about Dykes...hot seat temp just went up.)

Greatest news in a long time. I will probably renew my season tix after all now.

CALiforniALUM;842328469 said:

---

Interesting. Thanks.

Does anybody know what Wilton's perspective is on the stadium financing structure?

---

Hints of it here:

http://www.kqed.org/news/story/2013/02/25/116965/uc_berkeley_struggles_with_unproven_stadium_funding_model

Quote:

---

Cal Struggles With Unproven Stadium Funding Model

...

With ticket sales and cash flows falling short of expectations, UC Berkeley Vice Chancellor of Administration and Finance John Wilton realized about a year into his tenure that things needed to change.

"I was worried," Wilton said of the financial outlook, though he believed the campus had time to address the problem.

Some projections showed Athletics might not be able to make payments starting in the 2030s when the debt service balloons. The debt is structured so that for the next 20 years, Cal only needs to make interest payments on the debt. The principal kicks in in the early 2030s, resulting in payments between $24 million and $37 million per year.

"That was comforting in a way that we didn't have a near-term problem," Wilton said. "But it was worrying that we would have a medium-term problem, and we were guaranteeing to the rest of the campus that the cost of the new facilities would not impose any tax on the rest of the campus budget," he said.

'Cheap' debt

Recognizing a potential looming crisis, Wilton sought advice from three Haas Business School professors, each an expert in finance.

Richard Stanton, Nancy Wallace and William Fuchs spent the past nine months untangling the complex financing model to determine if Athletics will be able to fund its operation and meet its debt obligations. They have come up with different scenarios, but big questions remain about how many seats Honerkamp's team will sell and how much revenue the endowment will generate.

Big questions remain about how many seats Honerkamp's team will sell.


"They're very far away from their original projections," Wallace said, "Especially for the most expensive seats, there's some considerable uncertainty."

---

Imagine you're Wilton and you come to Cal finding a huge financial mess with the Stadium financing. I can't imagine his impression of Barbour was high, especially after the huge flop with Sonny.

I heard Dirks speak in Orange County a month or so ago. He made a point of taking full credit for the BB hire. My impression is that he is a pretty savvy dude and understands that Athletics will be important part of his fundraising efforts if used properly. He indicated that in his opinion this is "no longer a state supported institution." He needs this as one of his tools.

beelzebear;842328470 said:

---

Okay I get what you mean by "cheap" now. What can I say, I didn't like the money grab (seat license, Kabaam field) either but given the bill for CMS and the weird financing and projections, it seems she wouldn't be doing her job if she didn't try to increase revenues. Given the debt and CA budget crisis, it looked like things were between a rock and hard place. Also if Wilton is the money guy, did he put the financing package for CMS together? Regardless, SB is gone. She wasn't perfect but overall more pluses than not. At least Cal moved forward in some ways. (Agree about Dykes...hot seat temp just went up.)

---

Based on what I've read the financing plan was put together in 2007-2008 and he started in 2011.

wifeisafurd;842328454 said:

---

For many years the administrator over the AD has been incompetent with respect to I/A (though often a good academician). That has changed.

I have mixed emotions about Sandy leaving. As pointed out, who the replacement is the key.

---

I acknowledge some of the good works she has done for Cal over the years, but I feel like we need new direction and leadership. in particular, new vision for Cal in the midst of an increasingly competitive conference, potential NCAA reform, and figuring out Cal's image problem.

new blood is key, imo, and I hope we find the right guy for a unique insititutiom, and the pride of the California (and US) public education system.

not going to look back and dwell on her failures; gonna hope for an inspiring hire, the likes of Cuonzo Martin

OaktownBear;842328434 said:

---

Some of us think there was a lot more downside than that. I like Sandy as a person and I like the effort she put in. I was a huge fan for a lot of years. But I woke up one day and found that I had a football program that I no longer enjoyed, and I don't mean wins and losses. I always enjoyed Cal football even when we lost. Honestly, when I look back, I enjoyed the Holmoe era more than the late Tedford era.

She came in and ran the football program like a business. I thought that was good. Unfortunately she ran it like a cheap, minor league, nickle and diming business and it showed. I accepted that Cal could not continue with its quaint Cal ways, but I didn't expect to trade it for an Arena Football league franchise.

Hopefully we will have a professionally run department that will also understand the value of tradition. Actually, a professionally run department WOULD understand the value of tradition.

---

OaktownBear;842328458 said:

---

I'm not saying she ran it cheaply. In fact, I think the opposite is true. I mean cheap as it every football game was one giant shameful attempt to wring every dollar out of fans and advertisers while sucking the life out of the experience. Everything that exuded class and tradition in the football experience was shoved aside for any two bit, tawdry promotion that could get a nickel in the short term...

---

Well stated. Exactly the reason I came close to non-renewing. I waited until the last 20 minutes of the last day (discount available) and renewed with misgivings. It just isn't fun anymore. I miss the band, the pageantry, the tradition. I'm weary of cheap promotions and can't stand the piped in music. The facility is beautiful (and I do appreciate clean restrooms) but the overall experience has diminished that I actually miss the decrepit pre-rennovated stadium or at least the experience.

This is a good move by the administration even though SB did some excellent work at Cal in upgrading our Olympic and non-revernue sports. She just wasn't really prepared to run a program as large and challenging as Cal's. Pat Haden was a great choice for $C, but he has struggled in putting that program back on track. I really hope we don't scrimp on the new AD. We need someone who has experience at a big time (SEC, Big 10 or PAC-12) school. I really hope we don't hire anyone's assistant or some popular former athlete. We are really fortunate to have gotten Martin, but Sonny is a huge (expensive) problem. The new AD will face the toughest possible situation. While having a shocking improvement by the FB team would make the job much easier, I can't imagine that happening. That means the financial situation will get much worse before he can fire Sonny (at great cost ). The new AD must be well connected in the football community because Cal will not be an attractive job after another 1-2 win season. We will need a Jim Mora quality hire to clean up the mess that Sonny will leave.:gobears:

FiatSlug;842328448 said:

---

I certainly wouldn't be surprised if Dirks gutted three to five sports (and they'd probably have to be men's sports).

Think about it. Title IX restrictions, the argument that the IAD is too large (it supports too many sports) and CMS+SAHPC debt is $470+ million.

Are you ready to fight for those sports that might get cut (whatever they may be)? If so, how will you fight?

---

Can you say, "Division II"?

BearNIt;842328367 said:

---

If you're a coach and your AD is "leaving", you better start winning and by that I mean more than 4 games a season if you want to stay around. The clock is running Sonny.

---

I am afraid that the clock has already run out for Sonny. It's only a matter of time now.

This just tells me that dykes has just this year to make significant strides on the field or hes canned. Under sandy, there would have been more leeway for a third year bc they r tied at the hip

beelzebear;842328370 said:

---

Admin and major donors gave the go-ahead on the stadium and CMS, she executed. It wasn't pretty but given the bureaucratic clusterf*ck that is Cal...she got it done.

On a serious note, do you think any of her predecessors could have pulled it off? See I don't think so.

On Dykes you may well be right.

---

JT deserves more credit than her for getting the stadium built. She proved to be in over her head IMO and wasn't well respect among pac12 ADs. The Sonny hire, by far her most important hire, was a disaster.

And with only a few exceptions a reasonable and sincere discussion.

I've always been a big fan of Sandy's. I think Sandy did many things (85%) really well and I think she did a few things (15%) really poorly. The really poorly things tended to be the most visible.

I agree with Oaktown about the degradation of the football game day experience. I've said over and over that you have to sell it as a CAL game not as a football game... because the more you blur the lines between Cal and the two pro teams, the more you compete with them and you're simply going to lose that one all the time.

I'm also not sure what Cal Athletics stands for. We've allowed Stanford to sort of claim the "academic" thing even tho much of that is bogus. We need to imbue that into everything we do. For instance (and admittedly this is a small thing) inside Memorial on the wall around the field we should have painted the Periodic Table signs for Berkelium, Seaborgium and Californium. That kind of stuff is a great way to tie in the academics to the athletics from an easy messaging perspective.

I would love to see Jack Clark be our next AD. That guy knows how to get things done, he knows how to motivate and inspire people, he's smart, business savvy... he's a no brainer choice, imho. Which, since this is Cal, means it will probably never happen.

GO BEARS!

Unit2Sucks;842328420 said:

---

This really could go either way. Would anyone be surprised if Dirks guts the athletic department and decides we need to get to $0 subsidy at the expense of a number of non-revenue sports? I don't know why everyone assumes we Dirks is going to make a big-time commitment to athletic excellence. I'm hoping this is good news, but we really don't know anything yet.

---

Well so far so good. Dirks took the bball hire out of Sandy's hands and got us Cuonzo before Sandy could hand it to Decuire and then he canned Sandy so someone else can try to clean up her Dykes mess.

FiatSlug;842328451 said:

---

Put another way...why would you fire Sandy three months ago?

---

You mean instead of 3 years ago?