Needing a Change

3,472 Views | 13 Replies | Last: 11 yr ago by sp4149
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ultimately, this is the reason (for me) we needed a change.

All of my life, Cal has been the place that talked about what we CAN'T do in revenue sports, in stark contrast with the rest of the university that not only believes we can do anything, but believes we can do things that people don't even dream need doing until we see the possibility. We don't have enough money. We have too much bureaucracy. We have too many academic challenges.

All of my life football and basketball coaches and athletic directors and everybody that touches revenue sports have been given excuses for failure. A lot of time for even the most basic things like being able to process ticket orders in an efficient and customer friendly manner. The bottom line message has always been "This is Cal. We can't do better." Even when we did better we immediately blew it (lose Snyder right when he achieves success. Follow up Jason Kidd with major sanctions).

Then, that changed. The chancellor decided against business as usual and promoting the obvious selection, and he hired Gladstone. Gladstone was a poor administrator, which is probably what you should expect from the crew coach, but he didn't believe you should accept coaching failure. He hired Tedford and no matter what some of you want to say about Tedford, he changed the mindset here. First people believe we COULD do better. Then people believed we SHOULD do better.

I look around now, and the last year to year and a half of bad news has brought us to square one. Horrible news on academic performance and the worst football season in school history have made people fall back on their old notions of Cal sports. We are just a few years removed from 8 straight winning seasons and grad rates in the 60 percents. And even though we just saw it happen here, the old line is back. We can't do better. Other's cheat. We are too tough academically. It's not X's fault or Y's fault. We can't expect better. We shouldn't expect better. We have gone back in a time machine to 2000 or 1980, with a nice remodel of a two thirds of a stadium, a great new training facility, but ultimately the same program and mindset.

That may not all be Barbour's fault. In fact, I don't care if it was her fault. It wasn't going to get better with status quo. That is the ultimately the deciding factor.

I thank Sandy for the charm, passion and hard work she brought to the job. She always seemed to love Cal and love her work. She did a fabulous job advancing the non-revenue sports. If she fell short in her job it was not through lack of effort or caring. She did all I could ask of her and I believe left it all on the field. It was time for a change. We will continue with our post-mortems, as we should. But for me, I think it is crucial that after the post-mortems we let Sandy go on her way. It doesn't help us to blame the one that is gone. The next person will have a tough job, but it is a job THEY must do. No excuses. No blaming predecessors.
mdcspe69
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear;842328607 said:

Ultimately, this is the reason (for me) we needed a change.

All of my life, Cal has been the place that talked about what we CAN'T do in revenue sports, in stark contrast with the rest of the university that not only believes we can do anything, but believes we can do things that people don't even dream need doing until we see the possibility. We don't have enough money. We have too much bureaucracy. We have too many academic challenges.

All of my life football and basketball coaches and athletic directors and everybody that touches revenue sports have been given excuses for failure. A lot of time for even the most basic things like being able to process ticket orders in an efficient and customer friendly manner. The bottom line message has always been "This is Cal. We can't do better." Even when we did better we immediately blew it (lose Snyder right when he achieves success. Follow up Jason Kidd with major sanctions).

Then, that changed. The chancellor decided against business as usual and promoting the obvious selection, and he hired Gladstone. Gladstone was a poor administrator, which is probably what you should expect from the crew coach, but he didn't believe you should accept coaching failure. He hired Tedford and no matter what some of you want to say about Tedford, he changed the mindset here. First people believe we COULD do better. Then people believed we SHOULD do better.

I look around now, and the last year to year and a half of bad news has brought us to square one. Horrible news on academic performance and the worst football season in school history have made people fall back on their old notions of Cal sports. We are just a few years removed from 8 straight winning seasons and grad rates in the 60 percents. And even though we just saw it happen here, the old line is back. We can't do better. Other's cheat. We are too tough academically. It's not X's fault or Y's fault. We can't expect better. We shouldn't expect better. We have gone back in a time machine to 2000 or 1980, with a nice remodel of a two thirds of a stadium, a great new training facility, but ultimately the same program and mindset.

That may not all be Barbour's fault. In fact, I don't care if it was her fault. It wasn't going to get better with status quo. That is the ultimately the deciding factor.

I thank Sandy for the charm, passion and hard work she brought to the job. She always seemed to love Cal and love her work. She did a fabulous job advancing the non-revenue sports. If she fell short in her job it was not through lack of effort or caring. She did all I could ask of her and I believe left it all on the field. It was time for a change. We will continue with our post-mortems, as we should. But for me, I think it is crucial that after the post-mortems we let Sandy go on her way. It doesn't help us to blame the one that is gone. The next person will have a tough job, but it is a job THEY must do. No excuses. No blaming predecessors.


Thank you for an intelligent perspective on Sandy. I for one also appreciate what she has accomplished for CAL.
Davidson
How long do you want to ignore this user?
i hope we get someone awesome like our own version of larry scott
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I work in the tech world, and sometimes you see this: there are people who are great at starting companies, getting them up off the ground, getting them to believe they can make it. Some of them can make the transition to being a good CEO or other executive once the company has "made it." Some of them can't. They have the skills to help drive a start-up, but once the company is established they find their skills don't really fit anymore; they're not equipped for the daily grind of "keeping the lights on."

Tedford and Barbour both seem to be this kind of person. We can always thank them for helping to pull Cal Athletics out of the doldrums and getting the badly-needed facilities built, but when it came to running an established program they couldn't quite hack it. Tedford spent too much time messing with his schemes and lost track of the back-end stuff like team cohesiveness, recruiting, and academics. Barbour did a great job hiring new coaches (in sports other than football) and helping various sports get up off the mat and find new success, but she wasn't great at long-term funding plans or building relationships with donors. The marketing department still seemed entirely too rinky-dink for a program with higher aspirations, and too many things she favored (the stadium ads, playing a game at Candlestick but leaving it outside of the main season ticket package, almost scheduling a Big Game at Levis Stadium) seemed to emphasize short-term monetary gain at the expense of long-term fan support.

Again: hardly the worst AD Cal has ever had (actually probably one of the better ones), but time for her to go. Much like it was Tedford's time.
GB54
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey;842328640 said:

I work in the tech world, and sometimes you see this: there are people who are great at starting companies, getting them up off the ground, getting them to believe they can make it. Some of them can make the transition to being a good CEO or other executive once the company has "made it." Some of them can't. They have the skills to help drive a start-up, but once the company is established they find their skills don't really fit anymore; they're not equipped for the daily grind of "keeping the lights on."

Tedford and Barbour both seem to be this kind of person. We can always thank them for helping to pull Cal Athletics out of the doldrums and getting the badly-needed facilities built, but when it came to running an established program they couldn't quite hack it. Tedford spent too much time messing with his schemes and lost track of the back-end stuff like team cohesiveness, recruiting, and academics. Barbour did a great job hiring new coaches (in sports other than football) and helping various sports get up off the mat and find new success, but she wasn't great at long-term funding plans or building relationships with donors. The marketing department still seemed entirely too rinky-dink for a program with higher aspirations, and too many things she favored (the stadium ads, playing a game at Candlestick but leaving it outside of the main season ticket package, almost scheduling a Big Game at Levis Stadium) seemed to emphasize short-term monetary gain at the expense of long-term fan support.

Again: hardly the worst AD Cal has ever had (actually probably one of the better ones), but time for her to go. Much like it was Tedford's time.


One of Barbour's biggest task is to avoid controversy. That is have the athletic department be a happy integrated part of the campus community. With the budgetary and a academic problems she unleashed the Barskys of the world. This is on her management and judgment. The Dykes hire and her wild ebullience over it also caused her judgment to be called into question. If we are also to believe that her choice for head coach of a Pac12 b-ball program was an assistant on staff recommended by the outgoing coach it also called into question whether she had the knowledge or connections to properly to do her job.

I also don't think doing a good job on minor sports redeems her. Who plays those sports? In many cases suburban white kids with great academic backgrounds. Those kids will be breaking the doors down in order to parlay their skill into a Cal degree.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GB54;842328668 said:

One of Barbour's biggest task is to avoid controversy. That is have the athletic department be a happy integrated part of the campus community. With the budgetary and a academic problems she unleashed the Barskys of the world. This is on her management and judgment. The Dykes hire and her wild ebullience over it also caused her judgment to be called into question. If we are also to believe that her choice for head coach of a Pac12 b-ball program was an assistant on staff recommended by the outgoing coach it also called into question whether she had the knowledge or connections to properly to do her job.

I also don't think doing a good job on minor sports redeems her. Who plays those sports? In many cases suburban white kids with great academic backgrounds. Those kids will be breaking the doors down in order to parlay their skill into a Cal degree.


Again: great job getting the positive momentum rolling, but when it came to nitty-gritty stuff of running the department long term she didn't do it (not enough anyway).

I'm not saying the minor sports "redeem" her, just that they are examples of positive things she did. It all counts.
82gradDLSdad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
One thing: in my Cal lifetime we have always been good at the minor sports even with ADs that folks on this board pan. I'm not so sure Sandy deserves a whole lot of credit for continuing our good swimming, water polo, rugby, women's softball, etc. programs. I guess she did better with women's basketball and Monty sure helped with men's basketball but I don't know. She seems like a hard worker but nothing special. And at any top flite D1 school you need 'special'. 'Special' is not easy to identify and hire so we'll see if Dirks has the right stuff.
Cal8285
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear;842328607 said:

Ultimately, this is the reason (for me) we needed a change.

All of my life, Cal has been the place that talked about what we CAN'T do in revenue sports, in stark contrast with the rest of the university that not only believes we can do anything, but believes we can do things that people don't even dream need doing until we see the possibility. We don't have enough money. We have too much bureaucracy. We have too many academic challenges.

All of my life football and basketball coaches and athletic directors and everybody that touches revenue sports have been given excuses for failure. A lot of time for even the most basic things like being able to process ticket orders in an efficient and customer friendly manner. The bottom line message has always been "This is Cal. We can't do better." Even when we did better we immediately blew it (lose Snyder right when he achieves success. Follow up Jason Kidd with major sanctions).

Then, that changed. The chancellor decided against business as usual and promoting the obvious selection, and he hired Gladstone. Gladstone was a poor administrator, which is probably what you should expect from the crew coach, but he didn't believe you should accept coaching failure. He hired Tedford and no matter what some of you want to say about Tedford, he changed the mindset here. First people believe we COULD do better. Then people believed we SHOULD do better.

I look around now, and the last year to year and a half of bad news has brought us to square one. Horrible news on academic performance and the worst football season in school history have made people fall back on their old notions of Cal sports. We are just a few years removed from 8 straight winning seasons and grad rates in the 60 percents. And even though we just saw it happen here, the old line is back. We can't do better. Other's cheat. We are too tough academically. It's not X's fault or Y's fault. We can't expect better. We shouldn't expect better. We have gone back in a time machine to 2000 or 1980, with a nice remodel of a two thirds of a stadium, a great new training facility, but ultimately the same program and mindset.

That may not all be Barbour's fault. In fact, I don't care if it was her fault. It wasn't going to get better with status quo. That is the ultimately the deciding factor.

I thank Sandy for the charm, passion and hard work she brought to the job. She always seemed to love Cal and love her work. She did a fabulous job advancing the non-revenue sports. If she fell short in her job it was not through lack of effort or caring. She did all I could ask of her and I believe left it all on the field. It was time for a change. We will continue with our post-mortems, as we should. But for me, I think it is crucial that after the post-mortems we let Sandy go on her way. It doesn't help us to blame the one that is gone. The next person will have a tough job, but it is a job THEY must do. No excuses. No blaming predecessors.
The talk and the mindset usually comes from the fans not administration. Sure, you get a chancellor like Mike Heyman occasionally who makes clear he'd rather we follow the University of Chicago model when it comes to athletics. But most chancellors and AD's talk like there's no reason we can't compete at the highest levels.

Chancellor Tien made quite clear in his statements that, unlike Heyman's ideal of the University of Chicago, his ideal was the University of Michigan, and there was no reason why we couldn't succeed as both a good athletic school and a good academic school. Of course, Tien's ACTIONS all put the athletic department in the toilet, notably his hiring of Bockrath and his backing of Bockrath in running Snyder out of town, plus a lot of just as important under the radar funding and structuring issues, and the outcomes were disastrous.

The public face of most chancellors and AD's will be one that says there's no reason Cal can't succeed athletically just like we succeed academically. But words are irrelevant. Actions are important.

Of course, as you implicitly point out, in terms of the mindset of fans, outcomes are more important than the words of administrators. The academic outcomes and the football field outcomes have caused the old mindset of fans to be fully restored. The reality is that it takes doing it to have the mindset that we can do it. When Tedford was succeeding, we saw good outcomes on the football field, and deluded ourselves into thinking that the academic end was also doing OK. When Tedford sent the program into the tank and helped send the academics into the tank all at the same time, the old mindset was restored.

Unfortunately, the fact that Tedford did in many ways positively change the old mindset helped lead to some bad decisions by Sandy, including giving Tedford an extension she should not have given, and approving, tacitly or otherwise, Tedford's recruiting of too many academically marginal players. The academic outcome helped lead Sandy to focus more on what Tedford's successor could do for the program academically than how well he could help the team succeed on the field, hence we have Sonny. The jury is still out on whether Sonny will succeed on the field (with some jurors having decided he will not, others wanting more time to deliberate), but it still felt disappointing that Sonny was the best that Sandy could get us in terms of a football coach.

In the end, I don't care about what fans talk about or believe, and given our history, I don't care if administrators are paying lip services to Cal's ability to succeed. I'd like administrators who will take the actions that actually allow Cal to succeed, whose actions result in outcomes that prove we can succeed both athletically and academically.

Mistakes have been made that got us to where we are, the buck stops with Sandy and Dirks' predecessors, and I agree that things weren't going to get better with the status quo. I hope that the change in the status quo results not just in lip service, but positive outcomes, because that is what it will take to truly change the mindset.
socaliganbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Larry Baer needs to hurry up and take the job. :p
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
socaliganbear;842328696 said:

Larry Baer needs to hurry up and take the job. :p


But he has to change his name to Larry Bear.
59bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Given the apparent neglect it has suffered, a case could be made that the softball team has succeeded in spite of the athletic department.
gobears725
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear;842328607 said:

Ultimately, this is the reason (for me) we needed a change.

All of my life, Cal has been the place that talked about what we CAN'T do in revenue sports, in stark contrast with the rest of the university that not only believes we can do anything, but believes we can do things that people don't even dream need doing until we see the possibility. We don't have enough money. We have too much bureaucracy. We have too many academic challenges.

All of my life football and basketball coaches and athletic directors and everybody that touches revenue sports have been given excuses for failure. A lot of time for even the most basic things like being able to process ticket orders in an efficient and customer friendly manner. The bottom line message has always been "This is Cal. We can't do better." Even when we did better we immediately blew it (lose Snyder right when he achieves success. Follow up Jason Kidd with major sanctions).

Then, that changed. The chancellor decided against business as usual and promoting the obvious selection, and he hired Gladstone. Gladstone was a poor administrator, which is probably what you should expect from the crew coach, but he didn't believe you should accept coaching failure. He hired Tedford and no matter what some of you want to say about Tedford, he changed the mindset here. First people believe we COULD do better. Then people believed we SHOULD do better.

I look around now, and the last year to year and a half of bad news has brought us to square one. Horrible news on academic performance and the worst football season in school history have made people fall back on their old notions of Cal sports. We are just a few years removed from 8 straight winning seasons and grad rates in the 60 percents. And even though we just saw it happen here, the old line is back. We can't do better. Other's cheat. We are too tough academically. It's not X's fault or Y's fault. We can't expect better. We shouldn't expect better. We have gone back in a time machine to 2000 or 1980, with a nice remodel of a two thirds of a stadium, a great new training facility, but ultimately the same program and mindset.

That may not all be Barbour's fault. In fact, I don't care if it was her fault. It wasn't going to get better with status quo. That is the ultimately the deciding factor.

I thank Sandy for the charm, passion and hard work she brought to the job. She always seemed to love Cal and love her work. She did a fabulous job advancing the non-revenue sports. If she fell short in her job it was not through lack of effort or caring. She did all I could ask of her and I believe left it all on the field. It was time for a change. We will continue with our post-mortems, as we should. But for me, I think it is crucial that after the post-mortems we let Sandy go on her way. It doesn't help us to blame the one that is gone. The next person will have a tough job, but it is a job THEY must do. No excuses. No blaming predecessors.


summed it up pretty well OTB. thanks for sharing
oskigobears
How long do you want to ignore this user?
She has had the job for 10 years.
How many of us have had the same comprehensive type job as an AD for 10 years?

She was an associate or asst AD at Notre Dame before, I think.

I am in favor of her setting up a Sport management course/s in the the Extension Dept....and wonder if Sport Management can evolve into a campus official Minor course of study...in short order.

Positive all around.
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
socaliganbear;842328696 said:

Larry Baer needs to hurry up and take the job. :p


Absolutley!
sp4149
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If I were to list Sandy's failures they would start with caving into Larry Scott and his anti-Cal PAC12 decisions. He made Utah and Colorado more important for the conference than a plank holder school like Cal. Sandy let him dictate a mid season Big Game as a concession for playing the LA schools and then Cal no longer plays Stanford on rivalry weekend. Stanford's newly minted rivalry with Notre Dame takes Pac12 precedence, thanks again Larry.
The Cal football experience took a nosedive after Larry arrived. I blame Sandy for letting it happen; allowing Larry and the PAC12 to treat Cal like the proverbial redheaded step child. The only way it could get worse would be to have an anti-Cal Larry Scott clone running the AD.


Davidson;842328635 said:

i hope we get someone awesome like our own version of larry scott
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.