socaltownie;842576982 said:

---

You really are new here. The AD didn't have a "massive reality check" last year...or the year before...or the year before that...or the year before that. It is going to hurt but they are fine with where things are (see USA Today piece) and so too are the major donors.

And frankly I am as well. Focusing on the classroom the right thing. It just makes me sad that it puts a ceiling on our upside....but I am also sad that I will never sleep with a supermodel and yet I struggle on, every day, endlessly beating against the current that takes me ever further from the green light on the end of the dock.

---

The only possibility of a reality check is if the revenue situation gets bad enough, in conjunction with the stadium debt, that it begins to adversely affect the non-revenue sports, because they don't have enough money to keep their coaches or maintain scholarships. Looking way down the road, I could also see a situation where general university funds might have to be used to pay for the debt. That's going to create a situation where the Naders and Barskys will argue that we should just default, while the Haas business professors argue that the school can't whack its access to the credit markets. That would be an interesting debate.

SonOfCalVa;842577001 said:

---

+1 ... very sensible comments and perspective

---

What part, that I will never sleep with a Supermodel? Yeah - I have come to realize that...though I did go through a midlife crisis a few years ago.....Why I live vicariously through Shocky

Jeff82;842577010 said:

---

The only possibility of a reality check is if the revenue situation gets bad enough, in conjunction with the stadium debt, that it begins to adversely affect the non-revenue sports, because they don't have enough money to keep their coaches or maintain scholarships. Looking way down the road, I could also see a situation where general university funds might have to be used to pay for the debt. That's going to create a situation where the Naders and Barskys will argue that we should just default, while the Haas business professors argue that the school can't whack its access to the credit markets. That would be an interesting debate.

---

As long as TV needs sports the difference that low attendance at CMS will make is marginal to the overall health of the university. The debt on CMS is a problem - but that can be managed the way they are doing it right now "renting" out space to a department.

Fred Clerici;842576899 said:

---

Was at that 1978 game against UCLA. A total disaster, the only time I left a game before the final gun. When we beat USC in I believe 2003, I told myself, cherish this moment because this is probably as good as it ever will get, how true that was. I'll keep cheering for the Golden Bears, but unfortunately "the thrill is gone."

---

After surviving 1978, [U]you understand[/U].
Both teams hugely ranked, Joe Roth gone and his number retired, the battle of the UCs, prime time national game, the blimp ...
People who haven't survived years like 1978 don't have the perspective to understand last night which wasn't remotely comparable to playing fucla in 1978.

socaltownie;842577014 said:

---

What part, that I will never sleep with a Supermodel? Yeah - I have come to realize that...though I did go through a midlife crisis a few years ago.....Why I live vicariously through Shocky

---

lol .... yeah, no supermodel bed mate, and I'm a member of that massive group.
And the rest of your post was spot-on.

socaltownie;842577017 said:

---

As long as TV needs sports the difference that low attendance at CMS will make is marginal to the overall health of the university. The debt on CMS is a problem - but that can be managed the way they are doing it right now "renting" out space to a department.

---

Then I would say by default we're stuck with the current success ceiling, because we're stuck with the current resource levels. In another thread I posited the thought that the only other change might be if Cuonzo creates a whole new donor base from basketball, by consistently getting deep in the tournament starting this year. We would end up like Duke, with basketball basically subsidizing football, which would be highly ironic.

socaltownie;842576917 said:

---

Regime should not be seen as negative. I could have typed administration, faculty, AD and coaches but that is a lot more key strokes. It is simply an observation that there is a ceiling on our football program in respect to wins.

---

okay, point taken on 'regime' as well as the 'ceiling' on Cal football, very true even if distressing to some that we're not a football factory.

Jeff82;842577027 said:

---

Then I would say by default we're stuck with the current success ceiling, because we're stuck with the current resource levels. In another thread I posited the thought that the only other change might be if Cuonzo creates a whole new donor base from basketball, by consistently getting deep in the tournament starting this year. We would end up like Duke, with basketball basically subsidizing football, which would be highly ironic.

---

Frankly long term (by this 20 years long term) there could be worse things because I think in 20 years there is going to be a sea-change in the landscape of football. The information on concussions at this point is too compelling and the liability risks are too great. Case just filed in San Diego will be interesting - kid is suing the school district after getting second concussion in a game after bad coaching mistake to send him back in. I am frankly surprised La Jolla HS had enough kids go out for football this year to field a team.

Interesting. We may end up having the most fabulous rugby stadium in the country.

Jeff82;842577027 said:

---

Then I would say by default we're stuck with the current success ceiling, because we're stuck with the current resource levels. In another thread I posited the thought that the only other change might be if Cuonzo creates a whole new donor base from basketball, by consistently getting deep in the tournament starting this year. We would end up like Duke, with basketball basically subsidizing football, which would be highly ironic.

---

Duke basketball made $27 million; their football program $25 million but they are an outlier. Kentucky football makes more than Kentucky basketball. In truth, not that many people care about basketball.

http://http://www.businessinsider.com/mens-college-basketball-revenue-2015-4

GB54;842577064 said:

---

Duke basketball made $27 million; their football program $25 million but they are an outlier. Kentucky football makes more than Kentucky basketball. In truth, not that many people care about basketball.

http://http://www.businessinsider.com/mens-college-basketball-revenue-2015-4

---

That's an amazing stat about Kentucky, given their long-time mediocrity. It just reinforces that football games are as much about the atmosphere as they are about winning and losing. Of course, as we've discussed, our atmosphere for football is problematic as well.

Jeff82;842577067 said:

---

That's an amazing stat about Kentucky, given their long-time mediocrity. It just reinforces that football games are as much about the atmosphere as they are about winning and losing. Of course, as we've discussed, our atmosphere for football is problematic as well.

---

It's kind of interesting. No Kentucky football coach is going to make more than Coach Cal; no Duke coach is going to make more than K but the marginal revenue scenarios say that they should because the upside is greater.

The only numbers I could find for Cal were for 2012. Football had 26million in revenue; basketball, 8 million

http://http://vcaf.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/2013-01-Fin.pdf

GB54;842577078 said:

---

It's kind of interesting. No Kentucky football coach is going to make more than Coach Cal; no Duke coach is going to make more than K but the marginal revenue scenarios say that they should because the upside is greater.

The only numbers I could find for Cal were for 2012. Football had 26million in revenue; basketball, 8 million

http://http://vcaf.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/2013-01-Fin.pdf

---

Two letters....
TV

As well the fact that the NCAA controls the key property - the NCAA Basketball Tournament, while the schools themselves control the key properties for football.

We may soon end up like Duke or Kentucky with the basketball coach making more than the football coach if the hype is real.

socaltownie;842577080 said:

---

Two letters....
TV

As well the fact that the NCAA controls the key property - the NCAA Basketball Tournament, while the schools themselves control the key properties for football.

---

Much more popular sport and because of the way it is set up every regular season game can be huge as opposed to not mattering much at all. Most people don't watch until March

GB54;842577078 said:

---

It's kind of interesting. No Kentucky football coach is going to make more than Coach Cal; no Duke coach is going to make more than K but the marginal revenue scenarios say that they should because the upside is greater.

The only numbers I could find for Cal were for 2012. Football had 26million in revenue; basketball, 8 million

http://http://vcaf.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/2013-01-Fin.pdf

---

I just looked up Ky's attendance stats. So far this year, at home, they've drawn 63K four times, and 58K once. Their three remaining home games are against Tennessee, and two non-conference games, against Charlotte, and the traditional rivalry game against Louisville. So far, they're 4-2, 2-2 in conference. One of the things this shows is that college football draws, even when your team is mediocre, if it's the only game in town. Kentucky basically sells out or nearly sells out every home game, no matter the opponent. Also, the eight-game SEC schedule gives them four conference games, all at home, three against patsies, plus the Louisville game, which I assume alternates between L'Ville and Lexington. Basically, it appears your theory about marginal revenue isn't right, because football revenue is only loosely tied to performance. It just shows that the dynamics of college sports are much different in an urban area than they are in most of the SEC markets, for example, which by itself makes it tougher to compete. One of the things that will be interesting is how the return of the NFL to LA affects UCLA and particularly U$C, which have been the only game in town for years.

As a follow-up, in 2014, Kentucky averaged 57,500 a game while going 5-7, including 2-6 in the SEC. We averaged about 47,000 with the same record. The competition for the sports entertainment dollar is just tougher here than in the outback.

Jeff82;842577102 said:

---

As a follow-up, in 2014, Kentucky averaged 57,500 a game while going 5-7, including 2-6 in the SEC. We averaged about 47,000 with the same record. The competition for the sports entertainment dollar is just tougher here than in the outback.

---

That's true, but winning will bring additional people here. That was obvious in the Tedford salad days. In truth paying $5 million vs $2 million for a coach is a pittance if he is successful

9,000 redundant, hollow posts and still hiding behind the it doesnt matter to you when we lose. Turn off half the game again - but expect us to listen to your analysis.

I know you are satisfied though, since the high water mark for you was a .500 year in the 70s.

I came to this conclusion after the BYU game last year -- must-win game to be bowl-eligible, at home, and against a team that does not have Cal clearly out-talented. We laid an egg. A sloppy performance all around.

This season started well, and winning is always fun, so I decided to just enjoy the ride. But . . . yeah. I still don't think Sonny is the guy. He's not a terrible coach or anything, but at Cal you need better than "not bad" to get to the Rose Bowl. We don't have institutional advantages like other big-name programs do, so we need to find an excellent coach to put us over the top. I don't think Dykes is that guy. In general, he doesn't beat good teams. What's worse, I suspect the coaches who have faced him a few times (and who have real talent on D) have figured out the offense. Too often it seemed like UCLA's DBs knew exactly where the pass was going. They got there before the receiver did. Given that offense is supposed to be our calling card with Dykes, that's a disturbing prospect.

GranadaHillsBear;842576233 said:

---

SonofcalVA is committing suicide

---

Nah, that is a family member probably.

sycasey;842577320 said:

---

I came to this conclusion after the BYU game last year -- must-win game to be bowl-eligible, at home, and against a team that does not have Cal clearly out-talented. We laid an egg. A sloppy performance all around.

This season started well, and winning is always fun, so I decided to just enjoy the ride. But . . . yeah. I still don't think Sonny is the guy. He's not a terrible coach or anything, but at Cal you need better than "not bad" to get to the Rose Bowl. We don't have institutional advantages like other big-name programs do, so we need to find an excellent coach to put us over the top. I don't think Dykes is that guy. In general, he doesn't beat good teams. What's worse, I suspect the coaches who have faced him a few times (and who have real talent on D) have figured out the offense. Too often it seemed like UCLA's DBs knew exactly where the pass was going. They got there before the receiver did. Given that offense is supposed to be our calling card with Dykes, that's a disturbing prospect.

---

my sentiments exactly, including the byu conclusion.

SonOfCalVa;842577024 said:

---

lol .... yeah, no supermodel bed mate, and I'm a member of that massive group.
And the rest of your post was spot-on.

---

To be fair, if you were offering $2.5 million per year, you'd have your choice of supermodel bedmates....they'd be lined up around the block for the chance.

It's ROI that we're talking about, and with Sonny - we just ain't getting our $$ worth.

bearister;842576283 said:

---

Same result next year. I would run for the hills if I was them.

---

Yeah, he could be drafted by the Niners and be getting the great protection Kaepernick is receiving !!!

CAL6371;842576377 said:

---

It will be ok? How? No running game, no pass protection,no pass rush, no special teams to score points.... Not a formula for success.

---

Other than that, we're having a great year !!!

If it is just a game and no big deal, then we should never have fired Jeff Tedford and hired these guys from Louisiana Tech.

After all, it's just a game. 3 wins and 9 losses for Tedford in his final year was no big deal. Just a game. He had plenty of other winning seasons. And the players seemed to like him. So what, right?


So how come we fired Tedford? It's just a game in the end, right?

SonOfCalVa;842576990 said:

---

Gawd, you guys are immersed in hyperbole. "Ruining the 'culture' of this board" ... get a grip.
As stated, I watched until a couple of minutes left in the 3rd quarter, on a Thursday night, with much to do today, so trading the rest of a lost game for sleep was an excellent trade-off for me ... whether that distresses you or not, and you don't count.
You seem to have self-appointed yourself as an unofficial BI spokesman ... what a hoot.
It is JUST A GAME ... and this place is JUST A BOARD, but a big step up from most, and well-run by Moraga.

---

SonOfCalVa;842577028 said:

---

okay, point taken on 'regime' as well as the 'ceiling' on Cal football, very true even if distressing to some that we're not a football factory.

---

What is distressing that to Me is that Cal should be better than we have shown over the past several years - Tedford proved that we can compete for titles (co-league champion), #7 ranking, another year #2 ranked nationally mid year etc. And yes Football program/athletic performance is extremely important to many of us. Call it sense of pride, loyalty, competitive spirit, "why not us" attitude etc. Its been well documented that leading athletic performances in Football and basketball (to a lesser degree) incentivise Cal alums, to donate to various programs (athletic and non-athletic endeavors). I became an ESP contributor originally because in part due to Tedford's performance and also because I felt that financial support was needed to a much over do project. Many of us assist with the Basketball program just so the program has a fighting chance financially. Several of the other League's schools have large internal budgets for recruiting, charter flights, overseas play every 4 years etc. Our athletic performance is important to many of us and that does not mean we want just "a football factory". Seeing our football team go 0-9 vs Ucla,SC, Furd, Oregon over the past 3 years can beaten down expectations - lets dare to be great and support our programs financially as reasonable and in attendance as schedule's permit.

I'm almost as aggravated by Dykes and the team performance as I am with Cal fans and media not being reasonable about our 5-0 start. This creates a hyper-inflated narrative that leads to a wide scale letdown that I've seen the past 24 hours.

Here is some Xanax to ease the pain: Preseason basketball rankings:
1 Kentucky (11) 0-0 749
1 North Carolina (12) 0-0 749
3 Maryland (5) 0-0 723
4 Duke (3) 0-0 686
5 Kansas (1) 0-0 675
6 Virginia 0-0 667
7 Iowa State 0-0 541
8 Oklahoma 0-0 520
9 Villanova 0-0 498
10 Arizona 0-0 477
11 Gonzaga 0-0 468
12 Wichita St 0-0 461
13 Michigan State 0-0 386
14 California 0-0 350

bearister;842577517 said:

---

Here is some Xanax to ease the pain: Preseason basketball rankings:
1 Kentucky (11) 0-0 749
1 North Carolina (12) 0-0 749
3 Maryland (5) 0-0 723
4 Duke (3) 0-0 686
5 Kansas (1) 0-0 675
6 Virginia 0-0 667
7 Iowa State 0-0 541
8 Oklahoma 0-0 520
9 Villanova 0-0 498
10 Arizona 0-0 477
11 Gonzaga 0-0 468
12 Wichita St 0-0 461
13 Michigan State 0-0 386
14 California 0-0 350

---

The last time there was this much preseason excitement for Cal BB was 2003 with the Powe, Ubaka, Kately, McGuire class. We were terrible.

housingbear;842577519 said:

---

The last time there was this much preseason excitement for Cal BB was 2003 with the Powe, Ubaka, Kately, McGuire class. We were terrible.

---

You gotta throw me a bone here. You're a regular Debbie Downer. I'm trying to build my psyche up for the inevitable Raiders blowout in S.D. Sunday.

jaccpot10;842577507 said:

---

If it is just a game and no big deal, then we should never have fired Jeff Tedford and hired these guys from Louisiana Tech.

After all, it's just a game. 3 wins and 9 losses for Tedford in his final year was no big deal. Just a game. He had plenty of other winning seasons. And the players seemed to like him. So what, right?


So how come we fired Tedford? It's just a game in the end, right?

---

low APR and very probable sanctions, among other things ... his time was up and he failed probation.

Jeff82;842577010 said:

---

The only possibility of a reality check is if the revenue situation gets bad enough, in conjunction with the stadium debt, that it begins to adversely affect the non-revenue sports, because they don't have enough money to keep their coaches or maintain scholarships. Looking way down the road, I could also see a situation where general university funds might have to be used to pay for the debt. That's going to create a situation where the Naders and Barskys will argue that we should just default, while the Haas business professors argue that the school can't whack its access to the credit markets. That would be an interesting debate.

---

Well that is a debate that won't happen. Notwithstanding embarrassing Barsky comment to the contrary (this really speaks to eliminating the tenure concept), the bonds were issued by UC, not Cal, the bonds are not pledged against revenues from football, sports, Cal university funds, anything actually identified to Cal, etc. They are pledged against general UC revenues, and UC will pay the bonds out of general funds. UC pays billions of dollars each year to pay down bonds, and often without having specific money authorized for the projects financed by the bonds. If you don't believe me, you can go to the SEC EDGAR system and read the official statement for the bonds that include the stadium and SAHPC (btw, the bonds finance numerous projects, not just Cal sports facilities, including, without limitation, faculty lounges, classrooms, labs, sports facilities and other schools for which, get this, there are no donors, and on and on. It may come as a shock to anyone who reads the official statement that UC often builds sports facilities at other schools not named UCLA or Cal and pays for them out of taxpayer dollars! BTW, if you read the official statement, that will put you way ahead of Barsky on knowing something about how the actual financing works.

Jeff82;842577027 said:

---

Then I would say by default we're stuck with the current success ceiling, because we're stuck with the current resource levels. In another thread I posited the thought that the only other change might be if Cuonzo creates a whole new donor base from basketball, by consistently getting deep in the tournament starting this year. We would end up like Duke, with basketball basically subsidizing football, which would be highly ironic.

---

Hopefully the stadium debt will prevent us from becoming like Kansas... but even KU football had that BCS run with Mangino.

Dammit

GB54;842577121 said:

---

That's true, but winning will bring additional people here. That was obvious in the Tedford salad days. In truth paying $5 million vs $2 million for a coach is a pittance if he is successful

---

that is likely not as true anymore thanks to the TV contract. Without getting into details about last minute and night time scheduling, etc, just realize that many people now would rather watch the game in their surround sound huge HD TV room (since every game is now televised) than deal with the hassle of the game day experience. Even if Cal had the same record as during the JT years, the AD staff will tell you (as they have told me) Cal will not draw as well. A look at peer schools, Furd and UCLA, are used as examples. They simply are not drawing fans as well despite success on the field. The one exception conference appears to be Utah, which has sold out 42 times in a row, but they also have an undersized stadium.