Having donned my fire suit, I'll elevate to this thread a comment I made in one of the others. In 2001, I was contacted by the Cal campaign for my annual contribution to the school. I refused, telling the teary-voiced undergraduate on the other end of the phone: "Once I see who the new football coach is, if I think it's someone that indicates the school actually is interested in having a competitive football program, then I'll consider renewing my donation. Please five that message to Chancellor Berdahl."

I think we're at that point again. We've had numerous posts suggesting that simply changing the coach won't fix the program, unless there's a change in attitude in the administration. IMHO, the only way to force such a change, even temporarily, is to withhold both athletic and academic donations from the school, until you see what's done about Dykes. That's the only way to communicate that alumni believe having a successful athletic program is important. The criticism of doing that is that it hurts the student body, which is not at fault. Perhaps, but you also need the student body to put pressure on the administration if you want athletics to be successful. More student support for football wouldn't hurt either, and this also tells the student body that they should pay attention to what alumni feel is important, if they want alumni to help pay for their studies.

Once Cal hired Tedford, I resumed donating, mostly because of the clause in his contract that committed the school to either fix the facilities, or allow Tedford to leave with no buyout. That at least put the school on record as being willing to do its part, if Tedford could show some success, which he did, and was in marked contrast to the Snyder situation, where he supposedly was forced out because the Chancellor didn't want the football coach to be the highest paid employee. That attitude is stupid, since football, rightly or wrongly, is the highest profile endeavor in which Cal is involved. IMHO, the stadium would never have been built but for the clause in Tedford's contract, and for the firestorm that would have resulted had he quit because the project didn't go forward. We should now look for the next Tedford, and have him put a clause in his contract guaranteeing additional resources for recruiting and position coach salaries, if he has initial success.

If nothing happens this offseason (which is a possibility), then yes this is an appropriate response.

As frustrated as I am with the current situation regarding football, holding the academic institution hostage to a sport coach is flat-out bizarre. I get it that in Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, etc. the university exists only to provide a venue for the football team, but Cal is an actual university with actual students and actual faculty doing actual teaching and research. I agree fully with the idea of refusing to contribute to athletics unless changes are made, but holding students hostage? Especially with a $150million deficit?

UrsaMajor;842765440 said:

---

As frustrated as I am with the current situation regarding football, holding the academic institution hostage to a sport coach is flat-out bizarre. I get it that in Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, etc. the university exists only to provide a venue for the football team, but Cal is an actual university with actual students and actual faculty doing actual teaching and research. I agree fully with the idea of refusing to contribute to athletics unless changes are made, but holding students hostage? Especially with a $150million deficit?

---

So long as the University (or at least certain elements within it) wishes to demonize and use inter-collegiate athletics as a red herring for the more significant budgetary issues (unfunded pensions, administrative bloat, etc) going on, then I do think this response is appropriate.

When Cal realizes that A) athletics are a critical link between alumni and the school, and B) it is inexcusable to treat athletics like a red-headed step-child, then my attitude will change.

UrsaMajor;842765440 said:

---

As frustrated as I am with the current situation regarding football, holding the academic institution hostage to a sport coach is flat-out bizarre. I get it that in Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, etc. the university exists only to provide a venue for the football team, but Cal is an actual university with actual students and actual faculty doing actual teaching and research. I agree fully with the idea of refusing to contribute to athletics unless changes are made, but holding students hostage? Especially with a $150million deficit?

---

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. But no one can take that stance and then complain about the lack of institutional support for athletics. If you want to the institution to change, then you have to find the pressure points to bring that about. As long as there's no direct evidence that athletics make a contribution to the overall health of the university, the vocal minority (at least I think it's a minority) that wants to inhibit the athletic program for ideological reasons will continue to hold sway.

I 100% agree with the OP.

UrsaMajor;842765440 said:

---

As frustrated as I am with the current situation regarding football, holding the academic institution hostage to a sport coach is flat-out bizarre. I get it that in Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, etc. the university exists only to provide a venue for the football team, but Cal is an actual university with actual students and actual faculty doing actual teaching and research. I agree fully with the idea of refusing to contribute to athletics unless changes are made, but holding students hostage? Especially with a $150million deficit?

---

And Cal deserves an [SIZE=3]actual[/SIZE] football team with [SIZE=3]actual[/SIZE] coaches, not amateurs.

Jeff82;842765415 said:

---

Having donned my fire suit, I'll elevate to this thread a comment I made in one of the others. In 2001, I was contacted by the Cal campaign for my annual contribution to the school. I refused, telling the teary-voiced undergraduate on the other end of the phone: "Once I see who the new football coach is, if I think it's someone that indicates the school actually is interested in having a competitive football program, then I'll consider renewing my donation. Please five that message to Chancellor Berdahl."

I think we're at that point again. We've had numerous posts suggesting that simply changing the coach won't fix the program, unless there's a change in attitude in the administration. IMHO, the only way to force such a change, even temporarily, is to withhold both athletic and academic donations from the school, until you see what's done about Dykes. That's the only way to communicate that alumni believe having a successful athletic program is important. The criticism of doing that is that it hurts the student body, which is not at fault. Perhaps, but you also need the student body to put pressure on the administration if you want athletics to be successful. More student support for football wouldn't hurt either, and this also tells the student body that they should pay attention to what alumni feel is important, if they want alumni to help pay for their studies.

Once Cal hired Tedford, I resumed donating, mostly because of the clause in his contract that committed the school to either fix the facilities, or allow Tedford to leave with no buyout. That at least put the school on record as being willing to do its part, if Tedford could show some success, which he did, and was in marked contrast to the Snyder situation, where he supposedly was forced out because the Chancellor didn't want the football coach to be the highest paid employee. That attitude is stupid, since football, rightly or wrongly, is the highest profile endeavor in which Cal is involved. IMHO, the stadium would never have been built but for the clause in Tedford's contract, and for the firestorm that would have resulted had he quit because the project didn't go forward. We should now look for the next Tedford, and have him put a clause in his contract guaranteeing additional resources for recruiting and position coach salaries, if he has initial success.

---

I completely agree!

If I cared about Cal football as much as I care about the university I took my degree from, I would agree with the opening post. I don't. I care about Cal attracting Professors like History's Leon Litwack more than quarterbacks like Davis Webb and the other guys Sonny has brought in. So I can't withhold donations to the academic side just because the former AD (and the current AD) are incapable of doing their job correctly. I have no problem with others withholding their academic donations, but I can't.

My plan was to withhold the academic donation while still making the sports donation with a letter explaining why I'm withholding from the academic side (hint - because it's the only side they care about and it was the athletic success from last decade that got me donating to both to begin with).

Just go the route of the University of Chicago. To hell with the NCAA and and football. Where the future of this sport at the collegiate is going is anybody's guess. Money has ruined what used to be a very pleasant collegiate saturday experience. And the physical health issues are at odds with the purpose of the true mission of the University. Someday, the game may well be played using robotic participants either driven by human "stick" handlers or their own AI anyway. We should not keep pouring money down a pointless rat hole. And BTW, I love Cal Football, but that disappeared ten years ago.

Dykes is staying for the 2017 season. Beyond that, who knows. Specifically, what would you want the School's administration (Chancellor) to do? What would you want Mike W. to do, specifically? Are we only speaking of raising the salaries of assistant coaches? If not, then replacing certain coaches and hiring more expensive assistants? What about the costs incurred and the CMS debt? I have to believe we go after the best recruits available. Whether they qualify and then commit is quite a different issue. We now have outstanding facilities, the equal of most of the Pac12 (except for Whoregon, of course), so that aspect has been taken care of. What else must they do?

What will satisfy all the complaining posters about the school, the admin, I/A, AD, etc? Be specific!

UrsaMajor;842765440 said:

---

As frustrated as I am with the current situation regarding football, holding the academic institution hostage to a sport coach is flat-out bizarre. I get it that in Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, etc. the university exists only to provide a venue for the football team, but Cal is an actual university with actual students and actual faculty doing actual teaching and research. I agree fully with the idea of refusing to contribute to athletics unless changes are made, but holding students hostage? Especially with a $150million deficit?

---

I disagree. The athletic department is not separate from the university. We showed that pretty blatantly when we paid Tedford to leave.

The University is under the impression that sports has no positive impact on the school. One of the MAJOR implications of a good (not even great) football team is drawing alums back to donate to the academic side. Right now the prevailing argument is that sports (football specifically) brings nothing but debt to the university. Eliminating donations to athletics strengthens that argument substantially by limiting the income of the AD while not showing the direct impact of maintaining relationships with alums that football brings. Making the intangibles tangible is critical to long term health of the school and the program.

BeggarEd;842765451 said:

---

So long as the University (or at least certain elements within it) wishes to demonize and use inter-collegiate athletics as a red herring for the more significant budgetary issues (unfunded pensions, administrative bloat, etc) going on, then I do think this response is appropriate.

When Cal realizes that A) athletics are a critical link between alumni and the school, and B) it is inexcusable to treat athletics like a red-headed step-child, then my attitude will change.

---

I couldn't agree more with this.

6bear6;842765509 said:

---

I have to believe we go after the best recruits available.

---

Only on one side of the ball.

6bear6;842765509 said:

---

What will satisfy all the complaining posters about the school, the admin, I/A, AD, etc? Be specific!

---

Getting a new head coach means University leadership is awake and functioning. We should have had at least an interim defensive coordinator 6 weeks ago. However it is beginning to look like no changes will be made. Do you think anybody is satisfied by that around here?

First, cancel your season tickets

jy1988;842765499 said:

---

Just go the route of the University of Chicago. To hell with the NCAA and and football. Where the future of this sport at the collegiate is going is anybody's guess. Money has ruined what used to be a very pleasant collegiate saturday experience. And the physical health issues are at odds with the purpose of the true mission of the University. Someday, the game may well be played using robotic participants either driven by human "stick" handlers or their own AI anyway. We should not keep pouring money down a pointless rat hole. And BTW, I love Cal Football, but that disappeared ten years ago.

---

Cal football is still profitable. We are not "pouring money down a rat hole."

Athletics is in debt largely due to women's sports. If you believe women should have that opportunity, you need football to pay for it (or eliminate that oppertunity as you eliminate football, but then you dont TRULY believe women's sports are important, if you only think they are when men play sports). If you dont think womens sports are importaint, we can trim down the non-rev sports (mens and womens) until we are not losing money, and have football support the entire thing.

1979bear;842765494 said:

---

If I cared about Cal football as much as I care about the university I took my degree from, I would agree with the opening post. I don't. I care about Cal attracting Professors like History's Leon Litwack more than quarterbacks like Davis Webb and the other guys Sonny has brought in. So I can't withhold donations to the academic side just because the former AD (and the current AD) are incapable of doing their job correctly. I have no problem with others withholding their academic donations, but I can't.

---

Cal is not being run very well either, though...

At what point do you decide to let them know you noticed? Or have you not noticed?

Personally, I think Cal is in more trouble than Cal Football.

UrsaMajor;842765440 said:

---

As frustrated as I am with the current situation regarding football, holding the academic institution hostage to a sport coach is flat-out bizarre. I get it that in Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, etc. the university exists only to provide a venue for the football team, but Cal is an actual university with actual students and actual faculty doing actual teaching and research. I agree fully with the idea of refusing to contribute to athletics unless changes are made, but holding students hostage? Especially with a $150million deficit?

---

For me, personally, I wouldn't do what Jeff is suggesting. However, if it is important to him, it makes sense. your suggestion of refusing to contribute to athletics in the situation but leaving academics alone is about like having someone break into your house to kill you and you put a gun to your own head and say stop or I'll shoot. I guess it depends on whether you think ultimately the athletic department is the problem or the faculty/administration. If you think it is the latter, cutting funding to the athletic department is just giving them what they want. He does have a point that if the academic side of the house saw the impact of a good or bad football program on them, they would be much quicker to act on behalf of the football program.

It would seem that cutting off IA would only hurt the University as they'll have to pick up the tab. Except that would only give them more ammo against athletics. I'm starting to come around to the OP's idea. Might be the most direct way to make a statement.

Just to turn the argument slightly, if the chancellor, or Janet Napolitano, stood up and announced that Cal was giving up football, because it has determined that we can't compete in the arms race, or that doing so is antithetical to the mission of the university, I would actually respect that decision. What you would be left with is an athletic program that moves to the WCC or another basketball only conference, and consists of men's hoops, whatever sports are self-endowed (probably men's golf, rugby and swimming/diving) and whatever other women's sports are needed to comply on the numerical prong of Title IX. Essentially, whatever athletic revenue is obtained or provided by administration, other than to support these sports, would pay off the stadium bonds, which would just be viewed as a sunk cost of the school. Maybe we swap Saturday football games in the fall for Saturday rock concerts in order to generate some revenue from the building.

I actually felt in 2001 that we should give up football, because I thought there was basically zero chance Cal could get its act together to fix to horrid facilities. I was wrong about that. Unfortunately, 20/20 hindsight suggests that fixing the facilities was a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to be competitive in football, particularly if my belief that what happened to Tedford severely damaged our reputation in the football coaching fraternity is correct.

It's not clear to me, again, that Cal is constituted institutionally in a way that results in us doing what probably needs to be done to be competitive. If we want to get off the treadmill, that's OK by me. What really irritates is having smoke blown up my aperture by campus administrators who pay lip service to being competitive in football, but actually can't or won't do what's necessary. Williams infamous "3-9" comment, and the likelihood that no coaching change will be made after this season, leads me to believe that's where we're at.

Jeff82;842765589 said:

---

Essentially, whatever athletic revenue is obtained or provided by administration, other than to support these sports, would pay off the stadium bonds, which would just be viewed as a sunk cost of the school. Maybe we swap Saturday football games in the fall for Saturday rock concerts in order to generate some revenue from the building.

---

So you are fine with the administration paying roughly $30 million a year for the next 40 years to pay off the stadium debt instead of $5-10 million a year to cover IAD's deficit now? There essentially is no athletics revenue out side of football. 4-5 sports might be covering their own costs outside of football. Basketball would go from revenue positive to revenue neutral or even negative because there would be no Pac 12 TV money. If you look at the level of subsidies for athletics at every other non Pac-12 university in the state of California, they are pushing 50-70% of the entire athletic department budget.

That's a lose, lose.

Any notion of cutting football ended when the shovels hit the ground on CMS.

Your 'I would have more respect for doing something completely monumentally stupid than keeping on the current path' statement is asinine.

It is what it is. I don't see the administration putting more money into football unless forced to by public pressure. So maybe they just straggle along on the current path until ticket sales and contributions melt away.

Is it the job of the University of California to be chasing after Alabama, USC et al in a football arms race? No. If we can't succeed in that endeavor and still be the University of California, we should just forget about it. I'm more proud of an institution that nurtures and accommodates future Nobel Prize winners than one that bankrupts itself for the sake of the NCAA. If people want a big time football program here, let the big money donors fund it.

6bear6;842765509 said:

---

What will satisfy all the complaining posters about the school, the admin, I/A, AD, etc? Be specific!

---

This would be a fine start:
1. Holding themselves and every coach to the same level of excellence we expect and demand of every other part of the school.
2. The administration caring about IA as much as they expect fans to care.

tequila4kapp;842766462 said:

---

This would be a fine start:
1. Holding themselves and every coach to the same level of excellence we expect and demand of every other part of the school.
2. The administration caring about IA as much as they expect fans to care.

---

For those of us who have been around the football program a long time, and not privy like some of you to the financial implications, it is obvious there is a vast disconnect between Cal and football. It's about finances across the board, nothing else seems to bridge the gap. We lovers of the sport ARE chasing Alabama, as somebody pointed out. Sure, National Championships and the whole thing. I completely agree that for Cal and football to come together, #1 above needs to happen. It won't. And #2, please! What we are seeing as fans on the field is not excellence.

UrsaMajor;842765440 said:

---

As frustrated as I am with the current situation regarding football, holding the academic institution hostage to a sport coach is flat-out bizarre. I get it that in Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, etc. the university exists only to provide a venue for the football team, but Cal is an actual university with actual students and actual faculty doing actual teaching and research. I agree fully with the idea of refusing to contribute to athletics unless changes are made, but holding students hostage? Especially with a $150million deficit?

---

Watch your step...might fall off that high horse.
Its truly amazing that those schools that "just exist" somehow have alumni that can donate back to the schools at all. I mean, aren't they all just moving on and working at McDonalds?
Seems like you can criticize our alum/fan base without lashing out at the others. And Cal is playing big time football just like they are-the sausage is still made the same way.

jy1988;842765629 said:

---

Is it the job of the University of California to be chasing after Alabama, USC et al in a football arms race? No. If we can't succeed in that endeavor and still be the University of California, we should just forget about it. I'm more proud of an institution that nurtures and accommodates future Nobel Prize winners than one that bankrupts itself for the sake of the NCAA. If people want a big time football program here, let the big money donors fund it.

---

I for one can live with whatever our W/L record is if I believe the admin is all in (whatever that means by Cal standards). It isn't necessarily about mindlessly chasing NC's.

I'm sure you are aware of USC's rise in academia. You may not be aware that Alabama has become a quite fine academic university. Some might contend football success leads to more revenue for the university which means academic improvements. That's not so outlandish - happy / proud people tend to open their wallets more freely.

Jeff82;842765415 said:

---

[plea for better football

---

I prefer to be an alum of an Academic Institution with some student sports teams, than a Football Team with an adjunct school.
Let's keep our perspective, folk.

CaliforniaGoldenBear;842766594 said:

---

I prefer to be an alum of an Academic Institution with some student sports teams, than a Football Team with an adjunct school.
Let's keep our perspective, folk.

---

Personal perspective huh

tequila4kapp;842766590 said:

---

I for one can live with whatever our W/L record is if I believe the admin is all in (whatever that means by Cal standards). It isn't necessarily about mindlessly chasing NC's.

I'm sure you are aware of USC's rise in academia. You may not be aware that Alabama has become a quite fine academic university. Some might contend football success leads to more revenue for the university which means academic improvements. That's not so outlandish - happy / proud people tend to open their wallets more freely.

---

If Cal had Alabama's academic profile and Alabama had our football program, we'd both commit Seppuku.

It's an interesting thought though: in the new era of lucrative TV contracts, big-time bowl tie-ins and nationwide exposure, is Cal doing a disservice to its academic endeavors by sucking at football? Or, to put it another way, does a successful football program create a halo effect that positively impacts the rest of the school, and are we going to miss out on that (with the eventual result of falling behind the other big public schools, e.g. Michigan, Wisconsin, and yes, even Alabama)?

CaliforniaGoldenBear;842766594 said:

---

I prefer to be an alum of an Academic Institution with some student sports teams, than a Football Team with an adjunct school.
Let's keep our perspective, folk.

---

I am sorry, but I hate this mentality. Why can't we succeed at both? Why does excellence in one lead to acceptance of incompetence in the other. Why can't we be like Stanford, Michigan, Notre Dame, and UCLA that excel at both. We are not so much superior in academics to those schools (definitely not to Stanford) that we can use that as an excuse. We just have a general community (including faculty, administration, a significant portion of the students) with very divisive and elitist attitude that they are too smart and too sophisticated to care about sports. That attitude is adverse to generating alumni passion for the school overall, which also negatively affects donations and funds available to them. In my opinion, this attitude is quite destructive.

If Furd can do it, we really have no excuses.

Phantomfan;842765510 said:

---

I disagree. The athletic department is not separate from the university. We showed that pretty blatantly when we paid Tedford to leave.

The University is under the impression that sports has no positive impact on the school. One of the MAJOR implications of a good (not even great) football team is drawing alums back to donate to the academic side. Right now the prevailing argument is that sports (football specifically) brings nothing but debt to the university. Eliminating donations to athletics strengthens that argument substantially by limiting the income of the AD while not showing the direct impact of maintaining relationships with alums that football brings. Making the intangibles tangible is critical to long term health of the school and the program.

---

Football pays for around 500 plus students, and the administration knows that. Football goes away, the budget deficit goes ANOTHER 40 to 50 Million Dollars every years.