Don't think Ole Miss was too affected by any it. And they're about as polar opposite as you can get from Berkeley.Cal88 said:
IIRC there was talk of a H&H with Army a while back, but that fell through because of the image of Berkeley as a politically hostile environment, and that was well before the latest round of mayhem.
socaliganbear said:
Reading through what is essentially uniform porn got me thinking, I really really want us to do H&H with the academies. F8ck North Texas or U of Mandalay Bay or whatever, get me some Army, Navy, Air Force. Let's go there. Let's get series going with them and get them on a rotation.
A bunch of Cal fans at West Point would be awesome.
We had a home and home with Air Force under Tedford. Didn't really think it was a big deal. Not thirsting for that again. I think Army and Navy would be a lot more fun.socaliganbear said:Don't think Ole Miss was too affected by any it. And they're about as polar opposite as you can get from Berkeley.Cal88 said:
IIRC there was talk of a H&H with Army a while back, but that fell through because of the image of Berkeley as a politically hostile environment, and that was well before the latest round of mayhem.
Personally, I think that's a bs reason.
AunBear89 said:
I've been tooting the Navy horn for a while. Schedule Navy at Memorial during fleet week- Blue Angles fly-over and South end zone filled with sailors! Sounds pretty cool!
When has there been an issue?bluehenbear said:
I'm sure the university, students and faculty will treat Army/Navy fans and players respectfully.
The City of Berkeley...I'm not so sure.
I was at the game v. Navy (in 64) when the Bears defeated the Staubach-led Middies. It was a great day with a huge crowd. As far as Army, a game at West Point would be a treat. It is easily the most beautiful setting in the country for a college football game (and yes, everyonefootball fan or not, should tour West Point. It is an amazing place full of history)....sonofabear51 said:
Army leads the series 4-2. I was at the 1974 game, Cal won 27-14. Army won the last one back in 1980, Cal won in 1973 51-6. I don't recall much, but I do remember Army brought a huge group with them to CMS that day. Seemed to be a congenial time had by all, perhaps more for Cal fans. But, I agree, a roadie to either West Point or Annapolis would be really cool.
I'd rather just join the MWCOdontoBear66 said:
What if Cal only scheduled teams with a generally similar academic creed, and horror of horrors, drop the PAC 12. We seem to so want to balance athletics and academics that we are not even in the same ballpark with the Alabama's, the Georgias, even the ASUs (though their winning is not that great), the Oregon's, etc.
So have home and homes that vary each year with the likes of Army, Navy, Air Force, Rice, Vandy, Boston College, Duke, UNC, Texas, Northwestern, Stanfurd, Georgia Tech, even UCLA.... The idea being they look at academics in much the same plain as we do. The quality of FB would not be as great, but the academic/athletic bragging rites could be.
I am doubtful we ever return to the tOSU, ND, Alabama, level of play no matter how hard we try. We don't recruit Ivy like players, but we are between the two. Why frustrate oneself repeatedly, as in since the 50s?
And the coming down to the last play...NYCGOBEARS said:
The tradition, uniforms, and snow... my god, what a wonderful spectacle.
Let's get the Fighting Croupiers on the schedule immediatley!socaliganbear said:
U of Mandalay Bay or whatever
I'm sure furd was at this same decision point a decade ago, and they decided "F it, how about we dominate the Pac-12 instead". And they did. Why can they, but can't we?OdontoBear66 said:
What if Cal only scheduled teams with a generally similar academic creed, and horror of horrors, drop the PAC 12. We seem to so want to balance athletics and academics that we are not even in the same ballpark with the Alabama's, the Georgias, even the ASUs (though their winning is not that great), the Oregon's, etc.
So have home and homes that vary each year with the likes of Army, Navy, Air Force, Rice, Vandy, Boston College, Duke, UNC, Texas, Northwestern, Stanfurd, Georgia Tech, even UCLA.... The idea being they look at academics in much the same plain as we do. The quality of FB would not be as great, but the academic/athletic bragging rites could be.
I am doubtful we ever return to the tOSU, ND, Alabama, level of play no matter how hard we try. We don't recruit Ivy like players, but we are between the two. Why frustrate oneself repeatedly, as in since the 50s?
Because Furd has a supportive administration, a bottomless pit of money, and sugar daddy donors whenever they need them. We have none of that.510 Bear said:
I'm sure furd was at this same decision point a decade ago, and they decided "F it, how about we dominate the Pac-12 instead". And they did. Why can they, but can't we?
Golden One said:Because Furd has a supportive administration, a bottomless pit of money, and sugar daddy donors whenever they need them. We have none of that.510 Bear said:
I'm sure furd was at this same decision point a decade ago, and they decided "F it, how about we dominate the Pac-12 instead". And they did. Why can they, but can't we?
We both couple academics and athletics to gain advantage. The problem is we recruit California heavily and five or six more states. Stanfurd recruits throughout the country, and goes for the best of the best academically and athletically, and gives them a $70,000 per year carrot to sign on the dotted line. Now, our offer is good, but to most families in America but a step behind. And then we aren't aggressively recruiting all of America as does Stanfurd. Add to that the fact that all of America does not see Berkeley as the heaven we may. And their little Brendan or Emily will have to compete to even get a reasonable grade, not be told that when admitted you are the cream of the crop, and we will do everything to hand hold you through your four years. Quite a difference. Your choice.510 Bear said:I'm sure furd was at this same decision point a decade ago, and they decided "F it, how about we dominate the Pac-12 instead". And they did. Why can they, but can't we?OdontoBear66 said:
What if Cal only scheduled teams with a generally similar academic creed, and horror of horrors, drop the PAC 12. We seem to so want to balance athletics and academics that we are not even in the same ballpark with the Alabama's, the Georgias, even the ASUs (though their winning is not that great), the Oregon's, etc.
So have home and homes that vary each year with the likes of Army, Navy, Air Force, Rice, Vandy, Boston College, Duke, UNC, Texas, Northwestern, Stanfurd, Georgia Tech, even UCLA.... The idea being they look at academics in much the same plain as we do. The quality of FB would not be as great, but the academic/athletic bragging rites could be.
I am doubtful we ever return to the tOSU, ND, Alabama, level of play no matter how hard we try. We don't recruit Ivy like players, but we are between the two. Why frustrate oneself repeatedly, as in since the 50s?
And yes to us playing Army or Navy. Unlike furd, we actually schedule fun/meaningful OOC games and a matchup with either of these would continue that tradition.
OdontoBear66 said:We both couple academics and athletics to gain advantage. The problem is we recruit California heavily and five or six more states. Stanfurd recruits throughout the country, and goes for the best of the best academically and athletically, and gives them a $70,000 per year carrot to sign on the dotted line. Now, our offer is good, but to most families in America but a step behind. And then we aren't aggressively recruiting all of America as does Stanfurd. Add to that the fact that all of America does not see Berkeley as the heaven we may. And their little Brendan or Emily will have to compete to even get a reasonable grade, not be told that when admitted you are the cream of the crop, and we will do everything to hand hold you through your four years. Quite a difference. Your choice.510 Bear said:I'm sure furd was at this same decision point a decade ago, and they decided "F it, how about we dominate the Pac-12 instead". And they did. Why can they, but can't we?OdontoBear66 said:
What if Cal only scheduled teams with a generally similar academic creed, and horror of horrors, drop the PAC 12. We seem to so want to balance athletics and academics that we are not even in the same ballpark with the Alabama's, the Georgias, even the ASUs (though their winning is not that great), the Oregon's, etc.
So have home and homes that vary each year with the likes of Army, Navy, Air Force, Rice, Vandy, Boston College, Duke, UNC, Texas, Northwestern, Stanfurd, Georgia Tech, even UCLA.... The idea being they look at academics in much the same plain as we do. The quality of FB would not be as great, but the academic/athletic bragging rites could be.
I am doubtful we ever return to the tOSU, ND, Alabama, level of play no matter how hard we try. We don't recruit Ivy like players, but we are between the two. Why frustrate oneself repeatedly, as in since the 50s?
And yes to us playing Army or Navy. Unlike furd, we actually schedule fun/meaningful OOC games and a matchup with either of these would continue that tradition.
I think this is symptomatic of a larger problem. There's a reason why our giving rate for new alums is so low compared to those of our private peers. Part of it is that they recruit from pools of people who already have money, but we produce quite a few people in some of the most lucrative industries in the country. The problem is that the university really, really doesn't give students much of a reason to give back because beyond the name on the degree, the support system just isn't as expansive. Now, some people will take that as a badge of honor, which to an extent I agree with, because it does take a lot of gumption to get your Cal degree. But it's come to the point where students often fetishize how hard of a time they had here -- why would you want to give back to an institution like that?OdontoBear66 said:We both couple academics and athletics to gain advantage. The problem is we recruit California heavily and five or six more states. Stanfurd recruits throughout the country, and goes for the best of the best academically and athletically, and gives them a $70,000 per year carrot to sign on the dotted line. Now, our offer is good, but to most families in America but a step behind. And then we aren't aggressively recruiting all of America as does Stanfurd. Add to that the fact that all of America does not see Berkeley as the heaven we may. And their little Brendan or Emily will have to compete to even get a reasonable grade, not be told that when admitted you are the cream of the crop, and we will do everything to hand hold you through your four years. Quite a difference. Your choice.510 Bear said:I'm sure furd was at this same decision point a decade ago, and they decided "F it, how about we dominate the Pac-12 instead". And they did. Why can they, but can't we?OdontoBear66 said:
What if Cal only scheduled teams with a generally similar academic creed, and horror of horrors, drop the PAC 12. We seem to so want to balance athletics and academics that we are not even in the same ballpark with the Alabama's, the Georgias, even the ASUs (though their winning is not that great), the Oregon's, etc.
So have home and homes that vary each year with the likes of Army, Navy, Air Force, Rice, Vandy, Boston College, Duke, UNC, Texas, Northwestern, Stanfurd, Georgia Tech, even UCLA.... The idea being they look at academics in much the same plain as we do. The quality of FB would not be as great, but the academic/athletic bragging rites could be.
I am doubtful we ever return to the tOSU, ND, Alabama, level of play no matter how hard we try. We don't recruit Ivy like players, but we are between the two. Why frustrate oneself repeatedly, as in since the 50s?
And yes to us playing Army or Navy. Unlike furd, we actually schedule fun/meaningful OOC games and a matchup with either of these would continue that tradition.
