Not a big fan of trying to defend the option or wishbone, they eat up too much clock, a couple of turnovers and we're screwed.

I've seen two Duke-Army football games at West Point. Great tradition, great history and a beautiful setting on the Hudson River. I'd jump at the chance to see Cal play at Michie Stadium.

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

The tradition, uniforms, and snow... my god, what a wonderful spectacle.

---

Fitting that it snowed. Army uniforms (all white) were a tribute to the 10th Mountain Division. Maybe it helped.

Exciting game - had everything, including big plays which few expected.

510 Bear said:

---

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?

---

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?

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.

---

Furd plays Army.

FWIW, if the NCAA ever allows players to be paid, Furd said publicly they will leave the conference, not pay players and just try to play programs that don't pay salaries (e..g, the Ivies).

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!

---

Many of us saw Roger Staubach and Coach Hardin's Navy play Cal at CMS in 1964. Staubach played injured (ankle), but he was a leader and a "winner".

Coach Willsey's Bears won 27-13.

Think about it . . . both QB Staubach and great Cal QB Morton headed to Dallas to play for Coach Landry's Cowboys.

I don't remember there ever being any hostile activity at Football games to any team based upon political affiliations. And I have been watching Cal FB since 1963.
The most I remember were the tree sitters.
There never have been protestors or protest signs or protest activities.

There has been much more political harassment from the stanfurd band.

Here I am talking football games and football related activities. Not anything taking place on other parts of campus unrelated to football.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

I don't remember there ever being any hostile activity at Football games to any team based upon political affiliations. And I have been watching Cal FB since 1963.
The most I remember were the tree sitters.
There never have been protestors or protest signs or protest activities.

There has been much more political harassment from the stanfurd band.

Here I am talking football games and football related activities. Not anything taking place on other parts of campus unrelated to football.

---

That's a great point.

I agree that there are a number of problem which in my view are:
1. The private universities make a better effort to instill giving from day 1 on campus.
2. Students at PUs often come from private HSs where again giving is instilled from day 1.
3. Cal Students and their parents often believe that since they pay taxes and since Cal is a "public" college they shouldn't have to give donations as well. Much in the same manner that they didn't have to give donations to their public HSs.
4. A large portion of Cal students come from much poorer backgrounds as is evident from the number of spell grants. People from such backgrounds (and their parents) do not have a lot of extra disposable income to give to their college.
5. A large portion of Cal alums go into fields that are not as financially rewarding as compared to grads of PUs. Being socially conscious may be good for society as a whole but is not as good for your pocketbook. Hence they have less disposable income.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

I agree that there are a number of problem which in my view are:
1. The private universities make a better effort to instill giving from day 1 on campus.
2. Students at PUs often come from private HSs where again giving is instilled from day 1.
3. Cal Students and their parents often believe that since they pay taxes and since Cal is a "public" college they shouldn't have to give donations as well. Much in the same manner that they didn't have to give donations to their public HSs.
4. A large portion of Cal students come from much poorer backgrounds as is evident from the number of spell grants. People from such backgrounds (and their parents) do not have a lot of extra disposable income to give to their college.
5. A large portion of Cal alums go into fields that are not as financially rewarding as compared to grads of PUs. Being socially conscious may be good for society as a whole but is not as good for your pocketbook. Hence they have less disposable income.

---

Given all the rankings of income, total wealth etc. I would say that this doesn't seem very likely. Everything else is spot on though.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/slideshows/10-colleges-that-have-produced-the-most-millionaires?slide=7

GivemTheAxe said:

---

I agree that there are a number of problem which in my view are:
1. The private universities make a better effort to instill giving from day 1 on campus.
2. Students at PUs often come from private HSs where again giving is instilled from day 1.
3. Cal Students and their parents often believe that since they pay taxes and since Cal is a "public" college they shouldn't have to give donations as well. Much in the same manner that they didn't have to give donations to their public HSs.
4. A large portion of Cal students come from much poorer backgrounds as is evident from the number of spell grants. People from such backgrounds (and their parents) do not have a lot of extra disposable income to give to their college.
5. A large portion of Cal alums go into fields that are not as financially rewarding as compared to grads of PUs. Being socially conscious may be good for society as a whole but is not as good for your pocketbook. Hence they have less disposable income.

---

The interesting thing is that the logic of what you list is spot on, and you make an excellent case. However, a number of "non fuzzy world" students graduate from Cal, go on to very successful, high paying careers, but do not have that sense of "payback" that is instilled in the private world. There is really something wrong in the attitude that persists with public education and I think the most salient point you make is #3.

I think a very good analogy is in the game of golf. I can tell you that (some/many/not all) players treat a public golf course much worse than they do a private country club. Replace divots, clean up ball marks on the green, etc. It begins with you being a part of something and thinking that way. You want it nice, to keep it nice, and do what you can to insure same.

Maybe the same thing with owning a house versus renting a house or apartment. A difference of attitude.

So, what maybe I suggest, is that Cal from the get-go needs to develop an attitude of "continuity" in its students starting from day one, instead of look to your left, look to your right and one of the three of you is likely to flunk out as I recall.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

I don't remember there ever being any hostile activity at Football games to any team based upon political affiliations. And I have been watching Cal FB since 1963.
The most I remember were the tree sitters.
There never have been protestors or protest signs or protest activities.

There has been much more political harassment from the stanfurd band.

Here I am talking football games and football related activities. Not anything taking place on other parts of campus unrelated to football.

---

Comparing the protests against Nazi supporters/those spouting hate against groups vs. how one of the academies would be "accepted" is beyond ridiculous, and is like someone mashing together a late 60s song with something from today. Liberals today aren't "anti-military" except when that narrative works for the other side. And in fact, the military today has more minority members than ever before.
A long time ago, SI did a piece calling West Point and Strawberry Canyon the most spectacular places to view a football game. A home and home would be awesome.
Annapolis is very fun, and Maryland as a whole is a very under-rated state.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

I agree that there are a number of problem which in my view are:
1. The private universities make a better effort to instill giving from day 1 on campus.
2. Students at PUs often come from private HSs where again giving is instilled from day 1.
3. Cal Students and their parents often believe that since they pay taxes and since Cal is a "public" college they shouldn't have to give donations as well. Much in the same manner that they didn't have to give donations to their public HSs.
4. A large portion of Cal students come from much poorer backgrounds as is evident from the number of spell grants. People from such backgrounds (and their parents) do not have a lot of extra disposable income to give to their college.
5. A large portion of Cal alums go into fields that are not as financially rewarding as compared to grads of PUs. Being socially conscious may be good for society as a whole but is not as good for your pocketbook. Hence they have less disposable income.

---

Of the wealthiest universities:

Total net worth of their UHNW (ultra high net worth) alumni

Harvard: 811B
Furd: 404B
Penn: 369B
Columbia: 307B
MIT: 215B
Princeton 188B
Yale: 156B
NYU: 155B
CAL: 125B
Cornell: 101B
USC: 98B
Chicago: 93B
Northwestern: 80B
Texas: 71B
UVA: 64B
UCLA: 63B (half!)
Notre Dame: 44B

And this is only counting alumni with over 30M. But since we're one of the top 5 producers over millionaires, we prob have a ton of high net worth individuals right under the 30M mark.

http://www.businessinsider.com/colleges-that-have-created-the-most-millionaires-and-billionaires-2017-5/#20-university-of-california-los-angeles-1


In short, it's not an issue of not having enough rich alumni. But rather, what are we doing to get them engaged?

The NROTC building was bombed in Berkeley in the late 60's. So were ROTC buildings at Stanford, UC Santa Barbara, UC Davis. UCLA and San Francisco State. Oakland induction center and Fort Ord were also bombed. It was the fashion of the times-not a Berkeley thing

Anarchistbear said:

---

The NROTC building was bombed in Berkeley in the late 60's. So were ROTC buildings at Stanford, UC Santa Barbara, UC Davis. UCLA and San Francisco State. Oakland induction center and Fort Ord were also bombed. It was the fashion of the times-not a Berkeley thing

---

We remember that evening (Fall 1968). I was sitting at my desk near (Virginia St at Euclid) on the Northside of campus.

Wham!

The wooden bldg near Edwards and the Steam Plant. A former classmate charged.

We took the day off from the Northside more than once that year because of tear gas.