wifeisafurd said:

---

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/14/chancellor-carol-christ-talks-cal-athletics-budget-plans-stadium-debt-the-ad-search-and-finding-a-sustainable-model/

Thanks for SoCal posting on the other board. IMO, Christ really has a bead on the frustrations of the fan base, and her transparency is refreshing.

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/14/chancellor-carol-christ-talks-cal-athletics-budget-plans-stadium-debt-the-ad-search-and-finding-a-sustainable-model/

Thanks for SoCal posting on the other board. IMO, Christ really has a bead on the frustrations of the fan base, and her transparency is refreshing.

---

Rushinbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/14/chancellor-carol-christ-talks-cal-athletics-budget-plans-stadium-debt-the-ad-search-and-finding-a-sustainable-model/

Thanks for SoCal posting on the other board. IMO, Christ really has a bead on the frustrations of the fan base, and her transparency is refreshing.

---

When Christ's interview includes the statement about Cal having a long tradition with Olympic sports, it implies a certain predisposition. If she's promoting a big picture overhaul, she's got to let go of that as a precondition. And, she's got to instruct any consulting entity to do the same.

When I read about consultants of this sort, I think of the packaged processing that these people are known for and, sometimes, the packaged outcomes. It's almost axiomatic that the crafting of the process determines the outcome.

Another element of it: she says that revenue will be the driving criterion. Why not consider costs and cost/benefit simultaneously? Seems to me we need a wholistic, systemic approach. Oh, and we should build up our own model, not start favoring a Stanford or Yale model.

I'm not predicting how this will come out, but we've nibbled around the edges for years and gotten nowhere. Time to shed all the perceived limitations and look at the whole thing.

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/14/chancellor-carol-christ-talks-cal-athletics-budget-plans-stadium-debt-the-ad-search-and-finding-a-sustainable-model/

Thanks for SoCal posting on the other board. IMO, Christ really has a bead on the frustrations of the fan base, and her transparency is refreshing.

---

When Christ's interview includes the statement about Cal having a long tradition with Olympic sports, it implies a certain predisposition. If she's promoting a big picture overhaul, she's got to let go of that as a precondition. And, she's got to instruct any consulting entity to do the same.

When I read about consultants of this sort, I think of the packaged processing that these people are known for and, sometimes, the packaged outcomes. It's almost axiomatic that the crafting of the process determines the outcome.

Another element of it: she says that revenue will be the driving criterion. Why not consider costs and cost/benefit simultaneously? Seems to me we need a wholistic, systemic approach. Oh, and we should build up our own model, not start favoring a Stanford or Yale model.

I'm not predicting how this will come out, but we've nibbled around the edges for years and gotten nowhere. Time to shed all the perceived limitations and look at the whole thing.

---

FWIW, in my conversation with her, I pushed that she really needs solutions that work for Cal. We are not Stanford, a SEC school, or an Ivy. And it should not be lost on anyone what SoCal said, which is we have a Chancellor that sat down with a sportswriter and discussed the "big issues" in sports with knowledge. It is as if our new AD is Carol Christ.

---

socaliganbear said:

---

"I know that sounds trivial,'' she said, "but part of the value of football to the institution is community building, and it makes it very hard to realize that value with the constant jerking around of game times."

---

Oski87 said:

---

I do think that Cal is behind the 8 ball in relation to revenues. Other, lesser schools have significantly more revenue generation than we do. So it is not just an expense issue - we do less with what we have than others. For example we would not be in this jam if we had an additional 20 million, which would put us in the top 40 or so of institutions for athletic department revenue. We should be in the top 40. We have very high ticket prices, and we are in a market with a lot of people to sell to.

What are we doing to capitalize on the raiders leaving and the 49ers sucking? What are we doing to capitalize on having close relationship with the warriors? When have we had out warriors night? What did we do when the warriors played the celtics? Did we raise awareness of our players in the NBA? We crapped out on the Jason Kidd going to the Hall of Fame. Where were the press releases, etc?

It is just so much lacking in marketing acumen. I mean, does the Pac 12 network advertise? Why is no one following Olymopic sports? Is it because no one knows that is going on? When has anyone seen an ad for the Crew championship or the Water Polo championship? What is the plan to educate the consumer on any of these games and to build an audience, as opposed to just hoping one shows up?

There are other things athletics could do (like Parking, which Washington Athletics uses to prop up their department). For example, Build parking structures around Berkeley and Oakland with fields on top for the community, and charge for parking to support the athletic department, but let the local leagues play for free, and give them discount tickets to games. Create a feeder system of fans.

It is frustrating that no one seems to use any sort of creativity in terms of what is best for the long range plans of athletics. They spent half a billion dollars and then just sat around being stupid about how to pay for it.

---

socaliganbear said:

---

2) "She then expressed dismay over the extent to which control of sporting life on the campuses has been handed over to the conference's television partners. . . . "I know that sounds trivial,'' she said, "but part of the value of football to the institution is community building, and it makes it very hard to realize that value with the constant jerking around of game times." This is a person who understands the big picture ramifications of the price we paid. i.e. it's much bigger than butts in seats.

---

Jeff82 said:

---

I actually think her statement about the Olympic tradition was a good one, if she really has analyzed it and pinned it down, which I suspect she has. Where is the Olympic tradition? Swimming, water polo, crew, track and field, gymnastics to a lesser extent. Where is there not an Olympic tradition? Baseball, soccer, tennis. When does the money baseball raised to save itself run out? Soon, I suspect, at which point I'd eliminate them. That not only eliminates the cost, but opens up the baseball field as part of the conversation between IAD and campus administration about trading land for debt relief which is now centered around Edwards Field, or so we've been told. Cutting baseball and men's soccer eliminates 76 roster spots, which permits reductions on the women's side to comply with Title IX, Prong 1.

---

socaliganbear said:

---

If they eventually cut baseball, you're probably looking at new classroom space.

---

SRBear said:

---

I'm thinking it would be utilized for softball. Isn't the women's softball facility pretty sub-standard? Since it's one of the womens sports we would be keeping, might as well provide a decent field. Plus, pretty sure it would eat up less space than the current baseball diamond, leaving room for other uses.

---

SRBear said:

---

Yes...but if their facility is crap, they can just move into baseball spaces rather than construct anything new and its probably an upgrade. Would also free up current softball space for other uses.

---