Sebastabear said:

---

The irony is that while they do have some cops on Piedmont, they actually route the traffic off of Piedmont onto College several blocks before the stadium. And on College they have no one. Well that's not technically true. They do actually have a few cops on college and Durant who sit there on the side and do nothing. We always laugh because we've sat at this intersection for 15 minutes and watched the cops hanging out on the sidewalk and watching the gridlock.

Not to derail this, but no other urban P5 school deals (or fails) to deal with its traffic problems on game day like this. The city of Berkeley dislikes cars in general and believes we should all be riding yaks or something to the games and it shows in how they manage traffic flow.

It all comes down to game day experience. I reiterated last night that someone from Cal really needs to take a comprehensive look at all these issues. Some of the worst stuff (late games, six day tv option cycle, etc.) may be outside of Cal's control in the near term, but other things aren't. Getting students to the games, fixing traffic, etc. are things they can and need to address.

---

Yeah, we need experts on it, which we have! They need to examine the game day experience from the moment you enter Berkeley to the second you exit.

Traffic
Tailgating
Food
Accommodations
Flow in/out
Concessions
Alcohol
Music/band (I.e maybe the piped in music is confined to dj booth at SS)
Etc

ColoradoBear said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

ColoradoBear WEAK! Soft as baby poop . . . no know about ASUC student fees. Weak at posting . . . weak at finance . . . weak at slams. But Cal not weak. ColoradoWeak need to toughen up his thinking. Be more like Cal . . . less like baby poop.

http://www.dailycal.org/2012/04/09/the-v-o-i-c-e-initiative-in-the-context-of-student-fees-for-intercollegiate-athletics/

---

Hi Duke!

Again the article you posted says nothing about the asuc paying anything (because they don't). Typical Duke misinformation.

---

ColoradoBEAR weak! Posting soft as baby poop. Need to toughen up his thinking. Cal Students do subsidize IA through mandatory fees. They should get free tickets in exchange . . . fill up stadium. Get Strong attendance . . . like Cal . . . not weak like ColoradoBear.

socaliganbear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Thanks for the thoughtful post. Some good ideas here.

I spoke with some senior folks at Cal last night and offered to help on some initiatives to get students at the game inforce and early. Bottom line is they were appreciative but they have other fish to fry. They are aware of the problem with student attendance but they actually view what they are doing this year as a new experiment to fix it and they want to see how it goes. I guess last year they charged like $100 for football and another $100 for basketball, so this is a significant discount to that on a combined basis (I did point out that if you were only interested in football it wasn't really a discount at all, but c'est la vie).

And WIAF if you are reading this, I talked to them as well about the need for better traffic control on game day. They promised to look into it. Cal is paying Berkeley for these services. The fact that the city isn't actually providing them is something apparently no one at Cal had previously noticed.

---

Depends on what they're paying for. The city does have traffic officers along Piedmont directing traffic. But that's not really the issue

Also, unless there's a major recruiting coup, tying football to basketball tickets won't really move the needle with students imo. Bball enthusiasm is dead.

---

As it should be. The general public, as well as students, can smell a fraud a mile away. Nothing will kill attendance and donations like a demonstrated lack of commitment to being competitive. Basketball is getting everything that it deserves.

socaliganbear said:

---

Big C said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

Also, Cal needs to think out of the box on how to get students there, and of course preferably early.

I had offered a few years ago to fund this experiment. Have a threshold driven lottery for each game. Every game 5,000 students show up, 2 students (randomly) will win $1,000.

Why do it like that? because then that encourages students to get their friends to go since if you don't hit the 5,000 student threshold no one has a chance of winning. YOu'd have to publicize this, explain it a little, but we're smart people.

And I firmly believe once word gets out about the first couple $1,000 winners - JUST FOR SHOWING UP - it would generate excitement.

Even is this isn't the answer, at least be thinking about DIFFERENT ways to do thing.

And I'm still 100% willing to fund this. Sebast - you can match me and we can make it 5 students win each game or something like that. I'm down to meet with our development person, but they got to let us design so they don't f it up. But then again, I haven't got my college degree yet so not sure how qualified i am to offer ideas....

---

Speaking of thinking outside the box, can anybody think of any legitimate reasons why FiatLux would not be a good candidate to be our next Athletic Director?

---

Because we need actual experience with major university fundraising and athletics. Not sure if he has that.

Mike Williams is also a passionate Cal (athlete!) alum and major donor.

---

And for the record, despite the fact that he's sure to include it in his bio, H. Michael Williams is no athlete. No more so than any of the rest of us were, "back in the day." He is, though, excellent at "wrestling" the stuck lid off the cookie jar.

Query: are athletes in a designated dorm or are they with the non-athletes?
In my dorm (Unit 1) - back in the day - we had football players, basketball players, volleyball players. And several were starters on their teams. We went to games to support them (as well as Cal), because we had a personal connection.
Of course, I don't know what highly recruited athletes want for living arrangements these days.

PARKING!

Cal students and alumni don't care about sports, period, and it's getting worse with each graduating class. I won't refute any comments about the ineptitude of Cal PR/Marketing, as I'm sure it's true.

But Cal has a very small group of loyal alumni that have an emotional attachment to football/basketball programs and will pay money for the product thick and thin. Cal has to put on a good product to capture the fairweather student/alumnus.

Student, alumni, and community support create the cultural attitudes and orientation towards athletics. We don't have that culture because nobody cares. Nothing wrong with that, it's just the way it is. Look at Cal's admission/student demographics. There's only so much you can do to incentivize people who don't give a sh*t about Cal athletics.

Big C said:

---

My question is, can he identify and attract the right football and basketball coaches? I don't know the answer to that, but I know the last few ADs weren't all that good at it.

---

So you're saying that Tedford, Montgomery, and Wilcox weren't or aren't "right coaches?"

Cal Strong! said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

ColoradoBear WEAK! Soft as baby poop . . . no know about ASUC student fees. Weak at posting . . . weak at finance . . . weak at slams. But Cal not weak. ColoradoWeak need to toughen up his thinking. Be more like Cal . . . less like baby poop.

http://www.dailycal.org/2012/04/09/the-v-o-i-c-e-initiative-in-the-context-of-student-fees-for-intercollegiate-athletics/

---

Hi Duke!

Again the article you posted says nothing about the asuc paying anything (because they don't). Typical Duke misinformation.

---

ColoradoBEAR weak! Posting soft as baby poop. Need to toughen up his thinking. Cal Students do subsidize IA through mandatory fees. They should get free tickets in exchange . . . fill up stadium. Get Strong attendance . . . like Cal . . . not weak like ColoradoBear.

---

Speaking of weak, that's the 2nd time you've posted something that's a lie (are you part of the Trump administration?). THERE IS NO MANDATORY FEE FOR IA. That is why one is being considered. Students pay mandatory fees for a variety of services (rec sports, health services, career counseling, etc.) but NOT IA.

great discussion

regarding engaging international students...

in the RSF, a lot of the pickup games are chinese. In several parks I play, a lot of pickup games are chinese. Basketball in China is getting more popular. Seems like an easy group to engage and figure out how to get them into the seats.

Regarding the family tickets in the end zones. Great idea! I'd take it even farther. Have family tickets in the end zones, and also setup a kids area for when the little ones get restless. The SF Giants has a great area like this.

Regarding student tixs... I don't expect Cal's new 'experiment' will work, but at least they are trying to change things up.

But I have a question. If the student pass works out to about $5/game, what is the student ticket price without the pass. Some wrote that if you didn't buy the season pass, then the student price is like $40. Is that right? Seems like the tickets should be in the $5 to $15 range

keep the ideas flowing

UrsaMajor said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

ColoradoBear WEAK! Soft as baby poop . . . no know about ASUC student fees. Weak at posting . . . weak at finance . . . weak at slams. But Cal not weak. ColoradoWeak need to toughen up his thinking. Be more like Cal . . . less like baby poop.

http://www.dailycal.org/2012/04/09/the-v-o-i-c-e-initiative-in-the-context-of-student-fees-for-intercollegiate-athletics/

---

Hi Duke!

Again the article you posted says nothing about the asuc paying anything (because they don't). Typical Duke misinformation.

---

ColoradoBEAR weak! Posting soft as baby poop. Need to toughen up his thinking. Cal Students do subsidize IA through mandatory fees. They should get free tickets in exchange . . . fill up stadium. Get Strong attendance . . . like Cal . . . not weak like ColoradoBear.

---

Speaking of weak, that's the 2nd time you've posted something that's a lie (are you part of the Trump administration?). THERE IS NO MANDATORY FEE FOR IA. That is why one is being considered. Students pay mandatory fees for a variety of services (rec sports, health services, career counseling, etc.) but NOT IA.

---

Cal Strong try to help ColoradoIlliterate and UrsaMinor. But CB and UM too weak to realize they need help. Can't read articles carefully . . . can't slam strong . . . can't think strong. These two posters embarrass themselves in all phases of the game. This breaks Cal Strong's big Cal heart. He here to help them regain strength . . . and also regain respect of their families.

Here is another article, since you too weak to read previous article: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Berkeley-College-Sports-Spending-190935311.html

Here is a quote from the article, since you too illiterate to read all the way down:

Quote:

---

In this fiscal year, a projected $7.5 million of the athletic department's budget will come in the form of student fees and institutional support. However, campus officials say that the athletic department will kick back an overhead fee of more than $3 million to the academic side this year, yielding a projected net subsidy of $4.4 million.

---

Here is a quote from previous Daily Cal article that you apparently too fat, drunk, and weak to read:

Quote:

---

One answer is that few students are even aware that they are personally paying to prop up IA every year. The program has cost the campus $88.4 million from 2003 to 2011, of which $17.8 million came directly from student fees. For decades, UC policy stated that IA must be self-supporting the same requirement that is imposed on various ancillary campus enterprises such as parking and student housing. But after the campus violated the policy every year for many years, the University of California Office of the President quietly rescinded the long-standing policy on Dec. 16, 2010, thereby authorizing IA to use student fees and other campus funds.

---

And here is the 2011 IA budget, which clearly shows that student fees made up over 2.25 million of their budget: http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/cal/genrel/auto_pdf/2011-12/misc_non_event/FY11Revenues-Expenses.pdf

Stop being weak. Take a hard look in the mirror. Be more like Cal, less like fat, drunk illiterates. Cal not fat, drunk, illiterate weakling . . . CAL STRONG!

Cal already charge students mandatory fees to support IA. So Cal Strong think they should get tickets in exchange for their fees.

UrsaMajor said:

---

Big C said:

---

My question is, can he identify and attract the right football and basketball coaches? I don't know the answer to that, but I know the last few ADs weren't all that good at it.

---

So you're saying that Tedford, Montgomery, and Wilcox weren't or aren't "right coaches?"

---

Well, you just cherry-picked the best three and...

Tedford started out great, then faded. Grade: B/B+
Monty had one NCAA Tournament win during his tenure here. Grade: B
Wilcox is, as yet, unproven. Grade: I (incomplete)

Again, those are the top three, too, so I'd still say no, the past few ADs weren't that good at identifying and attracting the right football and basketball coaches.

Gladstone picked 1 football coach and 0 basketball coaches
Barbour picked 1 football coach and 2 basketball coaches (although she really only picked MM)
Williams picked 1 football coach and 1 basketball coach.

So, 3 picks that I would call good or "right," out of a total of 6, only 5 of which were picked by AD's. I don't see that as cherry picking.

UrsaMajor said:

---

Gladstone picked 1 football coach and 0 basketball coaches
Barbour picked 1 football coach and 2 basketball coaches (although she really only picked MM)
Williams picked 1 football coach and 1 basketball coach.

So, 3 picks that I would call good or "right," out of a total of 6, only 5 of which were picked by AD's. I don't see that as cherry picking.

---

"A few" can be more than three. In other words, we can go back a little past Gladstone. Really though, you're just being argumentative, it seems. But maybe I am, too.

If you want to believe that our "recent" ADs (there, I altered the wording a bit) have been good at identifying and attracting the right football and basketball coaches, go ahead. We can agree to disagree.

I would still argue that it's one of the most important attributes of an Athletic Director, a point with which you may also disagree.

Go Bears!

Big C said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

Gladstone picked 1 football coach and 0 basketball coaches
Barbour picked 1 football coach and 2 basketball coaches (although she really only picked MM)
Williams picked 1 football coach and 1 basketball coach.

So, 3 picks that I would call good or "right," out of a total of 6, only 5 of which were picked by AD's. I don't see that as cherry picking.

---

"A few" can be more than three. In other words, we can go back a little past Gladstone. Really though, you're just being argumentative, it seems. But maybe I am, too.

If you want to believe that our "recent" ADs (there, I altered the wording a bit) have been good at identifying and attracting the right football and basketball coaches, go ahead. We can agree to disagree.

I would still argue that it's one of the most important attributes of an Athletic Director, a point with which you may also disagree.

Go Bears!

---

It's definiteky one of the most important attributes of an AD, which is why you want someone who actually has experience doing so. Not someone who has literally never done anything remotely similar.

Big C said:

---

Well, you just cherry-picked the best three and...

Tedford started out great, then faded. Grade: B/B+
Monty had one NCAA Tournament win during his tenure here. Grade: B
Wilcox is, as yet, unproven. Grade: I (incomplete)

Again, those are the top three, too, so I'd still say no, the past few ADs weren't that good at identifying and attracting the right football and basketball coaches.

---

I realize we're in full on thread derail mode here, but i can't let this go. BIgC a few points re Monty, respectfully :-)

First off, regarding Monty, your facts are wrong. Under Monty in the NCAA tourney we beat Louisville in 2010 and we beat UNLV in 2013.

Secondly, even had we not had either of those tourney wins, in 2010 we won our first outright conference championship in 50 years. The only outright in either football or basketball in 5 decades. That may not matter to you, or some people may try and diminish it because of a weak conference, but it means a whole lot to a whole lot of people.

We swept the LA schools (USC / UC Los Angeles) in hoops in 2012 for the first time since 1959, that also meant a lot.

We were 63-38 in conference play during his tenure. Under Monty we never finished worse than 4th in conference, also finshing 3rd and (thanks to the a$swhipe Mike Greenstein handing the game to Stanford in the season finale) 2nd in 2012.

Monty may not get a straight A, but he gets no worse than an A-.

TheFiatLux said:

---

Big C said:

---

Well, you just cherry-picked the best three and...

Tedford started out great, then faded. Grade: B/B+
Monty had one NCAA Tournament win during his tenure here. Grade: B
Wilcox is, as yet, unproven. Grade: I (incomplete)

Again, those are the top three, too, so I'd still say no, the past few ADs weren't that good at identifying and attracting the right football and basketball coaches.

---

I realize we're in full on thread derail mode here, but i can't let this go. BIgC a few points re Monty, respectfully :-)

First off, regarding Monty, your facts are wrong. Under Monty in the NCAA tourney we beat Louisville in 2010 and we beat UNLV in 2013.

Secondly, even had we not had either of those tourney wins, in 2010 we won our first outright conference championship in 50 years. The only outright in either football or basketball in 5 decades. That may not matter to you, or some people may try and diminish it because of a weak conference, but it means a whole lot to a whole lot of people.

We swept the LA schools (USC / UC Los Angeles) in hoops in 2012 for the first time since 1959, that also meant a lot.

We were 63-38 in conference play during his tenure. Under Monty we never finished worse than 4th in conference, also finshing 3rd and (thanks to the a$swhipe Mike Greenstein handing the game to Stanford in the season finale) 2nd in 2012.

Monty may not get a straight A, but he gets no worse than an A-.

---

If you give Monty an "A" or an "A-" for the job he did at Cal, there isn't enough "upward room" to accurately grade the job he did at Stanfurd.

I laud Mike Montgomery for seeing the light and coming to Cal, for his ethics, for his tell-it-like-it-is interviews and, especially, for his good coaching, but I can't give a basketball coach an "A" or an "A-" if they never even got their team to the Sweet Sixteen. (Again, he got freaking Stanfurd to the Final Four: What does he get for that, an "A++++"?)

His conference regular-season championship definitely matters to me, but apparently it matters to you even more. Fine.

Free if you arrive before kickoff. $20 after kickoff.

Big C said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

Big C said:

---

Well, you just cherry-picked the best three and...

Tedford started out great, then faded. Grade: B/B+
Monty had one NCAA Tournament win during his tenure here. Grade: B
Wilcox is, as yet, unproven. Grade: I (incomplete)

Again, those are the top three, too, so I'd still say no, the past few ADs weren't that good at identifying and attracting the right football and basketball coaches.

---

I realize we're in full on thread derail mode here, but i can't let this go. BIgC a few points re Monty, respectfully :-)

First off, regarding Monty, your facts are wrong. Under Monty in the NCAA tourney we beat Louisville in 2010 and we beat UNLV in 2013.

Secondly, even had we not had either of those tourney wins, in 2010 we won our first outright conference championship in 50 years. The only outright in either football or basketball in 5 decades. That may not matter to you, or some people may try and diminish it because of a weak conference, but it means a whole lot to a whole lot of people.

We swept the LA schools (USC / UC Los Angeles) in hoops in 2012 for the first time since 1959, that also meant a lot.

We were 63-38 in conference play during his tenure. Under Monty we never finished worse than 4th in conference, also finshing 3rd and (thanks to the a$swhipe Mike Greenstein handing the game to Stanford in the season finale) 2nd in 2012.

Monty may not get a straight A, but he gets no worse than an A-.

---

If you give Monty an "A" or an "A-" for the job he did at Cal, there isn't enough "upward room" to accurately grade the job he did at Stanfurd.

I laud Mike Montgomery for seeing the light and coming to Cal, for his ethics, for his tell-it-like-it-is interviews and, especially, for his good coaching, but I can't give a basketball coach an "A" or an "A-" if they never even got their team to the Sweet Sixteen. (Again, he got freaking Stanfurd to the Final Four: What does he get for that, an "A++++"?)

His conference regular-season championship definitely matters to me, but apparently it matters to you even more. Fine.

---

Monty was a great hire, but kind of like Tedford, he achieved his success when the Pac was awful. The talent level was putrid in the Pac during Monty's tenure.

A conference championship is a conference championship and he deserves credit. The only gripe I have with Monty is he didn't leave his "mark" when he left. He was disinterested in building a culture.

But his tenure (accomplishments) was unequivocally a success -- for Cal.

Or - $125 for football and hoops season tickets, but $15 per game if paid on student card per game basis - swipe and pay as you enter. Not allowed to re-direct season tickets to other students.

For game days - 10 prizes given out at halftime to those who entered the stadium 5 minutes before kickoff. Perhaps $5000 in daily prizes (gifts of $500 per game. Need to be present to win - check in at the student side bar.

Big C said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

Big C said:

---

Well, you just cherry-picked the best three and...

Tedford started out great, then faded. Grade: B/B+
Monty had one NCAA Tournament win during his tenure here. Grade: B
Wilcox is, as yet, unproven. Grade: I (incomplete)

Again, those are the top three, too, so I'd still say no, the past few ADs weren't that good at identifying and attracting the right football and basketball coaches.

---

I realize we're in full on thread derail mode here, but i can't let this go. BIgC a few points re Monty, respectfully :-)

First off, regarding Monty, your facts are wrong. Under Monty in the NCAA tourney we beat Louisville in 2010 and we beat UNLV in 2013.

Secondly, even had we not had either of those tourney wins, in 2010 we won our first outright conference championship in 50 years. The only outright in either football or basketball in 5 decades. That may not matter to you, or some people may try and diminish it because of a weak conference, but it means a whole lot to a whole lot of people.

We swept the LA schools (USC / UC Los Angeles) in hoops in 2012 for the first time since 1959, that also meant a lot.

We were 63-38 in conference play during his tenure. Under Monty we never finished worse than 4th in conference, also finshing 3rd and (thanks to the a$swhipe Mike Greenstein handing the game to Stanford in the season finale) 2nd in 2012.

Monty may not get a straight A, but he gets no worse than an A-.

---

If you give Monty an "A" or an "A-" for the job he did at Cal, there isn't enough "upward room" to accurately grade the job he did at Stanfurd.

I laud Mike Montgomery for seeing the light and coming to Cal, for his ethics, for his tell-it-like-it-is interviews and, especially, for his good coaching, but I can't give a basketball coach an "A" or an "A-" if they never even got their team to the Sweet Sixteen. (Again, he got freaking Stanfurd to the Final Four: What does he get for that, an "A++++"?)

His conference regular-season championship definitely matters to me, but apparently it matters to you even more. Fine.

---

Monty had maybe 1 A- and 5 Bs. That is a solid B overall. Yes, much like Tedford. Certainly better than Cs, Ds, and Fs, which we have experienced all too often.

As others have said, Monty did not leave the program better off than he found it. He was a decent hire, pissed off the furds and we got to see well-coached basketball for a change, but ultimately he turned out to be a placeholder.

In retrospect, it would have been really good if he had groomed DeCuire as his replacement-perhaps even switching roles in the last years with DeCuire taking the Head Coach role and Monty taking the position of the seasoned assistant. That would have let Monty focus on his health issues and let him out of recruiting responsibilities while still doing what he does best, teaching basketball and developing game plans and strategies. It would have left a legacy at Cal and a job for his son. I'm sure the AD would have agreed in a heartbeat.

socaliganbear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

The irony is that while they do have some cops on Piedmont, they actually route the traffic off of Piedmont onto College several blocks before the stadium. And on College they have no one. Well that's not technically true. They do actually have a few cops on college and Durant who sit there on the side and do nothing. We always laugh because we've sat at this intersection for 15 minutes and watched the cops hanging out on the sidewalk and watching the gridlock.

Not to derail this, but no other urban P5 school deals (or fails) to deal with its traffic problems on game day like this. The city of Berkeley dislikes cars in general and believes we should all be riding yaks or something to the games and it shows in how they manage traffic flow.

It all comes down to game day experience. I reiterated last night that someone from Cal really needs to take a comprehensive look at all these issues. Some of the worst stuff (late games, six day tv option cycle, etc.) may be outside of Cal's control in the near term, but other things aren't. Getting students to the games, fixing traffic, etc. are things they can and need to address.

---

Yeah, we need experts on it, which we have! They need to examine the game day experience from the moment you enter Berkeley to the second you exit.

Traffic
Tailgating
Food
Accommodations
Flow in/out
Concessions
Alcohol
Music/band (I.e maybe the piped in music is confined to dj booth at SS)
Etc

---

This is where we need a smart, creative, visionary Cal alum who understands our traditions and Berkeley politics, not another highly paid, experienced (in other situations) outside " expert" who will give us louder piped-in music, less Cal band and more competitions on our tiny video screen. FiatLux might not be a good AD candidate, but I could see him as a good candidate for Assistant AD in charge of marketing/game day experience.

the "game-day" experience absent of "traditions" and full of "loud music" isn't what's keeping fans from paying for tickets. It's the play on the field.

You want to fill up the student section? Here's how you do it:

*offer a Decal class on football that gives students a couple units of academic credit per year. Attendance to every game is mandatory. At the end of the term, students write some fluff paper about their experience. I know someone will argue the ethics and value of offering academic units for going to football games, but when I was a student there was a Decal class about male masturbation where all the students filmed themselves jacking off so I don't want to here anything about academic value or ethics.

iwantwinners said:

---

the "game-day" experience absent of "traditions" and full of "loud music" isn't what's keeping fans from paying for tickets. It's the play on the field.

---

It's not either/or, it's both. We used to fill the student section when Theder and Kapp were coaching. We used to fill the huge student section at Harmon. Win or lose, games were fun to attend. Stanford has had winning teams the last ten years and they cannot fill their tiny stadium. We need to have winning teams AND restore our traditions and make going to games fun again.

We need a STRONG athletic director to pull in the students and end WEAK attendance.

Push-up contests should be part of securing free Big Game tickets . . . make students STONG like Cal . . . not WEAK like stanfurd.

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

Big C said:

---

Well, you just cherry-picked the best three and...

Tedford started out great, then faded. Grade: B/B+
Monty had one NCAA Tournament win during his tenure here. Grade: B
Wilcox is, as yet, unproven. Grade: I (incomplete)

Again, those are the top three, too, so I'd still say no, the past few ADs weren't that good at identifying and attracting the right football and basketball coaches.

---

I realize we're in full on thread derail mode here, but i can't let this go. BIgC a few points re Monty, respectfully :-)

First off, regarding Monty, your facts are wrong. Under Monty in the NCAA tourney we beat Louisville in 2010 and we beat UNLV in 2013.

Secondly, even had we not had either of those tourney wins, in 2010 we won our first outright conference championship in 50 years. The only outright in either football or basketball in 5 decades. That may not matter to you, or some people may try and diminish it because of a weak conference, but it means a whole lot to a whole lot of people.

We swept the LA schools (USC / UC Los Angeles) in hoops in 2012 for the first time since 1959, that also meant a lot.

We were 63-38 in conference play during his tenure. Under Monty we never finished worse than 4th in conference, also finshing 3rd and (thanks to the a$swhipe Mike Greenstein handing the game to Stanford in the season finale) 2nd in 2012.

Monty may not get a straight A, but he gets no worse than an A-.

---

If you give Monty an "A" or an "A-" for the job he did at Cal, there isn't enough "upward room" to accurately grade the job he did at Stanfurd.

I laud Mike Montgomery for seeing the light and coming to Cal, for his ethics, for his tell-it-like-it-is interviews and, especially, for his good coaching, but I can't give a basketball coach an "A" or an "A-" if they never even got their team to the Sweet Sixteen. (Again, he got freaking Stanfurd to the Final Four: What does he get for that, an "A++++"?)

His conference regular-season championship definitely matters to me, but apparently it matters to you even more. Fine.

---

Monty had maybe 1 A- and 5 Bs. That is a solid B overall. Yes, much like Tedford. Certainly better than Cs, Ds, and Fs, which we have experienced all too often.

As others have said, Monty did not leave the program better off than he found it. He was a decent hire, pissed off the furds and we got to see well-coached basketball for a change, but ultimately he turned out to be a placeholder.

In retrospect, it would have been really good if he had groomed DeCuire as his replacement-perhaps even switching roles in the last years with DeCuire taking the Head Coach role and Monty taking the position of the seasoned assistant. That would have let Monty focus on his health issues and let him out of recruiting responsibilities while still doing what he does best, teaching basketball and developing game plans and strategies. It would have left a legacy at Cal and a job for his son. I'm sure the AD would have agreed in a heartbeat.

---

Interesting point about Monty's last years. I think he probably overestimated his influence with the campus ("a word from me should be sufficient..."), but grooming Travis more explicitly might have made sense. I think (but don't know) that he originally hoped his son would follow him.

As for Tedford, I am more positive about his tenure in that if he had left after 2007 (his 6th year), we'd have graded him much higher. It was the last several years that tarnished his rep. Not sure I would grade the hire (as opposed to grading his tenure) on that basis. The hire was outstanding. No one can expect an AD to know when someone will burnout 6+ years down the road, IMO.

I have no problem w/ BigC's overall point; just that I grade the AD's hirings as more mixed.

UrsaMajor said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

Big C said:

---

Well, you just cherry-picked the best three and...

Tedford started out great, then faded. Grade: B/B+
Monty had one NCAA Tournament win during his tenure here. Grade: B
Wilcox is, as yet, unproven. Grade: I (incomplete)

Again, those are the top three, too, so I'd still say no, the past few ADs weren't that good at identifying and attracting the right football and basketball coaches.

---

I realize we're in full on thread derail mode here, but i can't let this go. BIgC a few points re Monty, respectfully :-)

First off, regarding Monty, your facts are wrong. Under Monty in the NCAA tourney we beat Louisville in 2010 and we beat UNLV in 2013.

Secondly, even had we not had either of those tourney wins, in 2010 we won our first outright conference championship in 50 years. The only outright in either football or basketball in 5 decades. That may not matter to you, or some people may try and diminish it because of a weak conference, but it means a whole lot to a whole lot of people.

We swept the LA schools (USC / UC Los Angeles) in hoops in 2012 for the first time since 1959, that also meant a lot.

We were 63-38 in conference play during his tenure. Under Monty we never finished worse than 4th in conference, also finshing 3rd and (thanks to the a$swhipe Mike Greenstein handing the game to Stanford in the season finale) 2nd in 2012.

Monty may not get a straight A, but he gets no worse than an A-.

---

If you give Monty an "A" or an "A-" for the job he did at Cal, there isn't enough "upward room" to accurately grade the job he did at Stanfurd.

I laud Mike Montgomery for seeing the light and coming to Cal, for his ethics, for his tell-it-like-it-is interviews and, especially, for his good coaching, but I can't give a basketball coach an "A" or an "A-" if they never even got their team to the Sweet Sixteen. (Again, he got freaking Stanfurd to the Final Four: What does he get for that, an "A++++"?)

His conference regular-season championship definitely matters to me, but apparently it matters to you even more. Fine.

---

Monty had maybe 1 A- and 5 Bs. That is a solid B overall. Yes, much like Tedford. Certainly better than Cs, Ds, and Fs, which we have experienced all too often.

As others have said, Monty did not leave the program better off than he found it. He was a decent hire, pissed off the furds and we got to see well-coached basketball for a change, but ultimately he turned out to be a placeholder.

In retrospect, it would have been really good if he had groomed DeCuire as his replacement-perhaps even switching roles in the last years with DeCuire taking the Head Coach role and Monty taking the position of the seasoned assistant. That would have let Monty focus on his health issues and let him out of recruiting responsibilities while still doing what he does best, teaching basketball and developing game plans and strategies. It would have left a legacy at Cal and a job for his son. I'm sure the AD would have agreed in a heartbeat.

---

Interesting point about Monty's last years. I think he probably overestimated his influence with the campus ("a word from me should be sufficient..."), but grooming Travis more explicitly might have made sense. I think (but don't know) that he originally hoped his son would follow him.

As for Tedford, I am more positive about his tenure in that if he had left after 2007 (his 6th year), we'd have graded him much higher. It was the last several years that tarnished his rep. Not sure I would grade the hire (as opposed to grading his tenure) on that basis. The hire was outstanding. No one can expect an AD to know when someone will burnout 6+ years down the road, IMO.

I have no problem w/ BigC's overall point; just that I grade the AD's hirings as more mixed.

---

Agree that Monty thought his influence was larger than it was in the end. (John and Travis as his successors). Completely agree regarding JT. If he wanted to go at the end of '07 and the AD had just let him go, the perception of Cal wanting to compete was mostly muted by the recent few years of high level success... that should have allowed us to find a quality successor (i.e. a known coach) who could continue the success based on his own perceived qualities.

ncbears said:

---

Well, in my day, mumbledy mumble years ago - we bought an AP (Athletic Privilege) card and took it to the football or basketball games where it was punched. The cards were not supposed to be transferable, but you could just give it to someone else. You couldn't really "sell" it, because you needed the card back for the next game. I think the only time we had actual tickets was for Big Game at Stanfurd.

---

This was a great system. Why did Cal abandon it?

Furthermore, it was something as a student that I had to budget for. I earned money in the summers, and I worked as a hasher in a girl's boarding house for all my meals. I also used to do odd carpentry and landscaping jobs, as many elderly Berkeley residents hired Cal students to help maintain their homes. From this and a little allowance, I could afford to buy an athletic privilege card for 10 bucks as part of my expenses.

I think it is important that students learn to pay for things, not be handed them for free. All their lives, for most of them, parents have paid for everything, their clothes, their lodging, their food, etc. They are picked up every day after school and driven to some activities, and many of those activities are paid for by parents. At some point kids have to learn that life is not free, that they will have to earn money and budget for what they can spend. I liked that athletic privilege card. I was proud that I belonged to Cal, and had the right to buy an athletic privilege card, so I could go to games at a cost much lower than the cost my father had to pay for my ticket prior to my attending Cal. I was helping my parents with the financial burden, and still feeling that I was paying for is myself. It was truly a "privilege" given to me by the university, a ticket with a reduced cost to a student.

iwantwinners said:

---

Big C said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

Big C said:

---

Well, you just cherry-picked the best three and...

Tedford started out great, then faded. Grade: B/B+
Monty had one NCAA Tournament win during his tenure here. Grade: B
Wilcox is, as yet, unproven. Grade: I (incomplete)

Again, those are the top three, too, so I'd still say no, the past few ADs weren't that good at identifying and attracting the right football and basketball coaches.

---

I realize we're in full on thread derail mode here, but i can't let this go. BIgC a few points re Monty, respectfully :-)

First off, regarding Monty, your facts are wrong. Under Monty in the NCAA tourney we beat Louisville in 2010 and we beat UNLV in 2013.

Secondly, even had we not had either of those tourney wins, in 2010 we won our first outright conference championship in 50 years. The only outright in either football or basketball in 5 decades. That may not matter to you, or some people may try and diminish it because of a weak conference, but it means a whole lot to a whole lot of people.

We swept the LA schools (USC / UC Los Angeles) in hoops in 2012 for the first time since 1959, that also meant a lot.

We were 63-38 in conference play during his tenure. Under Monty we never finished worse than 4th in conference, also finshing 3rd and (thanks to the a$swhipe Mike Greenstein handing the game to Stanford in the season finale) 2nd in 2012.

Monty may not get a straight A, but he gets no worse than an A-.

---

If you give Monty an "A" or an "A-" for the job he did at Cal, there isn't enough "upward room" to accurately grade the job he did at Stanfurd.

I laud Mike Montgomery for seeing the light and coming to Cal, for his ethics, for his tell-it-like-it-is interviews and, especially, for his good coaching, but I can't give a basketball coach an "A" or an "A-" if they never even got their team to the Sweet Sixteen. (Again, he got freaking Stanfurd to the Final Four: What does he get for that, an "A++++"?)

His conference regular-season championship definitely matters to me, but apparently it matters to you even more. Fine.

---

Monty was a great hire, but kind of like Tedford, he achieved his success when the Pac was awful. The talent level was putrid in the Pac during Monty's tenure.

A conference championship is a conference championship and he deserves credit. The only gripe I have with Monty is he didn't leave his "mark" when he left. He was disinterested in building a culture.

But his tenure (accomplishments) was unequivocally a success -- for Cal.

---

aaaand then there is this one... :-) Did you just write Tedford achieved his success when the Pac 12 was awful, ie when USC won back to back National titles (yes one was vacated) and lost what would have been the third in the closing second to Texas? When 12-0 Oregon lost in the NC game on a game ending field goal? Dude, seriously.

But we do agree on Monty's tenure being an unequivocal success :-)

calumnus said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

the "game-day" experience absent of "traditions" and full of "loud music" isn't what's keeping fans from paying for tickets. It's the play on the field.

---

It's not either/or, it's both. We used to fill the student section when Theder and Kapp were coaching. We used to fill the huge student section at Harmon. Win or lose, games were fun to attend. Stanford has had winning teams the last ten years and they cannot fill their tiny stadium. We need to have winning teams AND restore our traditions and make going to games fun again.

---

the student body and alumni base has changed.

You can't compare eras 25 years apart. Things are different. It's only the old blues that care about that stuff. At a sporting event they don't care about Students want music, beer, free wi-fi and an algorithm contest.

TheFiatLux said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

Big C said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

Big C said:

---

Well, you just cherry-picked the best three and...

Tedford started out great, then faded. Grade: B/B+
Monty had one NCAA Tournament win during his tenure here. Grade: B
Wilcox is, as yet, unproven. Grade: I (incomplete)

Again, those are the top three, too, so I'd still say no, the past few ADs weren't that good at identifying and attracting the right football and basketball coaches.

---

I realize we're in full on thread derail mode here, but i can't let this go. BIgC a few points re Monty, respectfully :-)

First off, regarding Monty, your facts are wrong. Under Monty in the NCAA tourney we beat Louisville in 2010 and we beat UNLV in 2013.

Secondly, even had we not had either of those tourney wins, in 2010 we won our first outright conference championship in 50 years. The only outright in either football or basketball in 5 decades. That may not matter to you, or some people may try and diminish it because of a weak conference, but it means a whole lot to a whole lot of people.

We swept the LA schools (USC / UC Los Angeles) in hoops in 2012 for the first time since 1959, that also meant a lot.

We were 63-38 in conference play during his tenure. Under Monty we never finished worse than 4th in conference, also finshing 3rd and (thanks to the a$swhipe Mike Greenstein handing the game to Stanford in the season finale) 2nd in 2012.

Monty may not get a straight A, but he gets no worse than an A-.

---

If you give Monty an "A" or an "A-" for the job he did at Cal, there isn't enough "upward room" to accurately grade the job he did at Stanfurd.

I laud Mike Montgomery for seeing the light and coming to Cal, for his ethics, for his tell-it-like-it-is interviews and, especially, for his good coaching, but I can't give a basketball coach an "A" or an "A-" if they never even got their team to the Sweet Sixteen. (Again, he got freaking Stanfurd to the Final Four: What does he get for that, an "A++++"?)

His conference regular-season championship definitely matters to me, but apparently it matters to you even more. Fine.

---

Monty was a great hire, but kind of like Tedford, he achieved his success when the Pac was awful. The talent level was putrid in the Pac during Monty's tenure.

A conference championship is a conference championship and he deserves credit. The only gripe I have with Monty is he didn't leave his "mark" when he left. He was disinterested in building a culture.

But his tenure (accomplishments) was unequivocally a success -- for Cal.

---

aaaand then there is this one... :-) Did you just write Tedford achieved his success when the Pac 12 was awful, ie when USC won back to back National titles (yes one was vacated) and lost what would have been the third in the closing second to Texas? When 12-0 Oregon lost in the NC game on a game ending field goal? Dude, seriously.

But we do agree on Monty's tenure being an unequivocal success :-)

---

Look at the Pac compared to now. Both Cal an USC would not have duplicated that success playing in the Pac the last decade.

And the Pac talent level was so strong during Monty's tenure that Jorge Gutierrez won Pac POY. 'Nuff said.

TheFiatLux said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

Big C said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

Big C said:

---

Well, you just cherry-picked the best three and...

Tedford started out great, then faded. Grade: B/B+
Monty had one NCAA Tournament win during his tenure here. Grade: B
Wilcox is, as yet, unproven. Grade: I (incomplete)

Again, those are the top three, too, so I'd still say no, the past few ADs weren't that good at identifying and attracting the right football and basketball coaches.

---

I realize we're in full on thread derail mode here, but i can't let this go. BIgC a few points re Monty, respectfully :-)

First off, regarding Monty, your facts are wrong. Under Monty in the NCAA tourney we beat Louisville in 2010 and we beat UNLV in 2013.

Secondly, even had we not had either of those tourney wins, in 2010 we won our first outright conference championship in 50 years. The only outright in either football or basketball in 5 decades. That may not matter to you, or some people may try and diminish it because of a weak conference, but it means a whole lot to a whole lot of people.

We swept the LA schools (USC / UC Los Angeles) in hoops in 2012 for the first time since 1959, that also meant a lot.

We were 63-38 in conference play during his tenure. Under Monty we never finished worse than 4th in conference, also finshing 3rd and (thanks to the a$swhipe Mike Greenstein handing the game to Stanford in the season finale) 2nd in 2012.

Monty may not get a straight A, but he gets no worse than an A-.

---

If you give Monty an "A" or an "A-" for the job he did at Cal, there isn't enough "upward room" to accurately grade the job he did at Stanfurd.

I laud Mike Montgomery for seeing the light and coming to Cal, for his ethics, for his tell-it-like-it-is interviews and, especially, for his good coaching, but I can't give a basketball coach an "A" or an "A-" if they never even got their team to the Sweet Sixteen. (Again, he got freaking Stanfurd to the Final Four: What does he get for that, an "A++++"?)

His conference regular-season championship definitely matters to me, but apparently it matters to you even more. Fine.

---

Monty was a great hire, but kind of like Tedford, he achieved his success when the Pac was awful. The talent level was putrid in the Pac during Monty's tenure.

A conference championship is a conference championship and he deserves credit. The only gripe I have with Monty is he didn't leave his "mark" when he left. He was disinterested in building a culture.

But his tenure (accomplishments) was unequivocally a success -- for Cal.

---

aaaand then there is this one... :-) Did you just write Tedford achieved his success when the Pac 12 was awful, ie when USC won back to back National titles (yes one was vacated) and lost what would have been the third in the closing second to Texas? When 12-0 Oregon lost in the NC game on a game ending field goal? Dude, seriously.

But we do agree on Monty's tenure being an unequivocal success :-)

---

If it weren't for the fact that USC was so dominant Cal would have been in 1 or 2 RBs/BCS playoffs under the Good Tedford and there would be another statue to a Cal Coach on campus.

iwantwinners said:

---

Big C said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

Big C said:

---

Well, you just cherry-picked the best three and...

Tedford started out great, then faded. Grade: B/B+
Monty had one NCAA Tournament win during his tenure here. Grade: B
Wilcox is, as yet, unproven. Grade: I (incomplete)

Again, those are the top three, too, so I'd still say no, the past few ADs weren't that good at identifying and attracting the right football and basketball coaches.

---

I realize we're in full on thread derail mode here, but i can't let this go. BIgC a few points re Monty, respectfully :-)

First off, regarding Monty, your facts are wrong. Under Monty in the NCAA tourney we beat Louisville in 2010 and we beat UNLV in 2013.

Secondly, even had we not had either of those tourney wins, in 2010 we won our first outright conference championship in 50 years. The only outright in either football or basketball in 5 decades. That may not matter to you, or some people may try and diminish it because of a weak conference, but it means a whole lot to a whole lot of people.

We swept the LA schools (USC / UC Los Angeles) in hoops in 2012 for the first time since 1959, that also meant a lot.

We were 63-38 in conference play during his tenure. Under Monty we never finished worse than 4th in conference, also finshing 3rd and (thanks to the a$swhipe Mike Greenstein handing the game to Stanford in the season finale) 2nd in 2012.

Monty may not get a straight A, but he gets no worse than an A-.

---

If you give Monty an "A" or an "A-" for the job he did at Cal, there isn't enough "upward room" to accurately grade the job he did at Stanfurd.

I laud Mike Montgomery for seeing the light and coming to Cal, for his ethics, for his tell-it-like-it-is interviews and, especially, for his good coaching, but I can't give a basketball coach an "A" or an "A-" if they never even got their team to the Sweet Sixteen. (Again, he got freaking Stanfurd to the Final Four: What does he get for that, an "A++++"?)

His conference regular-season championship definitely matters to me, but apparently it matters to you even more. Fine.

---

Monty was a great hire, but kind of like Tedford, he achieved his success when the Pac was awful. The talent level was putrid in the Pac during Monty's tenure.

A conference championship is a conference championship and he deserves credit. The only gripe I have with Monty is he didn't leave his "mark" when he left. He was disinterested in building a culture.

But his tenure (accomplishments) was unequivocally a success -- for Cal.

---

So if the conference was awful back then, than what are we now? The conference is 10X worse right now than it was back then in both basketball and football.

hanky1 said:

---

iwantwinners said:

---

Big C said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

Big C said:

---

Well, you just cherry-picked the best three and...

Tedford started out great, then faded. Grade: B/B+
Monty had one NCAA Tournament win during his tenure here. Grade: B
Wilcox is, as yet, unproven. Grade: I (incomplete)

Again, those are the top three, too, so I'd still say no, the past few ADs weren't that good at identifying and attracting the right football and basketball coaches.

---

I realize we're in full on thread derail mode here, but i can't let this go. BIgC a few points re Monty, respectfully :-)

First off, regarding Monty, your facts are wrong. Under Monty in the NCAA tourney we beat Louisville in 2010 and we beat UNLV in 2013.

Secondly, even had we not had either of those tourney wins, in 2010 we won our first outright conference championship in 50 years. The only outright in either football or basketball in 5 decades. That may not matter to you, or some people may try and diminish it because of a weak conference, but it means a whole lot to a whole lot of people.

We swept the LA schools (USC / UC Los Angeles) in hoops in 2012 for the first time since 1959, that also meant a lot.

We were 63-38 in conference play during his tenure. Under Monty we never finished worse than 4th in conference, also finshing 3rd and (thanks to the a$swhipe Mike Greenstein handing the game to Stanford in the season finale) 2nd in 2012.

Monty may not get a straight A, but he gets no worse than an A-.

---

If you give Monty an "A" or an "A-" for the job he did at Cal, there isn't enough "upward room" to accurately grade the job he did at Stanfurd.

I laud Mike Montgomery for seeing the light and coming to Cal, for his ethics, for his tell-it-like-it-is interviews and, especially, for his good coaching, but I can't give a basketball coach an "A" or an "A-" if they never even got their team to the Sweet Sixteen. (Again, he got freaking Stanfurd to the Final Four: What does he get for that, an "A++++"?)

His conference regular-season championship definitely matters to me, but apparently it matters to you even more. Fine.

---

Monty was a great hire, but kind of like Tedford, he achieved his success when the Pac was awful. The talent level was putrid in the Pac during Monty's tenure.

A conference championship is a conference championship and he deserves credit. The only gripe I have with Monty is he didn't leave his "mark" when he left. He was disinterested in building a culture.

But his tenure (accomplishments) was unequivocally a success -- for Cal.

---

So if the conference was awful back then, than what are we now? The conference is 10X worse right now than it was back then in both basketball and football.

---

Basketball is certainly no better, but I'd argue the quality of talent and program arcs were at an all-time low during Monty's tenure, particularly Jorge's senior season where we lost in the play-in game.

Tedford era Cal didn't have to contend with Stanford, Oregon, UW, UCLA, Utah, WSU playing at the level they've played the last decade.