For those of you who care, Cal finished #153 in the fall final standings with 25 pts. Only MWP scored pts. Nothing from Wvb, M&W soccer, M&w CC or Football.

Something else for Knowlton to think about.

Things are not well. Even under Sandy and Mike, Cal almost always was top 10. Hard to blame Steve, he inherited this mess, but I'm waiting for the strategic plan announcement. Being Cal AD is not for faint hearted.

So much for being known as an Olympic sport school. Sigh

Raise ticket prices! That might work out great!

wifeisafurd said:

---

Things are not well. Even under Sandy and Mike, Cal almost always was top 10. Hard to blame Steve, he inherited this mess, but I'm waiting for the strategic plan announcement. Being Cal AD is not for faint hearted.

---

Who's Steve?

You mean Jim Knowlton?

Ccajon2 said:

---

For those of you who care, Cal finished #153 in the fall final standings with 25 pts. Only MWP scored pts. Nothing from Wvb, M&W soccer, M&w CC or Football.

Something else for Knowlton to think about.

---

But our participation rate hasn't fallen off, right? That's all that really matters. Too much winning sends a bad message.

barring title ix considerations, would this lead to cutting some of the sports teams at cal?

01Bear said:

---

barring title ix considerations, would this lead to cutting some of the sports teams at cal?

---

Lol why on earth?

socaliganbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

barring title ix considerations, would this lead to cutting some of the sports teams at cal?

---

Lol why on earth?

---

Given the costs of maintaining all these teams, if they're also not competitive (and self-funding), would it not be a good idea to pull the plug on some teams (again, barring Title IX implications)? I'm not saying i support the position, but I'm wondering if that could be under consideration.

01Bear said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

barring title ix considerations, would this lead to cutting some of the sports teams at cal?

---

Lol why on earth?

---

Given the costs of maintaining all these teams, if they're also not competitive (and self-funding), would it not be a good idea to pull the plug on some teams (again, barring Title IX implications)? I'm not saying i support the position, but I'm wondering if that could be under consideration.

---

Such a decision should not be made because of a bad sears cup term ranking. What kind of knee jerk thinking is that...

socaliganbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

barring title ix considerations, would this lead to cutting some of the sports teams at cal?

---

Lol why on earth?

---

Given the costs of maintaining all these teams, if they're also not competitive (and self-funding), would it not be a good idea to pull the plug on some teams (again, barring Title IX implications)? I'm not saying i support the position, but I'm wondering if that could be under consideration.

---

Such a decision should not be made because of a bad sears cup term ranking. What kind of knee jerk thinking is that...

---

Cal doesn't need some BS competition to make plain that it's underperforming relative to peer institutions (Stanford, Michigan, UCLA etc.).

The outcomes are a very poor return on investment. Unfortunately, owing to some outdated, backward-looking legislation, Cal can't make a totally practical decision regarding which programs to keep and which to cut. But to the extent possible, Cal should trim the department and invest itself in the programs that survive. And by invest, I mean commit money and human resources to winning and distinguishing the university in a positive way, as appears to be the case with academics. Leave the participation awards to the JCs, please.

From NACDA

2018 - 20th
2017 - 14th
2016 - 11th
2015 - 12th
2014 - 20th
2013 - 17th
2012 - 11th
2011 - 3rd
2010 - 9th
2009 - 7th
2008 - 7th
2007 - 9th
2006 - 7th
2005 -15th
2004 - 9th

From Wikipedia
2003 - 9th

Between 1993 and 2003, Wikipedia only lists the top 10 and Cal is not there at all.

So let's see, Sandy was at Cal 2004-2014 and Mike Williams ("interim" AD) was there 2015-ish to 2018, so yeah, his reign wasn't nearly as good.

That being said, I don't think it was 100% due to Sandy, but there's no doubt every time I spoke to her, she did place an emphasis on the overall strength of Cal athletics.

Those with closer ties might have other information, but I'd posit the following:

1. The rise seems highly correlated to the success of football. As they say, there's no such thing as bad PR. Keeping the Cal name at the forefront is a huge deal.

2. The later decline started with "cutting of sports" debacle in 2010.

3. The lack of recent success seems again correlated to football (and possibly somewhat to men's basketball). But it might also be related to the success of other rising/steady programs. For example, OSU baseball, historically not a great program and they are a major player now. Furd women's soccer over the last 6 or 7 years...

4. Several sports have carried the success, including swimming. Those sports need to have success in order for Cal to score points (and are spring programs, so they will get points later)

5. Cal athletics is pretty deep, I think only UCLA and Furd have as many programs. As such, I think we'll always generally be in the top 30 versus most schools have far fewer (like an Oregon with about 15 programs).

Other thoughts? This could be a really rough year...personally, and I know some don't care, I'd like the department as a whole to do well. I think it really does start with football, at least for Cal. Let's hope we are going in the correct direction.

socaliganbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

barring title ix considerations, would this lead to cutting some of the sports teams at cal?

---

Lol why on earth?

---

Given the costs of maintaining all these teams, if they're also not competitive (and self-funding), would it not be a good idea to pull the plug on some teams (again, barring Title IX implications)? I'm not saying i support the position, but I'm wondering if that could be under consideration.

---

Such a decision should not be made because of a bad sears cup term ranking. What kind of knee jerk thinking is that...

---

I don't mean to suggest that the decision will be based solely on this one data point. Rather, this data point, if part of a collection that shows a downward trend in Cal's athletic success (and the correlated support/revenue generation) could be grounds to eliminate some of the underperforming programs.

Again, I'm not in favor of such a position. Rather IMHO, athletics should be an important part of any college experience (as the Romans, who borrowed the concept from the Greeks, stated "mens sana in corpore sano").

That said, I also realize that modern realities require the athletic programs be funded. Without adequate funding, the viability of some of these programs may be jeopardized. An utilitarian evaluation of the programs may suggest that the underperforming programs that are also incapable of being fully self-funded may be a better choice to eliminate than a program that is either (1) performing at elite levels or (2) self-funding. The question I am putting forth is essentially whether this form of evaluation will be in play here?

I bet the contest winning schools get big shiney ribbons!

Cal is #10 on the list of NCAA Div 1 Team Championships. Many of the those championships came within the last 10 years from swimming, water polo, and rowing. Bears do well in the water.

In order to score high in the Sear's Cup, you just need as many sports programs to advance to the post season as possible to score points. In other words, it's better to be slightly above average in multiple sports rather than winning a couple of national championships.

Cal typically doesn't score high in the fall sports category, they make up for it in the spring.

oskirules said:

---

Cal is #10 on the list of NCAA Div 1 Team Championships. Many of the those championships came within the last 10 years from swimming, water polo, and rowing. Bears do well in the water.

In order to score high in the Sear's Cup, you just need as many sports programs to advance to the post season as possible to score points. In other words, it's better to be slightly above average in multiple sports rather than winning a couple of national championships.

Cal typically doesn't score high in the fall sports category, they make up for it in the spring.

---

Diggin the avi.

SFCALBear72 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Things are not well. Even under Sandy and Mike, Cal almost always was top 10. Hard to blame Steve, he inherited this mess, but I'm waiting for the strategic plan announcement. Being Cal AD is not for faint hearted.

---

Who's Steve?

You mean Jim Knowlton?

---

yes.

sandiegobears said:

---

From NACDA

2018 - 20th
2017 - 14th
2016 - 11th
2015 - 12th
2014 - 20th
2013 - 17th
2012 - 11th
2011 - 3rd
2010 - 9th
2009 - 7th
2008 - 7th
2007 - 9th
2006 - 7th
2005 -15th
2004 - 9th

From Wikipedia
2003 - 9th

Between 1993 and 2003, Wikipedia only lists the top 10 and Cal is not there at all.

So let's see, Sandy was at Cal 2004-2014 and Mike Williams ("interim" AD) was there 2015-ish to 2018, so yeah, his reign wasn't nearly as good.

That being said, I don't think it was 100% due to Sandy, but there's no doubt every time I spoke to her, she did place an emphasis on the overall strength of Cal athletics.

Those with closer ties might have other information, but I'd posit the following:

1. The rise seems highly correlated to the success of football. As they say, there's no such thing as bad PR. Keeping the Cal name at the forefront is a huge deal.

2. The later decline started with "cutting of sports" debacle in 2010.

3. The lack of recent success seems again correlated to football (and possibly somewhat to men's basketball). But it might also be related to the success of other rising/steady programs. For example, OSU baseball, historically not a great program and they are a major player now. Furd women's soccer over the last 6 or 7 years...

4. Several sports have carried the success, including swimming. Those sports need to have success in order for Cal to score points (and are spring programs, so they will get points later)

5. Cal athletics is pretty deep, I think only UCLA and Furd have as many programs. As such, I think we'll always generally be in the top 30 versus most schools have far fewer (like an Oregon with about 15 programs).

Other thoughts? This could be a really rough year...personally, and I know some don't care, I'd like the department as a whole to do well. I think it really does start with football, at least for Cal. Let's hope we are going in the correct direction.

---

Excellent post, and I was simply talking off the top pf my head when I mentioned Willams. You nailed the timing, and thanks for taking the time to do the research.

I also think you nailed the Cal specific factors. Another more global factor may be the Pac falling behind other conferences in revenues and exposure. Someone would have to do the research, but I suspect that most Pac 12 programs rankings have dropped over the last few years with the exception of Furd, which is a different animal.



T