Our football team stays in a hotel the night before home games (like every other team in all of college football) and looks like the rage machine against athletics is trying to tear down Cal AD for it.

http://www.dailycal.org/2019/02/07/cal-football-players-stay-in-claremont-hotel-before-home-games-funded-by-cal-athletics/

Honestly we should consider cutting all non essential expenses. This seems to be one of them.

The author of the article, Alexandra Stassinopoulos, is a Freshman at Cal. I was curious about what sort of person would think to jump into writing about budgets & Cal football, so I Googled her name to see what would come up.

Ms. Stassinopoulos comes from a Greek American family, having grown up in Dublin CA. She has been a writer for a good part of her life. She won a middle school award for writing a short story, and was very active writing & serving as the editor of her Dublin HS student newspaper. She also participated as a swimmer on the Dublin HS swim team, won a Science Fair prize in Elementary School. But all activities clearly come in 2nd place to writing.

From what I can tell, her other articles for the DC cover a variety of political topics. Her declared her major for time being is "Confused," though I'm guessing she's not confused at all about what she wants to do with her life.

Ms. Stassinopoulos strikes me as a "typical" (OK, whatever that is) Cal Freshman trying to make her bones as a serious political writer. She's been a high achiever her whole life. The position that the article takes is what I'd expect from the Daily Cal: Has any of us ever seen a DC article saying "Let's Spend More Money on Cal Football"?

So it's what I'd expect from the DC. Really, nothing newsworthy or new. I'm guessing that is the sort of reaction that would bother Ms. Stassinopoulos the most: Not that I disagree with her position (which of course I do) but that the artical just isn't significant.

I do know one thing - Greeks have been voicing controversial opinions since history began, and that's Ms. Stassinopoulos' heritage.

PS: Coincidentally, Ms. Stassinopoulos has the same last name as Arianna Stassinopoulos Huffington's maiden name. I couldn't find a family connection.

UCBerkGrad said:

---

Honestly we should consider cutting all non essential expenses. This seems to be one of them.

---

One day the Lone Ranger and Tanto are riding a aside each other in the Old West.

All of a sudden, a group of Warrior Native Americans come from the North, yelling and headed straight for them. "What do you make of that Tanto?" asks the Lone Ranger.

Before Tanto can answer, a second group comes from the South, riding straight for them too. "What's this, Tanto?" asks the Lone Ranger.

But before Tanto can answer, a third group comes out of the East, also riding directly toward them.

"We better head West, Tanto!" shouts the Lone Ranger.

Just as they start to turn West, a fourth group of Warriors comes riding at a gallop, over a rise, from the West, heading right at them.

"What do we do now, Tanto!?" exclaims the now panicked Lone Ranger.

Tanto answers: "What do you mean 'we' white man?"

I wish somebody would put it to her in plain English that:

1. To help pay off the debt, you have to have a competitive football team that draws a crowd.

2. Having players stay in their dorm rooms and their apartments, which are noisy and distracting as hell on Friday nights and early into Saturday morning, would hurt them in trying to be ready for the next day's games. We don't want hungover players the next day! Or players hungover from second-hand marijuana smoke!

3. If Claremont, despite being a "resort," is the most cost-efficient, then so be it. We don't want players staying in Walnut Creek or downtown Oakland.

4. The team staying at Claremont isn't stealing money from other campus departments. It's all free money, earmarked exclusively for the football team.

5. To sum up: You have to spend money, in order to make money. (Like I would say to the Tedford-bashing students: If you pay a coach $300,000, you're either going to get your money's worth, or you will get a great coach who gets a big raise somewhere else.)

I largely see this as a battle of value systems. If it came down to it, there's people who would rather not have a football team than to know that money is being spent on one instead of other things.

However it does raise an important structural question - in the current state of college athletics, it is reasonable to ask if it's a fools errand to try to make the enterprise profitable.

She has not lived enough to understand?

Perhaps because The Claremont advertises in both the California Monthly and Cal Sports Quarterly, they've established a trade agreement with Cal Athletics by providing a deeply discounted room rate. They also bill themselves as the "Official Hotel of the Cal Bears Football Team" in those ads. It's all about marketing. Fans, in turn, want to be close to their heroes even for one night so they also book rooms there. Win, win for the hotel.

This is exactly what happens. The AD (or its marketing company) secures a sponsorship with the Claremont. Advertising and promotional consideration for room rates and access.

Exactly. I spent four years staying at the Claremont before home games and every minute is planned out. They aren't out there swimming and playing tennis. Staff can control the activities of the players, lights out, and food.
DailyCal...some freshman who has never spent on drop of sweat on a playing field. Weak.

There will be dramatic changes due to gushing red ink in the department. Without massive influx of donor money very soon, everyone and everything is on the table. One or two more years ...

packawana said:

---

I largely see this as a battle of value systems. If it came down to it, there's people who would rather not have a football team than to know that money is being spent on one instead of other things.

However it does raise an important structural question - in the current state of college athletics, it is reasonable to ask if it's a fools errand to try to make the enterprise profitable.

---

The problem is the money likely would not be spent on other things related to Cal. Most donors don't donate to the football restricted fund to forego other Cal activities the author would want to benefit from the donor's voluntary donations that pay for the coach's salary/benefits and where the team stays. People like the author simply don't get that there are competing uses for charitable giving, and in fact, there is a whole industry of non-profits looking for their money.

And there Is no structural issue either. Cal football is vastly profitable. If you want to discuss a fools errand as being in terms of profits (which is an unusual concept in this sector), go look at non-revenue sports that will never make a profit and cut them. But when you do so at Cal, just realize that means even larger cuts on the academic side as the non-revenue sports have their benefactors who when the teams were previously cut, withheld money from academics in about twice the amount of the cost savings in the cut sports. My guess is the author is too young and uniformed to appreciate that either.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

There will be dramatic changes due to gushing red ink in the department. Without massive influx of donor money very soon, everyone and everything is on the table. One or two more years ...

---

yes, but if the money comes out of football, there will be more red ink if the result is the football program gets worse (e.g,, like hoops). I guess it never occurred to anyone spending huge coin on facilities for programs that don't make money (e.g., softball, etc) would cause red ink.

OneKeg said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

UCBerkGrad said:

---

Honestly we should consider cutting all non essential expenses. This seems to be one of them.

---

One day the Loan Ranger and Tanto are riding a aside each other in the Old West.

All of a sudden, a group of Warrior Native Americans come from the North, yelling and headed straight for them. "What do you make of that Tanto?" asks the Loan Ranger.

Before Tanto can answer, a second group comes from the South, riding straight for them too. "What's this, Tanto?" asks the Loan Ranger.

But before Tanto can answer, a third group comes out of the East, also riding directly toward them.

"We better head West, Tanto!" shouts the Loan Ranger.

Just as they start to turn West, a fourth group of Warriors comes riding at a gallop, over a rise, from the West, heading right at them.

"What do we do now, Tanto!?" exclaims the now panicked Loan Ranger.

Tanto answers: "What do you mean 'we' white man?"

---

Tonto was no fool. The Loan Ranger was probably just trying to entrap him into some interest-only "house of your dreams" scam...

---

Tonto was no fool.... I completely agree... But the Loan Ranger was clearly just a Banker is Cowboy clothing. Now the Lone Ranger, he was a real cowboy.....

honestly people....

NeverOddOrEven said:

---

UCBerkGrad said:

---

Honestly we should consider cutting all non essential expenses. This seems to be one of them.

---

Haha, I read this as "let's cut the expenses for funding the Daily Cal."

---

If so than I stand corrected and could not agree more..

petalumabear said:

---

OneKeg said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

UCBerkGrad said:

---

Honestly we should consider cutting all non essential expenses. This seems to be one of them.

---

One day the Loan Ranger and Tanto are riding a aside each other in the Old West.

All of a sudden, a group of Warrior Native Americans come from the North, yelling and headed straight for them. "What do you make of that Tanto?" asks the Loan Ranger.

Before Tanto can answer, a second group comes from the South, riding straight for them too. "What's this, Tanto?" asks the Loan Ranger.

But before Tanto can answer, a third group comes out of the East, also riding directly toward them.

"We better head West, Tanto!" shouts the Loan Ranger.

Just as they start to turn West, a fourth group of Warriors comes riding at a gallop, over a rise, from the West, heading right at them.

"What do we do now, Tanto!?" exclaims the now panicked Loan Ranger.

Tanto answers: "What do you mean 'we' white man?"

---

Tonto was no fool. The Loan Ranger was probably just trying to entrap him into some interest-only "house of your dreams" scam...

---

Tonto was no fool.... I completely agree... But the Loan Ranger was clearly just a Banker is Cowboy clothing. Now the Lone Ranger, he was a real cowboy.....

honestly people....

---

While I like the original Lone Ranger and Tonto "What do you mean we?" story, I thought Bear19's spelling actually made it funnier. Thr "Loan Ranger" as a predatory banker and all the tribes that he had fleeced finally coming to get him...

Maybe I need professional help.

NeverOddOrEven said:

---

UCBerkGrad said:

---

Honestly we should consider cutting all non essential expenses. This seems to be one of them.

---

Haha, I read this as "let's cut the expenses for funding the Daily Cal."

---

The Daily Cal became an independent publication and split from the university in 1971.

Just wait until they learn that the basketball stays there over winter break. Or at least they used to.

Goobear said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Boy what a bunch of borderline fascists...don't like the message so kill off and/or attack the press. Hmmm...why does that sound familiar right now? Yes I understand the difference in scale and importance but this is where and how this crap starts.

Look I get disagreeing about an op-ed but killing off funding? Puh-lease...STFU or FB is next on the chopping block.

I always figured the team in the hotel the night before was game prep, bonding...and about curfew, i.e., don't want the 70s era Raiders on the prowl and lose the game and the university $$$. I'm fine with it.

But then I'm also fine with a student writer asking a budget question? It is a public institaution. You can rate it dumb or stupid but question is still legit even if you don't agree with the question.

p.s. nice stalking job on the young frosh reporter's info...Daivd Pecker is that you and AMI ready to collect recon to swap and trade later? Or are you Uber and going to track and harass that reporter? Yeah, knock it the EF off.

---

The question is not legit if the reporter does her homework but that is too much to ask. And speaking about fascists give me a break. My family was occupied by the Germans in WWII in Holland. Using that term in this context is nothing short of outrageous. I am speechless...

---

The question isn't legit? By who's account? Yours? Well, that's just your opinion, man.

Look, the University of California is a public institution. How funds are used is legit question. The fact you don't see it means you're willfully blind or just not thinking.

Any way, according to internet rules...you win, you mentioned Nazis first.

I'm glad your family survived but saying this isn't a legit question is pure BS. If you experienced that, you of all people should know better. Fascism starts with questioning and subverting the press to the point facts aren't real...and "Truth isn't truth.". Your family's experience doesn't change that, regardless how horrible or if it makes you speechless.

wifeisafurd said:

---

packawana said:

---

I largely see this as a battle of value systems. If it came down to it, there's people who would rather not have a football team than to know that money is being spent on one instead of other things.

However it does raise an important structural question - in the current state of college athletics, it is reasonable to ask if it's a fools errand to try to make the enterprise profitable.

---

The problem is the money likely would not be spent on other things related to Cal. Most donors don't donate to the football restricted fund to forego other Cal activities the author would want to benefit from the donor's voluntary donations that pay for the coach's salary/benefits and where the team stays. People like the author simply don't get that there are competing uses for charitable giving, and in fact, there is a whole industry of non-profits looking for their money.

And there Is no structural issue either. Cal football is vastly profitable. If you want to discuss a fools errand as being in terms of profits (which is an unusual concept in this sector), go look at non-revenue sports that will never make a profit and cut them. But when you do so at Cal, just realize that means even larger cuts on the academic side as the non-revenue sports have their benefactors who when the teams were previously cut, withheld money from academics in about twice the amount of the cost savings in the cut sports. My guess is the author is too young and uniformed to appreciate that either.

---

I don't think it's hard to venture that the author and students like her understand that. I get that this is the way things are. I guess my big contention is whether this is the way things should be, and I like articles like this because it does bring up the opportunity to have that discussion. Though I suppose no one is interested in having that discussion.

okaydo said:

---

I wish somebody would put it to her in plain English that:

2. Having players stay in their dorm rooms and their apartments, which are noisy and distracting as hell on Friday nights and early into Saturday morning, would hurt them in trying to be ready for the next day's games. We don't want hungover players the next day! Or players hungover from second-hand marijuana smoke!

---

I get that the players are at the hotel on a strict, regimented schedule to make sure that they're focused on the game. And a lot of people would argue that is the price of taking the scholarship. But you could also argue that other students on full scholarship aren't being watched and regimented in the same way -- so why do we need to infantalize the football players in such a fashion? (the answer is clearly that the players' performance is too important, thus revenue, but that opens up a whole nother can of worms about compentation). Also, in this case, I don't just mean Cal but I mean every team in CFB.

petalumabear said:

---

Quote:

---

Tonto was no fool. The Loan Ranger was probably just trying to entrap him into some interest-only "house of your dreams" scam...

---

Tonto was no fool.... I completely agree... But the Loan Ranger was clearly just a Banker is Cowboy clothing. Now the Lone Ranger, he was a real cowboy.....

honestly people....

---

That was a really glaring mistake, though it made me laugh when I saw your post because it is so obvious, petalumabear. Those Bankers in the Old West got everybody riled up for sure. . .

KenBurnski said:

---

So basically a 5 second e-mail from the reporter to Knowlton would have rendered the article pointless. Lazy reporting. No brownie points just for "asking the questions" when the answers are already known lol.

---

For sure she should have looked beyond the surface, at least asked Knowlton for his reaction to the sorry. I give her a mulligan since this is her Freshman year at Cal. Maybe I'm being more lenient since I found Ms. Stassinopoulos to be a likeable person in researching her background. She doesn't strike me as someone who's automatically biased against all things football related. She may have been given some biased guidance by the older DC staffers(?). Also the article is harmless, much ado about nothing. No secret misspent funds etc.

I know that her lack of research isn't "defendable" since it comes at the expense of an easily avoided mistake. And when you write publicly about something as a reporter, you have an obligation to do better.

Still, not something that harms Cal football imho. Can't believe I'm actually "defending" a DC writer - I guess there's a first time for everything.