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.

---

Berenson is Cal Athletics spokesperson. Knowlton is Cal Athletics. Berenson is Knowlton's spokesperson.

Berenson released a statement to her speaking on behalf of Knowlton and Cal Athletics. What they told her in the statement is the messsage that Knowlton wanted to get across.

okaydo said:

---

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.

---

Which is appropriate, They should be independent so they avoid conflicts of interest (or the appearance thereof). But does calling yourself independent really doesn't address the funding issue?

The Daily Cal's status as a registered student group on campus qualifies it to receive money from campus, and they have taken campus funds in the past during lean years. The newspaper also receives a $2 per student from student fees. So I'm not really sure what the BS about independence means. If certainly doesn't mean the paper is financially independent. If you want, you can go on the website and read about their current funding under the "About" heading.

OTOH, the football program funds tuition for around 400 to 500 student athletes, so the Campus could spend the money on other things, like say reducing student fees by $2. .

That fee is levied by referendum though, as per many other ASUC-related fees. You'd have to convince the students to let funding expire.

Anyone find some irony in the fact that football and basketball defenders want to justify staying at the Claremont as a way to enhance performance, but no one suggests emulating swimming and water polo where the student athletes stay in dorms, apartments, fraternities and sororities before contests. Although I won NCAA silver and gold, I never stayed at a hotel before a contest except when travelling. Maybe the lack of successful performance
in the "money" sports can be traced to the failure to treat the athletes as humans and the failure to demand their mature behavior as part of participation in the sport. Just a thought....

bearchamp said:

---

Anyone find some irony in the fact that football and basketball defenders want to justify staying at the Claremont as a way to enhance performance, but no one suggests emulating swimming and water polo where the student athletes stay in dorms, apartments, fraternities and sororities before contests. Although I won NCAA silver and gold, I never stayed at a hotel before a contest except when travelling. Maybe the lack of successful performance
in the "money" sports can be traced to the failure to treat the athletes as humans and the failure to demand their mature behavior as part of participation in the sport. Just a thought....

---

Someone should let Clemson and Alabama know they are messing this up then. We can cc the entire NCAA while we are at it since every school and coach in college football is doing the same thing.

Sebastabear,
I doubt Cal will ever be Clemson or Alabamba, and I doubt anyone here wants Cal to be so. The fact that everyone does it does not mean it is the only way: nobody high-jumped via the Fosbury flop before Fosbury, but he found a better way. My point is that trying to be "like" a football factory is not working at Cal, so maybe some other strategy should be pursued. In any event, based on results, you certainly cannot simply dismiss the experience of other, far more successful sports.

My apologies for the typo.

packawana said:

---

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.

---

I don't think a frosh journalism student has a f'ing clue about how the university gets funded. In fact, putting in the comments from the moron faculty member: " that the money used to pay for the hotel rooms could be better spent on other campus programs" shows a complete lack of how the expenses are funded, legal requirements governing those funds and of fund accounting rules the university follows. My guess is that most of this board doesn't get the technicalities either, not less someone who has been in college for a few months.

Maybe we should have a discussion of why uniformed faculty members keep attacking another sider of the University?

okaydo said:

---

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.)

---

Not to mention that the Claremont is part of the recruiting package to draw players to help win, and that having the team together helps with game planning and camaraderie.

hanky1 said:

---

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/

---

Email her: astassinopoulos@dailycal.org

wifeisafurd said:

---

okaydo said:

---

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.

---

Which is appropriate, They should be independent so they avoid conflicts of interest (or the appearance thereof). But does calling yourself independent really doesn't address the funding issue?

The Daily Cal's status as a registered student group on campus qualifies it to receive money from campus, and they have taken campus funds in the past during lean years. The newspaper also receives a $2 per student from student fees. So I'm not really sure what the BS about independence means. If certainly doesn't mean the paper is financially independent. If you want, you can go on the website and read about their current funding under the "About" heading.

OTOH, the football program funds tuition for around 400 to 500 student athletes, so the Campus could spend the money on other things, like say reducing student fees by $2. .

---

It means when the Daily Cal has published explicit details about a top UC Berkeley executive sleeping with a top student government official, there was no repercussions from the university.

Same when the Daily Cal published GPAs and SAT scores of rich kids who got in with special treatment.

It means the university has no editorial control over the Daily Cal, whether they publish good or terrible articles.

I believe -- but can't find through Google -- that the university lent the paper money around 1994 when they were about to go under. But I believe that money was also paid back when the paper was financially healthy toward the end of the 90s.

wifeisafurd said:

---

packawana said:

---

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.

---

I don't think a frosh journalism student has a f'ing clue about how the university gets funded. In fact, putting in the comments from the moron faculty member: " that the money used to pay for the hotel rooms could be better spent on other campus programs" shows a complete lack of how the expenses are funded, legal requirements governing those funds and of fund accounting rules the university follows. My guess is that most of this board doesn't get the technicalities either, not less someone who has been in college for a few months.

Maybe we should have a discussion of why uniformed faculty members keep attack another sider of the University?

---

UC Berkeley doesn't have an undergraduate journalism program. When I was at the Daily Cal, a lot of my colleagues were Molecular and Cell Biology majors.

packawana said:

---

That fee is levied by referendum though, as per many other ASUC-related fees. You'd have to convince the students to let funding expire.

---

I'm not suggesting the let the funding expire. At the risk of pissing everyone off, I think the Daily Cal provides value to the campus by solid reporting (for students) on campus issues. It's just the opinion and editorial sections that people make fun of justifiably, because they seem to be trying just to talk about themselves and/or stir up controversy. This falls into the stir-up controversy side.

okaydo said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

okaydo said:

---

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.

---

Which is appropriate, They should be independent so they avoid conflicts of interest (or the appearance thereof). But does calling yourself independent really doesn't address the funding issue?

The Daily Cal's status as a registered student group on campus qualifies it to receive money from campus, and they have taken campus funds in the past during lean years. The newspaper also receives a $2 per student from student fees. So I'm not really sure what the BS about independence means. If certainly doesn't mean the paper is financially independent. If you want, you can go on the website and read about their current funding under the "About" heading.

OTOH, the football program funds tuition for around 400 to 500 student athletes, so the Campus could spend the money on other things, like say reducing student fees by $2. .

---

It means when the Daily Cal has published explicit details about a top UC Berkeley executive sleeping with a top student government official, there was no repercussions from the university.

Same when the Daily Cal published GPAs and SAT scores of rich kids who got in with special treatment.

It means the university has no editorial control over the Daily Cal, whether they publish good or terrible articles.

I believe -- but can't find through Google -- that the university lent the paper money around 1994 when they were about to go under. But I believe that money was also paid back when the paper was financially healthy toward the end of the 90s.

---

I think I actually said all this about independence in my first paragraph, but questioned if that meant it was ALSO financially independent, which it is not. It has ben bailed out by both the University and student fees. The implication was that it was financially independent, with your post responding to a poster talking about cuts.

okaydo said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

packawana said:

---

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.

---

I don't think a frosh journalism student has a f'ing clue about how the university gets funded. In fact, putting in the comments from the moron faculty member: " that the money used to pay for the hotel rooms could be better spent on other campus programs" shows a complete lack of how the expenses are funded, legal requirements governing those funds and of fund accounting rules the university follows. My guess is that most of this board doesn't get the technicalities either, not less someone who has been in college for a few months.

Maybe we should have a discussion of why uniformed faculty members keep attack another sider of the University?

---

UC Berkeley doesn't have an undergraduate journalism program. When I was at the Daily Cal, a lot of my colleagues were Molecular and Cell Biology majors.

---

Let me clarify, I don' think a froshie masquerading as a journalist doesn't have a flippen clue.

bearchamp said:

---

Sebastabear,
I doubt Cal will ever be Clemson or Alabamba, and I doubt anyone here wants Cal to be so. The fact that everyone does it does not mean it is the only way: nobody high-jumped via the Fosbury flop before Fosbury, but he found a better way. My point is that trying to be "like" a football factory is not working at Cal, so maybe some other strategy should be pursued. In any event, based on results, you certainly cannot simply dismiss the experience of other, far more successful sports.

---

Much respect to you Bearchamp. There are many facets that go into doing this. The behavioral aspect is not the reason for the hotel stay. Bottom line is the funds are paid before by donors and not the school.

I would not be surprised your decision to come and swim/play water polo for Cal had to do with its gravitas as it relates to the swimming/water polo program.

Cal decided to play the game big time when the stadium got redone. So why are we rehashing that Cal does not want to be a top fb program. That ship has long sailed. It too needs gravitas to attract talented athletes like yourself.

wifeisafurd said:

---

packawana said:

---

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.

---

I don't think a frosh journalism student has a f'ing clue about how the university gets funded. In fact, putting in the comments from the moron faculty member: " that the money used to pay for the hotel rooms could be better spent on other campus programs" shows a complete lack of how the expenses are funded, legal requirements governing those funds and of fund accounting rules the university follows. My guess is that most of this board doesn't get the technicalities either, not less someone who has been in college for a few months.

Maybe we should have a discussion of why uniformed faculty members keep attacking another sider of the University?

---

With all due respect, that's a straw man argument. Yes, we can agree that within the confines of the way the system is currently set up, the money must be earmarked for spending on the team. My point is that it's fair to also question why we're trying to attract donors who are interested in funding the educational aspect if their sports needs are met. That, to me, sounds like a bad fundraising strategy on the long term for a public university that doesn't seem to be interested in going whole hog on athletics (and personally, I'm not sure it should, but then again, I'm of the mind that Cal should have its public funding increased and we all know that's not happening).

So, I googled the phrase "policy of college football teams to stay in hotels for home games".

Even the MAC does it:


https://www.bgfalconmedia.com/sports/football-teams-across-the-mac-stay-in-hotels-for-home/article_2d91fdbe-ce3b-11e7-ad53-b37e0975c6cf.html

For costs and more: https://www.star-telegram.com/sports/college/big-12/article4303068.html

and

https://www.wralsportsfan.com/rs/story/2020793/

Did Cal ever have a dorm only for athletes? The end of athletic dorms was cited as a reason for the hotels.

bearchamp said:

---

Anyone find some irony in the fact that football and basketball defenders want to justify staying at the Claremont as a way to enhance performance, but no one suggests emulating swimming and water polo where the student athletes stay in dorms, apartments, fraternities and sororities before contests. Although I won NCAA silver and gold, I never stayed at a hotel before a contest except when travelling. Maybe the lack of successful performance
in the "money" sports can be traced to the failure to treat the athletes as humans and the failure to demand their mature behavior as part of participation in the sport. Just a thought....

---

Actually having been with the team on these overnights (I was once bed checked by Coach Gould who wanted to know why I had a girl, my wife, in the room), so here are my reasons football and swimming our different (I'm paraphrasing Okaydo a lot):

1) Hotel stays before home games have been a college football staple for more than 40 years as coaches try to keep players focused and away from the distractions (other students, relatives, etc.). There is importance of ensuring teams are properly rested and focused. If an individual swimmer screws-up its mostly on him, if the left tackle sleeps through the game, you may be carrying out your QB on a stretcher. Every college campus is different, but usually the night before a home football game, campuses get more rambunctious. Swimming, I don't think so.


2) There are recruits going through the process on their visits and so this matters for recruiting. That really doesn't happen in other sports.

3) I guess swimmers just do other things, but football player time is modulated and spoken for, as to when to eat, what football film to watch, sessions with coaches, study time, bonding time (usually a movie) and sleep. Unlike with swimmers who go out and swim this is a team sport that requires a controlled environment. As pointed out there is no resort time.

4) I'm going to guess you earned the gold and silver at an event where you stayed at a hotel. But it didn't matter if you blew a home meet. As long as you did well in the NCAAs, both the team and you profited. Every game matters in football, which gets me to point 5.

5) There is.way more money at stake, hence the controlled environment. Swimming is a great sport with a wonderful tradition at Cal, but it doesn't' pay for the deficits on other sports. Football does. Each win can mean millions more.

6) Finally there are ease of team logistics. You get everyone, on time, fed and thorough the swarm around the stadium though buses with police escorts. Again, I just don't see the issues or the analogy to swimming and other sports (other than maybe hoops).

packawana said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

packawana said:

---

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.

---

I don't think a frosh journalism student has a f'ing clue about how the university gets funded. In fact, putting in the comments from the moron faculty member: " that the money used to pay for the hotel rooms could be better spent on other campus programs" shows a complete lack of how the expenses are funded, legal requirements governing those funds and of fund accounting rules the university follows. My guess is that most of this board doesn't get the technicalities either, not less someone who has been in college for a few months.

Maybe we should have a discussion of why uniformed faculty members keep attacking another sider of the University?

---

With all due respect, that's a straw man argument. Yes, we can agree that within the confines of the way the system is currently set up, the money must be earmarked for spending on the team. My point is that it's fair to also question why we're trying to attract donors who are interested in funding the educational aspect if their sports needs are met. That, to me, sounds like a bad fundraising strategy on the long term for a public university that doesn't seem to be interested in going whole hog on athletics (and personally, I'm not sure it should, but then again, I'm of the mind that Cal should have its public funding increased and we all know that's not happening).

---

You do understand that what is being suggested is illegal, not simply the confides of a system?You can't take what becomes governmental funds dedicated for one purpose and use those funds for another purpose. I am not aware of state that permits this, and you can forget anyone trying to raise money succeeding once a state does that. This isn't a straw man, it's a dumb professor.

If you want to switch gears and say we should eliminate sports because in your opinion, the basic premise for supporting sports, donor participation in academics, is invalid, that is another discussion. But it is not the discussion that was raised by the Daily Cal. Not even close. This is called bait and switch, not straw man.

As for last sentence, Cal didn't used to have to rely on donors decades ago, and that has changed dramatically. How do you think this article is playing with donors who only support academics and think somehow these are funds going to put some football players up in a resort vs. people who do donate to sports and consider the bias of the article? Think about that in the actual confides of the reality of the situation

wifeisafurd said:

---

How do you think this article is playing with donors who only support academics and think somehow these are funds going to put some football players up in a resort vs. people who do donate to sports and consider the bias of the article? Think about that in the actual confides of the reality of the situation

---

It's hard for me to imagine that a donor who supports only academics would care about the article one way or another, as long as their money is accounted for by the academic program they're supporting. Maybe I'm wrong about that - other than BI/FG, has there any reaction on campus?

wifeisafurd said:

---

Actually having been with the team on these overnights (I was once bed checked by Coach Gould who wanted to know why I had a girl, my wife, in the room)

---

Did Coach Gould make you do up/downs for breaking the Hotel Night Before the Game Rules? You didn't tell him your lady was from stanfurd of all places, did you?

Reminds me of the Soviets planting female spys in the U.S. to live as Americans for years to get intell.

But what the furdies did is just crazy. Having one of their females actually marry a Cal football supporter, just to get into the Claremont where the team stays before a game, most certainly to gather game plan intell, is way way over the line in my opinion. Can you account for 100% of her time in the Claremont? I didn't think so! To the dorms with both of you!

Bear19 said:

---

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.

---

If you think that this article was an isolated act of naivete on the part of a frosh/cub reporter, you haven't been reading enough of the DC. Here's a "joke" that more accurately describes what this is about than that tired Loan Ranger story:

Batman and Robin chased some bad guys into a blind alley. Batman pulled out his ray guns and held them at bay. Suddenly, he was hit over the head....knocked out. When he came to, he looked up and saw Robin standing over him as the bad guys escaped.

Batman asked, "Who hit me?"
Robin, "I did."
Batman, "Why?
Robin, "I wanted to hold the guns."

Anytime swimming success is introduced into a revenue sport argument, you're already lost. It's apples and carrots.

Who cares where you stay for a mostly meaningless dual meet during the regular season, hell at Cal you might just swim in exhibition the next day anyway and it won't cost the school millions. Never mind that the water donors are prob not too keen on the idea of being told how to spend their earmarked dollars, given that they took one of the most prime lots on the entire campus and built a pool.

If Seliskar gets drunk the night before the SC meet and skips the next day, it means absolutely nothing for him or Cal's season.

Bear19 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Actually having been with the team on these overnights (I was once bed checked by Coach Gould who wanted to know why I had a girl, my wife, in the room)

---

Did Coach Gould make you do up/downs for breaking the Hotel Night Before the Game Rules? You didn't tell him your lady was from stanfurd of all places, did you?

Reminds me of the Soviets planting female spys in the U.S. to live as Americans for years to get intell.

But what the furdies did is just crazy. Having one of their females actually marry a Cal football supporter, just to get into the Claremont where the team stays before a game, most certainly to gather game plan intell, is way way over the line in my opinion. Can you account for 100% of her time in the Claremont? I didn't think so! To the dorms with both of you!

---

The Chancellor should appoint Mueller to investigate. Unfortunately for us, it that year it wasn't the Claremont, but was the Doubletree in the Berkeley Marina.

Of course when I go to Furd events and talk with Shaw and Connie, there do seem to be these large men with wearing little American flags surrounding me. Coincidence? I think not.

Rushinbear said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

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.

---

If you think that this article was an isolated act of naivete on the part of a frosh/cub reporter, you haven't been reading enough of the DC. Here's a "joke" that more accurately describes what this is about than that tired Loan Ranger story:

Batman and Robin chased some bad guys into a blind alley. Batman pulled out his ray guns and held them at bay. Suddenly, he was hit over the head....knocked out. When he came to, he looked up and saw Robin standing over him as the bad guys escaped.

Batman asked, "Who hit me?"
Robin, "I did."
Batman, "Why?
Robin, "I wanted to hold the guns."

---

Second article in two weeks attacking football, That is becoming a trend.

Bear19 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

How do you think this article is playing with donors who only support academics and think somehow these are funds going to put some football players up in a resort vs. people who do donate to sports and consider the bias of the article? Think about that in the actual confides of the reality of the situation

---

It's hard for me to imagine that a donor who supports only academics would care about the article one way or another, as long as their money is accounted for by the academic program they're supporting. Maybe I'm wrong about that - other than BI/FG, has there any reaction on campus?

---

I can't really speak for the donor who supports only academics, but if that was me, I would have concerns when a faculty member announces that money spent for what seems like resort boondoggle for football players should be spent to campus needs.

I guess you didn't sign that letter to then Chancellor Designee Christ, but this is one of the MAJOR REASONS that is causing the donor community to withhold funds. The perceived antagonism of one part of campus against athletics. The fact that an uninformed faculty member attacked football in the media AGAIN is representative of that problem. There is no money for a new basketball coach for reasons. People here don't get that a significant portion of the major donor population is sitting on the sidelines (to use a football metaphor) right now.

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. ...

---

Is this a bilingual pun?

wifeisafurd said:

---

packawana said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

packawana said:

---

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.

---

I don't think a frosh journalism student has a f'ing clue about how the university gets funded. In fact, putting in the comments from the moron faculty member: " that the money used to pay for the hotel rooms could be better spent on other campus programs" shows a complete lack of how the expenses are funded, legal requirements governing those funds and of fund accounting rules the university follows. My guess is that most of this board doesn't get the technicalities either, not less someone who has been in college for a few months.

Maybe we should have a discussion of why uniformed faculty members keep attacking another sider of the University?

---

With all due respect, that's a straw man argument. Yes, we can agree that within the confines of the way the system is currently set up, the money must be earmarked for spending on the team. My point is that it's fair to also question why we're trying to attract donors who are interested in funding the educational aspect if their sports needs are met. That, to me, sounds like a bad fundraising strategy on the long term for a public university that doesn't seem to be interested in going whole hog on athletics (and personally, I'm not sure it should, but then again, I'm of the mind that Cal should have its public funding increased and we all know that's not happening).

---

You do understand that what is being suggested is illegal, not simply the confides of a system?You can't take what becomes governmental funds dedicated for one purpose and use those funds for another purpose. I am not aware of state that permits this, and you can forget anyone trying to raise money succeeding once a state does that. This isn't a straw man, it's a dumb professor.

If you want to switch gears and say we should eliminate sports because in your opinion, the basic premise for supporting sports, donor participation in academics, is invalid, that is another discussion. But it is not the discussion that was raised by the Daily Cal. Not even close. This is called bait and switch, not straw man.

As for last sentence, Cal didn't used to have to rely on donors decades ago, and that has changed dramatically. How do you think this article is playing with donors who only support academics and think somehow these are funds going to put some football players up in a resort vs. people who do donate to sports and consider the bias of the article? Think about that in the actual confides of the reality of the situation

---

Are you referring to the idea of funding earmarked for athletics for academic purposes? I understand that you can't do that, but again, my point is whether we should be trying to appeal to donors who will only donate to academics if they are also able to donate to their athletics program.

If the academic side is dependent on those donations (which it isn't entirely though that depends on the program/constituent college), then that fundraising strategy is flawed unless we decided to go whole hog and committed to winning. In other words, we should be seeing some easy classes and majors pop up, and the establishment of a master's program for athletes. But we won't do that because from an academic standpoint, the faculty would never go for it.

Basically, in my mind, this halfway house thing isn't feasible long-term if you want a program that averages more than 7 wins a season when you're in the arms race, especially if donors expect more than that. Over the long-term I'm beginning not to see this as a viable enterprise unless we pull a rabbit out of the hat and find a Bill Snyder for our program.

Obviously this is meant to anger donors and shareholders of the university. While that's true, I still question the need not from a practical POV but from one of principle. It makes sense for a coach to want to make sure they can control their program and their players so that they can achieve optimum performance. But why do we normalize that?

Socaligan Bear and Wifesafurd,
The issue is performance. My observation of football and basketball is that they don't perform all that well. Thus, I question the popular wisdom that a hotel stay is the difference. I also question treating the athletes like children: if every minute is not regulated they won't perform, show up for meetings, show up sober???? Are you serious? Additionally, I have known many elite athletes in football and basketball, that is, NFL and NBA, and I have never heard any of them suggest their athletic performance was enhanced by staying in a hotel. To the contrary, I have heard that the advantage of a home game is staying in your own bed. Cal is a different kind of place. I was advised to go elsewhere for athletic excellence when I was being recruited. My teammates and I did just fine. Perhaps "money" sports at Cal need to be different and need a different approach and a different culture than the ACC and SEC. Maybe the recruit who is impressed by staying at a hotel is not the recruit we need. Maybe the paternalism inherent in the current approach handicaps our "money" athletes. Perhaps, the "good ol' boy" orthodoxy of the historical approach to "money" athletes doesn't work at Cal. The wins and losses seem to bear out that conclusion.

bearchamp said:

---

Socaligan Bear and Wifesafurd,
The issue is performance. My observation of football and basketball is that they don't perform all that well. Thus, I question the popular wisdom that a hotel stay is the difference. I also question treating the athletes like children: if every minute is not regulated they won't perform, show up for meetings, show up sober???? Are you serious? Additionally, I have known many elite athletes in football and basketball, that is, NFL and NBA, and I have never heard any of them suggest their athletic performance was enhanced by staying in a hotel. To the contrary, I have heard that the advantage of a home game is staying in your own bed. Cal is a different kind of place. I was advised to go elsewhere for athletic excellence when I was being recruited. My teammates and I did just fine. Perhaps "money" sports at Cal need to be different and need a different approach and a different culture than the ACC and SEC. Maybe the recruit who is impressed by staying at a hotel is not the recruit we need. Maybe the paternalism inherent in the current approach handicaps our "money" athletes. Perhaps, the "good ol' boy" orthodoxy of the historical approach to "money" athletes doesn't work at Cal. The wins and losses seem to bear out that conclusion.

---

This is exactly what Cal revenue sports need, fewer resources than every single one of our competitors has.

There's a sea of difference between keeping tabs on a handful of country club sport players, and 85 football players.

The only approach money sports at Cal need is to not be half a**ed, which we are currently doing and have been for decades. That's the conclusion that wins and losses bear out.


Finally, no one is saying the hotel is the difference. It is simply a deterrent that a sport like swimming doesn't have to deal with because the next day performance of any of their swimmers is often inconsequential to the big picture during the regular season.

Quote:

---

The author of the article, Alexandra Stassinopoulos, is a Freshman at Cal.

---

The vast majority of writers on college newspapers have little critical thinking skills, so expecting a Frosh to ask/think about diferrent points of view is foolish.

Socaliganbear,
You might want to rethink your message. "County club sport players" sounds like an inappropriate and offensive "code". Additionally, the start of these posts was critical comments on the expenditure of funds for hotel stays: the issue is not cutting budgets, but effective allocation of resources. Finally, you insult Cal athletes when you suggest they don't care about their performance in any competition. Taking swimming as an example, to suggest that each performance is not important is beyond naive. I posit that the swimming athletes, whether taken individually, or as a team, compete at a much higher level than the football players. Football competes for league supremacy, swimmers compete at the world level and frequently are the best in the world. World level competition requires regimentation and discipline. The difference between football and swimming appears to be that the demands on swimmers are met through individual discipline, whereas the football culture seems to believe its athletes cannot be trusted to be disciplined. I never recall a bed check, but apparently football requires such babysitting. My argument is not that football athletes are lesser people, but that, perhaps, they perform to what is expected of them by the coaches and the culture and that the effort to advance football performance might benefit from developing the kind of individual discipline found in other sports, and thus, perhaps, the hotel expenditures might be better applied elsewhere in the program.

bearchamp said:

---

Socaliganbear,
You might want to rethink your message. "County club sport players" sounds like an inappropriate and offensive "code". Additionally, the start of these posts was critical comments on the expenditure of funds for hotel stays: the issue is not cutting budgets, but effective allocation of resources. Finally, you insult Cal athletes when you suggest they don't care about their performance in any competition. Taking swimming as an example, to suggest that each performance is not important is beyond naive. I posit that the swimming athletes, whether taken individually, or as a team, compete at a much higher level than the football players. Football competes for league supremacy, swimmers compete at the world level and frequently are the best in the world. World level competition requires regimentation and discipline. The difference between football and swimming appears to be that the demands on swimmers are met through individual discipline, whereas the football culture seems to believe its athletes cannot be trusted to be disciplined. I never recall a bed check, but apparently football requires such babysitting. My argument is not that football athletes are lesser people, but that, perhaps, they perform to what is expected of them by the coaches and the culture and that the effort to advance football performance might benefit from developing the kind of individual discipline found in other sports, and thus, perhaps, the hotel expenditures might be better applied elsewhere in the program.

---

What? I never said they didn't care, I never said they weren't important. I said their performance in a regular season meet does not affect the season as a whole.

Your argument is "if swimming can do it, why can't football?" Things will make more sense when you stop
Comparing two things that aren't comparable.

Tell me, how would Durden's season be affected if Reece was unable to suit up against SC? It wouldn't.

The entire men's team could skip Big Meet and they would still be expected to challenge Texas for the title. Heck, Durden could take 3 of his top swimmers out of the Confetence Championship meet and still be favored to finish behind Texas (because he has).

So yes, there's a major difference in how the swim team and football team set up their night before routines because outcomes mean very very different things to each team.