You can't use the youth card three years in a row.
More on UCLA's football train wreck
12,771 Views |
93 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by helltopay1
Unlike at Oregon, Chip doesn't have a major benefactor, actually has to follow NCAA rules, and is at a school that requires academic standards
Plus defenses have evolved and figured out how to defend his system and he hasn't adapted
Plus defenses have evolved and figured out how to defend his system and he hasn't adapted
Even though I should have faith because UCLA has been largely unsuccessful with their last several HC hires, I live in fear that they will replace Kelly all too soon and then strike gold with his successor. My goodness, we have a golden opportunity in front of us right now and we need to strike while the iron is hot. It could be our last chance: Who knows if there will even be college football (at least as we know it) in 20-30 years)?
Bob Toledo won a conference championship with UCLA in 1998. Striking gold isn't easy, even in LA, apparently.Big C said:
Even though I should have faith because UCLA has been largely unsuccessful with their last several HC hires, I live in fear that they will replace Kelly all too soon and then strike gold with his successor. My goodness, we have a golden opportunity in front of us right now and we need to strike while the iron is hot. It could be our last chance: Who knows if there will even be college football (at least as we know it) in 20-30 years)?
Big C said:
Even though I should have faith because UCLA has been largely unsuccessful with their last several HC hires, I live in fear that they will replace Kelly all too soon and then strike gold with his successor. My goodness, we have a golden opportunity in front of us right now and we need to strike while the iron is hot. It could be our last chance: Who knows if there will even be college football (at least as we know it) in 20-30 years)?
UCLA's profile is most similar to Cal's. I think they're our biggest threat. We should be capitalizing on their weakness, but I'm not sure Wilcox has yet on the recruiting trail.
Definitely our biggest recruiting rival. The cachet of the Wilcox Program has just reached a respectable height the past two months (hopefully with more to come), which will pay benefits with the 2021-2023 recruiting classes.hanky1 said:Big C said:
Even though I should have faith because UCLA has been largely unsuccessful with their last several HC hires, I live in fear that they will replace Kelly all too soon and then strike gold with his successor. My goodness, we have a golden opportunity in front of us right now and we need to strike while the iron is hot. It could be our last chance: Who knows if there will even be college football (at least as we know it) in 20-30 years)?
UCLA's profile is most similar to Cal's. I think they're our biggest threat. We should be capitalizing on their weakness, but I'm not sure Wilcox has yet on the recruiting trail.
oski003 said:
You can't use the youth card three years in a row.
We did in regards to our offense. Probably will next year as well.
calumnus said:oski003 said:
You can't use the youth card three years in a row.
We did in regards to our offense. Probably will next year as well.
Who would say that?
This part was interesting. Wasn't sure whether to post it here or under the numerous other threads about nutrition!HighlandDutch said:
More good news for UCLA:
----
*** Upon hiring Kelly in Nov. 2017, the Bruins began to plow unprecedented
resources into the football program:
Expenses have climbed by 30 percent (or $8 million). The areas of elevated costs
include not only wages but nutrition Kelly is fanatical about nutrition.
The Bruins spent $997,000 on meals in FY17 under Mora. In the first full year
under Kelly (FY19), they spent $5.4 million.
Chip Kelly is sucking them dry, he's too used to the Uncle Phil lifestyle.
altacalifornia said:This part was interesting. Wasn't sure whether to post it here or under the numerous other threads about nutrition!HighlandDutch said:
More good news for UCLA:
----
*** Upon hiring Kelly in Nov. 2017, the Bruins began to plow unprecedented
resources into the football program:
Expenses have climbed by 30 percent (or $8 million). The areas of elevated costs
include not only wages but nutrition Kelly is fanatical about nutrition.
The Bruins spent $997,000 on meals in FY17 under Mora. In the first full year
under Kelly (FY19), they spent $5.4 million.
Wt.f?!? What are they eating? Caviar everyday?
Lol it doesn't even make sense. If you assume there are 100 players and coaches and they spend 11 months on campus, that comes out to about $160 per person per day for eating on campus.hanky1 said:altacalifornia said:This part was interesting. Wasn't sure whether to post it here or under the numerous other threads about nutrition!HighlandDutch said:
More good news for UCLA:
----
*** Upon hiring Kelly in Nov. 2017, the Bruins began to plow unprecedented
resources into the football program:
Expenses have climbed by 30 percent (or $8 million). The areas of elevated costs
include not only wages but nutrition Kelly is fanatical about nutrition.
The Bruins spent $997,000 on meals in FY17 under Mora. In the first full year
under Kelly (FY19), they spent $5.4 million.
Wt.f?!? What are they eating? Caviar everyday?
NVBear78 said:calumnus said:oski003 said:
You can't use the youth card three years in a row.
We did in regards to our offense. Probably will next year as well.
Who would say that?
Baldwin's defenders on this board, in regard to QB, RB, TE and WR in 2017, 2018 and 2019.
Like UCLA overall, our offense has had a lot of starters transfer before they completed their eligibility.
UCLA loses another player to the Portal.
https://www.dailynews.com/2020/01/24/ucla-loses-14th-football-player-to-transfer-portal-and-a-top-verbal-commit/
https://www.dailynews.com/2020/01/24/ucla-loses-14th-football-player-to-transfer-portal-and-a-top-verbal-commit/
School A: Investing heavily into athletics and especially their football program, hired a big-time name for head coach who, so far, hasn't panned out. Formerly on sound financial footing, the last few years have seen them in the red. They have been unlucky more than bad.
School B: Investment into the football program lags behind most of the rest of the conference both currently and historically, and has been in financial trouble for most of the past decade following a massive facilities upgrade, the accompanying debt, and poor ticket sales. Promoted a long-time coordinator, on the cheap, to head coach, a move that seems to be working out so far. Lucky break, in other words.
You give most people only that information, and they'd go with School A. School A's problems at least seem correctable in the next few years (switch coaches) while School B has a longer history of financial problems and administrative hurdles.
I like the relative directions where Cal and UCLA are trending. We need some stability and a bit of luck to go our way, for once.
School B: Investment into the football program lags behind most of the rest of the conference both currently and historically, and has been in financial trouble for most of the past decade following a massive facilities upgrade, the accompanying debt, and poor ticket sales. Promoted a long-time coordinator, on the cheap, to head coach, a move that seems to be working out so far. Lucky break, in other words.
You give most people only that information, and they'd go with School A. School A's problems at least seem correctable in the next few years (switch coaches) while School B has a longer history of financial problems and administrative hurdles.
I like the relative directions where Cal and UCLA are trending. We need some stability and a bit of luck to go our way, for once.
Rocky Mountain oysters
Operbear
Sometimes you make your own luck. Think that's true for both these schools.BerlinerBaer said:
School A: Investing heavily into athletics and especially their football program, hired a big-time name for head coach who, so far, hasn't panned out. Formerly on sound financial footing, the last few years have seen them in the red. They have been unlucky more than bad.
School B: Investment into the football program lags behind most of the rest of the conference both currently and historically, and has been in financial trouble for most of the past decade following a massive facilities upgrade, the accompanying debt, and poor ticket sales. Promoted a long-time coordinator, on the cheap, to head coach, a move that seems to be working out so far. Lucky break, in other words.
You give most people only that information, and they'd go with School A. School A's problems at least seem correctable in the next few years (switch coaches) while School B has a longer history of financial problems and administrative hurdles.
I like the relative directions where Cal and UCLA are trending. We need some stability and a bit of luck to go our way, for once.
In case anyone was interested in our own financials from the same period.hanky1 said:altacalifornia said:This part was interesting. Wasn't sure whether to post it here or under the numerous other threads about nutrition!HighlandDutch said:
More good news for UCLA:
----
*** Upon hiring Kelly in Nov. 2017, the Bruins began to plow unprecedented
resources into the football program:
Expenses have climbed by 30 percent (or $8 million). The areas of elevated costs
include not only wages but nutrition Kelly is fanatical about nutrition.
The Bruins spent $997,000 on meals in FY17 under Mora. In the first full year
under Kelly (FY19), they spent $5.4 million.
Wt.f?!? What are they eating? Caviar everyday?
Those are really interesting. Thanks for posting. Looks like our meal expenses for football were only $800k. That makes that $5m plus for UCLA even weirder.ajm9191 said:In case anyone was interested in our own financials from the same period.hanky1 said:altacalifornia said:This part was interesting. Wasn't sure whether to post it here or under the numerous other threads about nutrition!HighlandDutch said:
More good news for UCLA:
----
*** Upon hiring Kelly in Nov. 2017, the Bruins began to plow unprecedented
resources into the football program:
Expenses have climbed by 30 percent (or $8 million). The areas of elevated costs
include not only wages but nutrition Kelly is fanatical about nutrition.
The Bruins spent $997,000 on meals in FY17 under Mora. In the first full year
under Kelly (FY19), they spent $5.4 million.
Wt.f?!? What are they eating? Caviar everyday?
Surprised honestly at how little we spend on some stuff. Spirit is $19k for the year for footballl? Would have thought travel alone would exceed. Also we paid $700k in football severance for the year ended June 30, 2019? Is that Dykes? Thought those ended earlier.
Also interesting to see that ticket sales and coaching salaries almost exactly match each other. Just a weird correlation, probably not much to glean from that.
Anyway, interesting to see some numbers attached to things we debate (TV revenue, etc) all the time.
Also it is a small portion of the overall revenue but I'll be interested the upcoming year-end statement to see whether the "Program, Novelty, Parking, and Concessions Sales" revenue spikes up. On this statement reflecting the 2018 season it works out to 80K per game, but the introduction of alcohol sales in CMS for 2019 should hopefully let us get that number significantly higher.
There were alcohol sales in the beer garden and lower club room only...altacalifornia said:
the introduction of alcohol sales in CMS for 2019 should hopefully let us get that number significantly higher.
That said, I would also expect the sales to spike significantly with the expansion of the beer & wine concession stands around the stadium.
BTW, I thought the opening of the grass to families was terrific...getting a beer at halftime and wandering down to see the little kids running around with the Campanile, I House and the bay as backdrop was spectacular.
I'm sure that one reason Spirit is so low is that the Band is self-governing and self-funding (thanks to some very generous donorsSebastabear said:Those are really interesting. Thanks for posting. Looks like our meal expenses for football were only $800k. That makes that $5m plus for UCLA even weirder.ajm9191 said:In case anyone was interested in our own financials from the same period.hanky1 said:altacalifornia said:This part was interesting. Wasn't sure whether to post it here or under the numerous other threads about nutrition!HighlandDutch said:
More good news for UCLA:
----
*** Upon hiring Kelly in Nov. 2017, the Bruins began to plow unprecedented
resources into the football program:
Expenses have climbed by 30 percent (or $8 million). The areas of elevated costs
include not only wages but nutrition Kelly is fanatical about nutrition.
The Bruins spent $997,000 on meals in FY17 under Mora. In the first full year
under Kelly (FY19), they spent $5.4 million.
Wt.f?!? What are they eating? Caviar everyday?
Surprised honestly at how little we spend on some stuff. Spirit is $19k for the year for footballl? Would have thought travel alone would exceed. Also we paid $700k in football severance for the year ended June 30, 2019? Is that Dykes? Thought those ended earlier.
Also interesting to see that ticket sales and coaching salaries almost exactly match each other. Just a weird correlation, probably not much to glean from that.
Anyway, interesting to see some numbers attached to things we debate (TV revenue, etc) all the time.
). I wish Spirit could be like the Band, so they'd be free to be more Berkeley, and less Learfield/IMG. Patience is a virtue, but I’m not into virtue signaling these days.
UCLA is eatin' good in the neighborhoodaltacalifornia said:This part was interesting. Wasn't sure whether to post it here or under the numerous other threads about nutrition!HighlandDutch said:
More good news for UCLA:
----
*** Upon hiring Kelly in Nov. 2017, the Bruins began to plow unprecedented
resources into the football program:
Expenses have climbed by 30 percent (or $8 million). The areas of elevated costs
include not only wages but nutrition Kelly is fanatical about nutrition.
The Bruins spent $997,000 on meals in FY17 under Mora. In the first full year
under Kelly (FY19), they spent $5.4 million.
Patience is a virtue, but I’m not into virtue signaling these days.
I'm pretty skeptical too of some of this accounting data. I'm sure the meal amounts include things that have nothing to do with feeding the team and staff. Could be recruiting expenses (and those meals) both on campus and on the road. Just really hard to assess from a distance. I'm sure accountants are putting money in various buckets for a variety of different reasons.
I may be alone in saying this but UCLA is probably the last school in the conference I'd want to see struggling financially. For one, they're a lot like us and suffer from some of the same challenges as a UC school. Plus, I tend to want to see the better academic schools do better. I'd much rather see a school like Oregon or ASU with their Costco-like admissions requirements or a place like USC face these troubles. Yes, they're a rival but not one I want to see flail while sketchy universities are thriving.
I may be alone in saying this but UCLA is probably the last school in the conference I'd want to see struggling financially. For one, they're a lot like us and suffer from some of the same challenges as a UC school. Plus, I tend to want to see the better academic schools do better. I'd much rather see a school like Oregon or ASU with their Costco-like admissions requirements or a place like USC face these troubles. Yes, they're a rival but not one I want to see flail while sketchy universities are thriving.
As long as they keep playing our fight song, I will never wish them any degree of success (unless, of course, a Southern Branch win helps Cal).TheSouseFamily said:
I'm pretty skeptical too of some of this accounting data. I'm sure the meal amounts include things that have nothing to do with feeding the team and staff. Could be recruiting expenses (and those meals) both on campus and on the road. Just really hard to assess from a distance. I'm sure accountants are putting money in various buckets for a variety of different reasons.
I may be alone in saying this but UCLA is probably the last school in the conference I'd want to see struggling financially. For one, they're a lot like us and suffer from some of the same challenges as a UC school. Plus, I tend to want to see the better academic schools do better. I'd much rather see a school like Oregon or ASU with their Costco-like admissions requirements or a place like USC face these troubles. Yes, they're a rival but not one I want to see flail while sketchy universities are thriving.
Who could be so ignorant about football and the Cal roster to think of claiming we'd play the "youth card" in 2020.calumnus said:oski003 said:
You can't use the youth card three years in a row.
We did in regards to our offense. Probably will next year as well.
We'll have a junior QB with over 12 starts. - He's no youth and has proven to be an extremely effective play.
We'll have a junior starting at RB in Christopher Brown Jr. - He had what I'd consider a break out year with his play at the end of the season. I'll be disappointed if he doesn't break 1000 yards next season.
We'll have 8 OL returning with starting experience. (I'm not sure of the exact numbers, so using approximate games started)
Vincent Daltoso - 20+ games
Michael Saffell - 20+ games
Jake Curhan - 20+ games
Cindric - 11 games
Mettaur - 11 games
Will Craig - 10 games
Gentle Williams - 5 games
Hard to say we'll have 'young" OL.
Tight end? Reinwald and Tonges will both be juniors. Can use youth there.
WR?
Remigio - 3rd year and showed skill near end of the season
Crawford? - transfer who's got game and starting experience
Polk? - looked good at the end of the season. I can't call him a "youth".
We'll have an experienced offense next season. Only a complete git would say that we'll call our offense "young" in 2020.
Spirit for Cal wouldn't include the band costs at all. It would be the cost for the uniforms and any coaches for the dance teams. I think Rally Comm is also considered outside of the athletic department so the mic men and all their equipment as well as the cannon would not show in the accounting.Fyght4Cal said:I'm sure that one reason Spirit is so low is that the Band is self-governing and self-funding (thanks to some very generous donorsSebastabear said:Those are really interesting. Thanks for posting. Looks like our meal expenses for football were only $800k. That makes that $5m plus for UCLA even weirder.ajm9191 said:In case anyone was interested in our own financials from the same period.hanky1 said:altacalifornia said:This part was interesting. Wasn't sure whether to post it here or under the numerous other threads about nutrition!HighlandDutch said:
More good news for UCLA:
----
*** Upon hiring Kelly in Nov. 2017, the Bruins began to plow unprecedented
resources into the football program:
Expenses have climbed by 30 percent (or $8 million). The areas of elevated costs
include not only wages but nutrition Kelly is fanatical about nutrition.
The Bruins spent $997,000 on meals in FY17 under Mora. In the first full year
under Kelly (FY19), they spent $5.4 million.
Wt.f?!? What are they eating? Caviar everyday?
Surprised honestly at how little we spend on some stuff. Spirit is $19k for the year for footballl? Would have thought travel alone would exceed. Also we paid $700k in football severance for the year ended June 30, 2019? Is that Dykes? Thought those ended earlier.
Also interesting to see that ticket sales and coaching salaries almost exactly match each other. Just a weird correlation, probably not much to glean from that.
Anyway, interesting to see some numbers attached to things we debate (TV revenue, etc) all the time.
Year 4 coaches can't play the youth card - at least not with any shred of honesty. 2020 is our year. It's the year we should win and need to win. Our team will have a very impressive stable of veterans. Think Utah last year or Colorado a few years ago - hopefully with a happier ending than either of those. This is the year to load up on games. I may just reserve my entire Fall for Cal football.mvargus said:Who could be so ignorant about football and the Cal roster to think of claiming we'd play the "youth card" in 2020.calumnus said:oski003 said:
You can't use the youth card three years in a row.
We did in regards to our offense. Probably will next year as well.
We'll have a junior QB with over 12 starts. - He's no youth and has proven to be an extremely effective play.
We'll have a junior starting at RB in Christopher Brown Jr. - He had what I'd consider a break out year with his play at the end of the season. I'll be disappointed if he doesn't break 1000 yards next season.
We'll have 8 OL returning with starting experience. (I'm not sure of the exact numbers, so using approximate games started)
Vincent Daltoso - 20+ games
Michael Saffell - 20+ games
Jake Curhan - 20+ games
Cindric - 11 games
Mettaur - 11 games
Will Craig - 10 games
Gentle Williams - 5 games
Hard to say we'll have 'young" OL.
Tight end? Reinwald and Tonges will both be juniors. Can use youth there.
WR?
Remigio - 3rd year and showed skill near end of the season
Crawford? - transfer who's got game and starting experience
Polk? - looked good at the end of the season. I can't call him a "youth".
We'll have an experienced offense next season. Only a complete git would say that we'll call our offense "young" in 2020.
Spirit includes Oski, the Mic Men, the Dance Team and Cheerleading. I'm in favor of Oski, the Mic Men and a new, more interactive brand of yell leading being freed from the shackles of Cal Athletics.mvargus said:Spirit for Cal wouldn't include the band costs at all. It would be the cost for the uniforms and any coaches for the dance teams. I think Rally Comm is also considered outside of the athletic department so the mic men and all their equipment as well as the cannon would not show in the accounting.Fyght4Cal said:I'm sure that one reason Spirit is so low is that the Band is self-governing and self-funding (thanks to some very generous donorsSebastabear said:Those are really interesting. Thanks for posting. Looks like our meal expenses for football were only $800k. That makes that $5m plus for UCLA even weirder.ajm9191 said:In case anyone was interested in our own financials from the same period.hanky1 said:altacalifornia said:This part was interesting. Wasn't sure whether to post it here or under the numerous other threads about nutrition!HighlandDutch said:
More good news for UCLA:
----
*** Upon hiring Kelly in Nov. 2017, the Bruins began to plow unprecedented
resources into the football program:
Expenses have climbed by 30 percent (or $8 million). The areas of elevated costs
include not only wages but nutrition Kelly is fanatical about nutrition.
The Bruins spent $997,000 on meals in FY17 under Mora. In the first full year
under Kelly (FY19), they spent $5.4 million.
Wt.f?!? What are they eating? Caviar everyday?
Surprised honestly at how little we spend on some stuff. Spirit is $19k for the year for footballl? Would have thought travel alone would exceed. Also we paid $700k in football severance for the year ended June 30, 2019? Is that Dykes? Thought those ended earlier.
Also interesting to see that ticket sales and coaching salaries almost exactly match each other. Just a weird correlation, probably not much to glean from that.
Anyway, interesting to see some numbers attached to things we debate (TV revenue, etc) all the time.
Patience is a virtue, but I’m not into virtue signaling these days.
USC is Costco Premium. You just have to pay more for the same inventory.TheSouseFamily said:
I'm pretty skeptical too of some of this accounting data. I'm sure the meal amounts include things that have nothing to do with feeding the team and staff. Could be recruiting expenses (and those meals) both on campus and on the road. Just really hard to assess from a distance. I'm sure accountants are putting money in various buckets for a variety of different reasons.
I may be alone in saying this but UCLA is probably the last school in the conference I'd want to see struggling financially. For one, they're a lot like us and suffer from some of the same challenges as a UC school. Plus, I tend to want to see the better academic schools do better. I'd much rather see a school like Oregon or ASU with their Costco-like admissions requirements or a place like USC face these troubles. Yes, they're a rival but not one I want to see flail while sketchy universities are thriving.
Yes. But our 4-5 record was far better than their 4-5 record. Anyone can tell you that.Blueblood said:I was getting ready to throw a rock when I noticed the following from the cited article:Sebastabear said:
Not a ton of new conclusions (Chip is losing, players are transferring and he can't recruit). Only mind blower to me is that they may be bringing Azz back as DC. That's beyond belief given their defensive performance. And some of these numbers are pretty shocking. Worth a read if you're interested in hearing about the demise of one of our perennial rivals.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2872260-after-4th-straight-losing-season-what-is-going-on-with-ucla-football
"UCLA managed only the smallest level of respectability with a 4-5 record in Pac-12 play."
Didn't Cal have a similar 4-5 conference record?
Mr. Dykes saw to that. We are just now recovering from that disaster. Wait till next year! Hahaha.hanky1 said:Big C said:
Even though I should have faith because UCLA has been largely unsuccessful with their last several HC hires, I live in fear that they will replace Kelly all too soon and then strike gold with his successor. My goodness, we have a golden opportunity in front of us right now and we need to strike while the iron is hot. It could be our last chance: Who knows if there will even be college football (at least as we know it) in 20-30 years)?
UCLA's profile is most similar to Cal's. I think they're our biggest threat. We should be capitalizing on their weakness, but I'm not sure Wilcox has yet on the recruiting trail.
Yutes? What's a "yute"?oski003 said:
You can't use the youth card three years in a row.
Featured Stories
See All