OaktownBear said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

I will make the hopelessly-optimistic prediction that Stanford will play and we'll have Pac-12 football this fall. The threat of embarrassment is just too great.

BTW, as of today the state has a 14-day average virus positivity rate of 3.1% and falling. Covid's headed for the ICU.

---

I sure hope so, LMK. Dad loves having his college freshman daughter around a little longer, but she deserves to get to college and live on her own and she is ready for it. Starting off college in her bedroom massively sucks.

---

Both my daughters are living off campus at their respective schools. My Cal kid is absolutely swamped with coursework so I think being stuck inside without the usual campus distractions is actually a benefit to her. My other starts classes in early October.

I would think it's especially hard for incoming freshmen to have to start their college careers like this, but at least they're able to start school. For some, this may be an easier transition to college.

Good luck to your daughter and hopefully things will slowly transition back to normal. California is looking good but some countries are having new spikes so you never really know what's ahead.

OaktownBear said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

I will make the hopelessly-optimistic prediction that Stanford will play and we'll have Pac-12 football this fall. The threat of embarrassment is just too great.

BTW, as of today the state has a 14-day average virus positivity rate of 3.1% and falling. Covid's headed for the ICU.

---

I sure hope so, LMK. Dad loves having his college freshman daughter around a little longer, but she deserves to get to college and live on her own and she is ready for it. Starting off college in her bedroom massively sucks.

---

I haven't figured out yet which sucks more, starting off college in the bedroom or finishing college in the bedroom when at graduation time, the placement office has 7% as many listings as they had a year earlier, and you can't even find a job to start working at in the bedroom. My son deserves to get a job and live on his own, he is ready for it, especially after living on his own for 4 years for all but some of his winter/spring/summer breaks.

As much as not playing football sucks for the players, I don't feel more sorry for them than for your daughter or my son.

LMK5 said:

---

I will make the hopelessly-optimistic prediction that Stanford will play and we'll have Pac-12 football this fall. The threat of embarrassment is just too great.

BTW, as of today the state has a 14-day average virus positivity rate of 3.1% and falling. Covid's headed for the ICU.

---

Wow, great news! I'm hoping that can get my kids back into their classrooms (maybe next month, at least 1/2 the time) and then, that that doesn't start another surge!

This time, everybody, let's play it smart and crush the curve!

Teplace Stanford with BYU. Or another team that needs a game. Notre Dame would be outstanding.

Cal8285 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

I will make the hopelessly-optimistic prediction that Stanford will play and we'll have Pac-12 football this fall. The threat of embarrassment is just too great.

BTW, as of today the state has a 14-day average virus positivity rate of 3.1% and falling. Covid's headed for the ICU.

---

I sure hope so, LMK. Dad loves having his college freshman daughter around a little longer, but she deserves to get to college and live on her own and she is ready for it. Starting off college in her bedroom massively sucks.

---

I haven't figured out yet which sucks more, starting off college in the bedroom or finishing college in the bedroom when at graduation time, the placement office has 7% as many listings as they had a year earlier, and you can't even find a job to start working at in the bedroom. My son deserves to get a job and live on his own, he is ready for it, especially after living on his own for 4 years for all but some of his winter/spring/summer breaks.

As much as not playing football sucks for the players, I don't feel more sorry for them than for your daughter or my son.

---

Yes, good point. My oldest graduated in May and didn't get to go to a real graduation or have any of the related experiences with her fellow classmates. Luckily she was in a state-sponsored program that paid for her senior year and obligated her to work for the state for 1 year after graduation. Lots of her friends who had job offers--some from out of state--had their offers rescinded due to the economic collapse.

LMK5 said:

---

Cal8285 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

I will make the hopelessly-optimistic prediction that Stanford will play and we'll have Pac-12 football this fall. The threat of embarrassment is just too great.

BTW, as of today the state has a 14-day average virus positivity rate of 3.1% and falling. Covid's headed for the ICU.

---

I sure hope so, LMK. Dad loves having his college freshman daughter around a little longer, but she deserves to get to college and live on her own and she is ready for it. Starting off college in her bedroom massively sucks.

---

I haven't figured out yet which sucks more, starting off college in the bedroom or finishing college in the bedroom when at graduation time, the placement office has 7% as many listings as they had a year earlier, and you can't even find a job to start working at in the bedroom. My son deserves to get a job and live on his own, he is ready for it, especially after living on his own for 4 years for all but some of his winter/spring/summer breaks.

As much as not playing football sucks for the players, I don't feel more sorry for them than for your daughter or my son.

---

Yes, good point. My oldest graduated in May and didn't get to go to a real graduation or have any of the related experiences with her fellow classmates. Luckily she was in a state-sponsored program that paid for her senior year and obligated her to work for the state for 1 year after graduation. Lots of her friends who had job offers--some from out of state--had their offers rescinded due to the economic collapse.

---

That is lucky, having a guaranteed job coming out. My son had plenty of job prospects that vanished. He had lots of classmates with internships likely to lead to jobs, until there were no jobs for them to lead to.

My son played 4 years of D-III football and not only missed out on his graduation and all sorts of end-of-college experiences with his classmates, but he didn't get a football banquet to wrap up the time with his teammates, or a banquet for his 4 year scholar athlete award. Still, he thinks he's better off than his teammates who were one year behind him, who don't get a senior season, much less a final year football banquet.

LMK5 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

I will make the hopelessly-optimistic prediction that Stanford will play and we'll have Pac-12 football this fall. The threat of embarrassment is just too great.

BTW, as of today the state has a 14-day average virus positivity rate of 3.1% and falling. Covid's headed for the ICU.

---

I sure hope so, LMK. Dad loves having his college freshman daughter around a little longer, but she deserves to get to college and live on her own and she is ready for it. Starting off college in her bedroom massively sucks.

---

Both my daughters are living off campus at their respective schools. My Cal kid is absolutely swamped with coursework so I think being stuck inside without the usual campus distractions is actually a benefit to her. My other starts classes in early October.

I would think it's especially hard for incoming freshmen to have to start their college careers like this, but at least they're able to start school. For some, this may be an easier transition to college.

Good luck to your daughter and hopefully things will slowly transition back to normal. California is looking good but some countries are having new spikes so you never really know what's ahead.

---

that sounds like way too much tuition at one time.

If Stanford doesn't want to play football this fall, they can join the Mountain West, they're not playing.

Oh, wait.

wifeisafurd said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

I will make the hopelessly-optimistic prediction that Stanford will play and we'll have Pac-12 football this fall. The threat of embarrassment is just too great.

BTW, as of today the state has a 14-day average virus positivity rate of 3.1% and falling. Covid's headed for the ICU.

---

I sure hope so, LMK. Dad loves having his college freshman daughter around a little longer, but she deserves to get to college and live on her own and she is ready for it. Starting off college in her bedroom massively sucks.

---

Both my daughters are living off campus at their respective schools. My Cal kid is absolutely swamped with coursework so I think being stuck inside without the usual campus distractions is actually a benefit to her. My other starts classes in early October.

I would think it's especially hard for incoming freshmen to have to start their college careers like this, but at least they're able to start school. For some, this may be an easier transition to college.

Good luck to your daughter and hopefully things will slowly transition back to normal. California is looking good but some countries are having new spikes so you never really know what's ahead.

---

that sounds like way too much tuition at one time.

---

It's actually worse. I have one that just graduated so I had one year of paying 3 tuitions LOL.

LMK5 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

LMK5 said:

---

I will make the hopelessly-optimistic prediction that Stanford will play and we'll have Pac-12 football this fall. The threat of embarrassment is just too great.

BTW, as of today the state has a 14-day average virus positivity rate of 3.1% and falling. Covid's headed for the ICU.

---

I sure hope so, LMK. Dad loves having his college freshman daughter around a little longer, but she deserves to get to college and live on her own and she is ready for it. Starting off college in her bedroom massively sucks.

---

Both my daughters are living off campus at their respective schools. My Cal kid is absolutely swamped with coursework so I think being stuck inside without the usual campus distractions is actually a benefit to her. My other starts classes in early October.

I would think it's especially hard for incoming freshmen to have to start their college careers like this, but at least they're able to start school. For some, this may be an easier transition to college.

Good luck to your daughter and hopefully things will slowly transition back to normal. California is looking good but some countries are having new spikes so you never really know what's ahead.

---

that sounds like way too much tuition at one time.

---

It's actually worse. I have one that just graduated so I had one year of paying 3 tuitions LOL.

---

Ouch...kudos to you. I tell young couples to spread having kids 4-5 years apart...

LMK5 said:

---

I will make the hopelessly-optimistic prediction that Stanford will play and we'll have Pac-12 football this fall. The threat of embarrassment is just too great.

---

I tend to agree although I suppose anything can happen. If Furd elects not to play football, will this year's TV football revenue be split among the 11 remaining schools?

BearSD said:

---

If Stanford doesn't want to play football this fall, they can join the Mountain West, they're not playing.

Oh, wait.

---

that just shows what a shict show the Pac 12 is as a conference. You have 3 California schools and schools in multiple states in the MW and they can figure out how to be ready in October. Of course they have actual leadership in the commissioner's office, which is not true of the Pac.

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearSD said:

---

If Stanford doesn't want to play football this fall, they can join the Mountain West, they're not playing.

Oh, wait.

---

that just shows what a shict show the Pac 12 is as a conference. You have 3 California schools and schools in multiple states in the MW and they can figure out how to be ready in October. Of course they have actual leadership in the commissioner's office, which is not true of the Pac.

---

Just want to point out, WIAF, that there is a difference between deciding to play and being ready to play. Anyone can play. Being ready is a different story. I think it is pretty clear some conferences are making a political decision to play. Whether they are going to do so in a prepared fashion is another question.

Many schools have brought students back to campus. Some have done a fabulous job. Some have done at best a cursory job of protecting students, basically telling them not to party, and have been a disaster.

This debate has been dominated by loud minorities in opposite ends of the spectrum that either want us to sit in our houses until we get a vaccine or just open everything with no precautions. Most of us want to open safely. What we should be doing is demanding that our institutions take measures needed to open up as quickly as possible.

It takes nothing for the Mountain West to announce games. I'll reserve judgment on how they are handling it based on the actions they take.

71Bear said:

---

2701RidgeRoad said:

---

This is a very sad situation.

We all seemed to believe, at one point, that students had to be on campus, in attendance at games for college football to go forward.

I strongly support that position because it is essential to the ethic and mission of college football. As football players, we are students, not separate and apart from our classmates or other Cal athletes. The commitment to a college community is torn asunder by the Pac 12 schemes currently discussed.

Stanford is correct to remind us that "amateurism" is essential. College sports is part of a larger, noble enterprise.

The great sadness, from my perspective, is that students and faculty should be on campus and all fall sports should be played. Cal should have started playing football, and I should be in the north end zone watching them play.

---

College sports is not part of a larger, noble enterprise. It is a multi-billion dollar industry. There is nothing noble about college sports. They are nothing more than a vehicle to provide entertainment to the masses and advertising dollars to the media.

---

I cannot dispute the truth of your statement but I do wonder about the propriety of institutions of higher learning, mostly public and subsidized by tax dollars, functioning as a feeder system for pro sports leagues. There is much about our system of education that needs to be reevaluated and the place of money sports at the highest level should high on the list.

59bear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

College sports is not part of a larger, noble enterprise. It is a multi-billion dollar industry. There is nothing noble about college sports. They are nothing more than a vehicle to provide entertainment to the masses and advertising dollars to the media.

---

I cannot dispute the truth of your statement but I do wonder about the propriety of institutions of higher learning, mostly public and subsidized by tax dollars, functioning as a feeder system for pro sports leagues. There is much about our system of education that needs to be reevaluated and the place of money sports at the highest level should high on the list.

---

I can be relatively cynical about this topic, but the reality is that some sports such as football (for some schools it may only be football) are profitable. Those profits can then be utilized to provide a number of scholarships for female athletes without costing/diluting the academic mission of a university. I see no problem with this. The fact that large sums of money are involved doesn't particularly matter to me. The overall big picture is that while providing entertainment, college athletics can do some good (provide free education and the continuation of their sports careers to student athletes) and do no harm to academics.

The problem is that many of these college athletics programs are not run well and lose money. This then drains money from academics. This has happened at Cal and frankly is now the normal state of affairs. In my mind this is intolerable. The only reason the university exists is academics. Correspondingly the only reason college athletics exists is that it can conduct its business without harming academics. Failure to abide by that condition means failure of the college athletics mission. An AD who mistakenly believes his/her mission is to retain as many sports as possible rather than to not cause harm to the academic side of the university has fundamentally misunderstood why he/she exists. And reaching up the chain of command the chancellor/university president is responsible for not instructing his/her subordinates correctly.

I agree to an extent with the sentiment expressed above. There are financial dimensions, and lesser missions such as a profitable football program providing support for less profitable but equally worthy sports. And I can offer a long and prolix analysis of my grave concerns about fiscal matters that face Cal Sports.

To an extent I agree: first do no harm to academics. But there is a larger point, going back to the apparent "Stanford objection" and amateurism that is supremely important.

Consider the following quote:

• College sports is not part of a larger, noble enterprise. It is a multi-billion dollar industry. There is nothing noble about college sports. They are nothing more than a vehicle to provide entertainment to the masses and advertising dollars to the media.

I respectfully urge those who believe this statement to focus their attention on pro sports. Go elsewhere.

Do not work against those of us who dearly love Cal and believe participation in Cal sports - football or gymnastics or soccer or any intercollegiate, club or intermural sport - carries its own intrinsic value. Cal sports should be part of the life of our University.

Football players getting preferential treatment?! Unheard of.

NVBear78 said:

---

https://247sports.com/college/stanford/Article/Stanford-Emerging-As-Lead-Dissenter-On-Pac-12-Football-Return-151726326/

---

Not surprising since as just reported in another thread Norte Dame has just suspended its season (temporarily because 7 players tested positive

2701RidgeRoad said:

---

I agree to an extent with the sentiment expressed above. There are financial dimensions, and lesser missions such as a profitable football program providing support for less profitable but equally worthy sports. And I can offer a long and prolix analysis of my grave concerns about fiscal matters that face Cal Sports.

To an extent I agree: first do no harm to academics. But there is a larger point, going back to the apparent "Stanford objection" and amateurism that is supremely important.

Consider the following quote:

• College sports is not part of a larger, noble enterprise. It is a multi-billion dollar industry. There is nothing noble about college sports. They are nothing more than a vehicle to provide entertainment to the masses and advertising dollars to the media.

I respectfully urge those who believe this statement to focus their attention on pro sports. Go elsewhere.

Do not work against those of us who dearly love Cal and believe participation in Cal sports - football or gymnastics or soccer or any intercollegiate, club or intermural sport - carries its own intrinsic value. Cal sports should be part of the life of our University.

---

Ah-ha, the old love it or leave it. Sounds like regression back to the 60's. I, on the other hand, subscribe to the belief that working to fix the problem is a better alternative.

For example, one solution would be to cut the number of offerings to a level that can be wholly supported by the AD. I am certain there are other ideas as well and would love to hear them. Of course, if one walks away, he/she will never be in a position to provide that information. In other words, walking is the worst thing someone who is interested in problem-solving can do.

2701RidgeRoad said:

---

I agree to an extent with the sentiment expressed above. There are financial dimensions, and lesser missions such as a profitable football program providing support for less profitable but equally worthy sports. And I can offer a long and prolix analysis of my grave concerns about fiscal matters that face Cal Sports.

To an extent I agree: first do no harm to academics. But there is a larger point, going back to the apparent "Stanford objection" and amateurism that is supremely important.

Consider the following quote:

• College sports is not part of a larger, noble enterprise. It is a multi-billion dollar industry. There is nothing noble about college sports. They are nothing more than a vehicle to provide entertainment to the masses and advertising dollars to the media.

I respectfully urge those who believe this statement to focus their attention on pro sports. Go elsewhere.

Do not work against those of us who dearly love Cal and believe participation in Cal sports - football or gymnastics or soccer or any intercollegiate, club or intermural sport - carries its own intrinsic value. Cal sports should be part of the life of our University.

---

I don't agree with the quote. But there is middle ground.

I am 100% for club or intramural sports. I'm happy to provide funding for it.

I am 100% for intercollegiate sports that provide revenue and provide social value in providing entertainment that is enjoyed by students, faculty and alums. In addition, these revenue sports provide a path to career achievement that are valuable to students in the program and that provide positive reputational benefits to the university. I support investment in these sports. I support scholarships in these sports. I support consideration in admissions given to those who excel in these sports.

I am 100% for intercollegiate sports that may not provide revenue directly to the university or entertainment, but are near revenue neutral and provide positive reputational benefit. Thinking of swimming here which often puts Cal on the leaderboard in Olympic medals.I support investment in these sports. I support scholarships in these sports. I support consideration in admissions given to those who excel in these sports

I support intercollegiate sports that may not provide revenue directly to the university but that are exceptionally cheap to run. I do not support scholarships in these sports. I do not support admissions advantages in these sports. If they are to exist, they can recruit from the student population as many of them used to.

There is absolutely zero reason to give scholarships and/or admissions advantages in any sport that is not providing a benefit to the university. There is absolutely zero reason to give significant funding to sports that provide no benefit to the university. We cannot give out valuable funding and priceless academic slots to give a huge benefit to less than 1% of the student body with no benefit to the rest of the campus community.

Club sports and intramural sports are open to the whole campus community. Other activities, like I've mentioned before, robotics, which actually draws in engineering and math students, brings corporate donors and has as much of a teamwork and competition element as any sport, are open to the whole campus community.

I appreciate your request. I am not anti-sports. Sports are good. However, a lot of things are good. So my counter request is to move your analysis beyond the usual "sports are good" intangibles and acknowledge that we cannot keep doing what we are doing just because "sports are good". Not all sports programs are equal. Individual sports need to justify the investment.

So I would ask you if a sport does not bring excess revenue or reputational advantage or entertainment to a material percentage of the community, what does it bring to the table that club sports, intramural sports, and other activities like robotics bring. Why should they get increased funding, admissions preference, and sometimes scholarships? In my opinion they need to be cut in favor of club sports and intramural sports that do not enjoy these benefits.

And I will say this again. Sports outside of football, basketball, and some track and field, are overwhelmingly dominated by the wealthy and by White kids. The absolute reality is that UC's already allocate slots by level of privilege. Almost certainly, the affirmative action proposition is going to pass and they will 100% be clear going forward that they are doing that and they will be doing that based on race. Admission slots are a zero sum game. At a school that is currently only willing to give 25% of its admissions slots to (mostly) high income White kids, and conservatively 1000 of those high income, White slots are going to those with admissions preferences because they play a sport no one cares about, you do the math regarding how that impacts White kids that don't play a sport.

100% love sports. Would love to see the sports opportunities give to the student body EXPANDED. More basketball. More yoga. More martial arts. More dance. And expand e-sports and dance and robotics and all sorts of activities available to all.

100% do not like spending $7M on a specialized field so that 25 students can get admissions advantages, including 1/3 of the team from foreign schools, so that they can chase a ball with a stick playing a game overwhelming participated in by expensive, private prep schools. And no, that is not a made up example. That is not in line with our mission and the main lesson it teaches is that there are always ways for the rich to get over.

Seriously, why are we recruiting so many foreign students to play sports nobody cares about? This is probably the thing that annoys me the most. It makes zero sense. Why is it so important that we finish a few spots higher in the rankings in sports nobody will notice that we do not give those opportunities to the base of students that this university was supposed to support?

Quote:

---

Almost certainly, the affirmative action proposition is going to pass and they will 100% be clear going forward that they are doing that and they will be doing that based on race.

---

OTB agree with your post and it's thrust, but I will make one point of clarification. Prop 16 (the affirmative action proposition) is not polling well at all. Some of it is the confusing wording but it's polling at 31% in favor, 47% opposed right now. Not too many propositions poll like that 6 weeks out and get approved on election day.

https://abc7news.com/whats-prop-16-what-is-ca-propostion-california-2020-polls/6439595/

Sebastabear said:

---

Quote:

---

Almost certainly, the affirmative action proposition is going to pass and they will 100% be clear going forward that they are doing that and they will be doing that based on race.

---

OTB agree with your post and it's thrust, but I will make one point of clarification. Prop 16 (the affirmative action proposition) is not polling well at all. Some of it is the confusing wording but it's polling at 31% in favor, 47% opposed right now. Not too many propositions poll like that 6 weeks out and get approved on election day.

https://abc7news.com/whats-prop-16-what-is-ca-propostion-california-2020-polls/6439595/

---

You absolutely may be right. I made an assumption which I should not have. But I will also say that it doesn't matter. The admissions department makes its decisions largely impacted by the socioeconomic level of the high school of the applicant. They know how to get the result they want. Prop 16 would only help them fine tune.

By the way, one should not take my comments as a criticism of the admissions department. It is only a statement of the reality that many here do not seem to understand.

OaktownBear said:

---

Seriously, why are we recruiting so many foreign students to play sports nobody cares about? This is probably the thing that annoys me the most. It makes zero sense. Why is it so important that we finish a few spots higher in the rankings in sports nobody will notice that we do not give those opportunities to the base of students that this university was supposed to support?

---

The reason gets back to the unchecked egos of the administrators. Any way they can get the school noticed reflects positively on them. Sports is the easiest path to achieve that. Everybody has heard of Clemson University now.

Unchecked administrator (and alumni) egos also drives the arms race in university recreational facilities. When I was taking a tour of Northern Arizona University 5 years ago, in looking at the pools, gyms, indoor tennis courts, restaurants, etc., I half-jokingly asked the student tour guide: "Is this a college or a cruise ship"?

OaktownBear said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Quote:

---

Almost certainly, the affirmative action proposition is going to pass and they will 100% be clear going forward that they are doing that and they will be doing that based on race.

---

OTB agree with your post and it's thrust, but I will make one point of clarification. Prop 16 (the affirmative action proposition) is not polling well at all. Some of it is the confusing wording but it's polling at 31% in favor, 47% opposed right now. Not too many propositions poll like that 6 weeks out and get approved on election day.

https://abc7news.com/whats-prop-16-what-is-ca-propostion-california-2020-polls/6439595/

---

You absolutely may be right. I made an assumption which I should not have. But I will also say that it doesn't matter. The admissions department makes its decisions largely impacted by the socioeconomic level of the high school of the applicant. They know how to get the result they want. Prop 16 would only help them fine tune.

By the way, one should not take my comments as a criticism of the admissions department. It is only a statement of the reality that many here do not seem to understand.

---

Totally understand. All I know is that I don't have a great sense of where the electorate ever is. I remember my wife suggesting that we donate to the No on 8 campaign when that was on the ballot to outlaw gay marriage in California. I told her that was a total waste of money as I'd never spoken to a single proponent of Prop 8 and that thing was never going to pass. Turned out I don't speak to enough people.

Dafuq happened to this thread? Nvm, I'm not new here.

The usual.

Sebastabear said:

---

Totally understand. All I know is that I don't have a great sense of where the electorate ever is. I remember my wife suggesting that we donate to the No on 8 campaign when that was on the ballot to outlaw gay marriage in California. I told her that was a total waste of money as I'd never spoken to a single proponent of Prop 8 and that thing was never going to pass. Turned out I don't speak to enough people.

---

had to review from wikipedia # senior moments R us

Quote:

---

Proposition 8 was ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court (on different grounds) in 2010, although the court decision did not go into effect until June 26, 2013, following the conclusion of proponents' appeals.

---

Maybe CU will join Furd on the sidelines.

No practice allowed for at least 14 days due to a county order banning gatherings of any size for college age kids.