4thGenCal said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Meanwhile UW-Milwaukee is building a dedicated practice facility for $8 million. https://uwm.edu/news/orthopaedic-hospital-of-wisconsin-gives-uwm-2-1-million-for-new-training-facility/

Duke built a 3 story 56,000 square foot athlete academic and dedicated practice facility for $15 million.

Richmond, $15 million

Louisville, $15 million

UCLA was $25 million and is a new, free standing structure and included new locker rooms for both the men and women.

If we can raise $50 million, great, but we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

We could build a dedicated court on the roof of the RSF or adjacent (replacing part of the east stands of Edwards) with light construction at very little cost. Players would use the brand new locker room at RSF that already has 24 hr access. No way it would cost $50 million.

Again, if a $50 million faculty is doable, great, but what we shouldn't do is set an unreachable standard and then complain when we can't reach it and do nothing. Personally, I'd rather spend $10 million on a dedicated court and have money to bring in a top coach, with $millions left over for advertising the program and paying elite players for use of their NIL.

Lavish dedicated practice facilities are how programs competed for players a decade ago. We are entering a new era. We should not go broke spending multiples of what others spent to win yesterday's battles.

---

I wish you were correct, but construction costs have escalated beyond rational expectations - Union labor/material costs/cost of doing business in the Bay Area etc (my business is commercial real estate and I have built./invested in many commercial bldgs, including in the past 12 months). Even if you value engineer/cut back on lockers etc you would still be at $40M+ minimum and contrary to not needing upscale facility - it does influence recruits. Cutting corners on amenities/sharing lockers in another adjacent facility detracts from a "dedicated practice facility".
The biggest obstacle is simply that Cal has very few passionate/wealthy bear backers who are strong basketball supporters (who donate even $25k/year consistently). Take this forum of interested/supportive basketball alums/Cal game attendees - very few actually donate even $10k/year (year after year) - sad but true. Most espouse their critique (and several who do not attend the games), have no interaction with the AD/coaches to develop a objective viewpoint. I don't know the exact #'s donated as of this year, but 4 years ago of the 8,800+- Bear Backer supporters, only 75+- had given individually (donated) a cummulative amount of $1M+(the top 20 have been extremely generous). And those amounts are spread throughout the person's sport/cause of choosing. It took a very passionate small group of 7 donors recently, to raise $250k/year over the next 3 years to be used specifically for the HC of our Football team toward critical staff positions (which are woefully underpaid than their counterparts in our conf.). Yes if we had John Arrillaga of Stanford or Phil Knight of Oregon etc, we would not be facing the glaring obstacles of not having a dedicated practice facility, sufficient/quality housing for the entirety of both the Football and basketball teams - but we don't. The recruiting landscape for Cal is extremely difficult due to the lack of those key factors - simply the facts.

---

4thGenCal said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Meanwhile UW-Milwaukee is building a dedicated practice facility for $8 million. https://uwm.edu/news/orthopaedic-hospital-of-wisconsin-gives-uwm-2-1-million-for-new-training-facility/

Duke built a 3 story 56,000 square foot athlete academic and dedicated practice facility for $15 million.

Richmond, $15 million

Louisville, $15 million

UCLA was $25 million and is a new, free standing structure and included new locker rooms for both the men and women.

If we can raise $50 million, great, but we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

We could build a dedicated court on the roof of the RSF or adjacent (replacing part of the east stands of Edwards) with light construction at very little cost. Players would use the brand new locker room at RSF that already has 24 hr access. No way it would cost $50 million.

Again, if a $50 million faculty is doable, great, but what we shouldn't do is set an unreachable standard and then complain when we can't reach it and do nothing. Personally, I'd rather spend $10 million on a dedicated court and have money to bring in a top coach, with $millions left over for advertising the program and paying elite players for use of their NIL.

Lavish dedicated practice facilities are how programs competed for players a decade ago. We are entering a new era. We should not go broke spending multiples of what others spent to win yesterday's battles.

---

I wish you were correct, but construction costs have escalated beyond rational expectations - Union labor/material costs/cost of doing business in the Bay Area etc (my business is commercial real estate and I have built./invested in many commercial bldgs, including in the past 12 months). Even if you value engineer/cut back on lockers etc you would still be at $40M+ minimum and contrary to not needing upscale facility - it does influence recruits. Cutting corners on amenities/sharing lockers in another adjacent facility detracts from a "dedicated practice facility".
The biggest obstacle is simply that Cal has very few passionate/wealthy bear backers who are strong basketball supporters (who donate even $25k/year consistently). Take this forum of interested/supportive basketball alums/Cal game attendees - very few actually donate even $10k/year (year after year) - sad but true. Most espouse their critique (and several who do not attend the games), have no interaction with the AD/coaches to develop a objective viewpoint. I don't know the exact #'s donated as of this year, but 4 years ago of the 8,800+- Bear Backer supporters, only 75+- had given individually (donated) a cummulative amount of $1M+(the top 20 have been extremely generous). And those amounts are spread throughout the person's sport/cause of choosing. It took a very passionate small group of 7 donors recently, to raise $250k/year over the next 3 years to be used specifically for the HC of our Football team toward critical staff positions (which are woefully underpaid than their counterparts in our conf.). Yes if we had John Arrillaga of Stanford or Phil Knight of Oregon etc, we would not be facing the glaring obstacles of not having a dedicated practice facility, sufficient/quality housing for the entirety of both the Football and basketball teams - but we don't. The recruiting landscape for Cal is extremely difficult due to the lack of those key factors - simply the facts.

---

calumnus said:

---

4thGenCal said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Meanwhile UW-Milwaukee is building a dedicated practice facility for $8 million. https://uwm.edu/news/orthopaedic-hospital-of-wisconsin-gives-uwm-2-1-million-for-new-training-facility/

Duke built a 3 story 56,000 square foot athlete academic and dedicated practice facility for $15 million.

Richmond, $15 million

Louisville, $15 million

UCLA was $25 million and is a new, free standing structure and included new locker rooms for both the men and women.

If we can raise $50 million, great, but we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

We could build a dedicated court on the roof of the RSF or adjacent (replacing part of the east stands of Edwards) with light construction at very little cost. Players would use the brand new locker room at RSF that already has 24 hr access. No way it would cost $50 million.

Again, if a $50 million faculty is doable, great, but what we shouldn't do is set an unreachable standard and then complain when we can't reach it and do nothing. Personally, I'd rather spend $10 million on a dedicated court and have money to bring in a top coach, with $millions left over for advertising the program and paying elite players for use of their NIL.

Lavish dedicated practice facilities are how programs competed for players a decade ago. We are entering a new era. We should not go broke spending multiples of what others spent to win yesterday's battles.

---

I wish you were correct, but construction costs have escalated beyond rational expectations - Union labor/material costs/cost of doing business in the Bay Area etc (my business is commercial real estate and I have built./invested in many commercial bldgs, including in the past 12 months). Even if you value engineer/cut back on lockers etc you would still be at $40M+ minimum and contrary to not needing upscale facility - it does influence recruits. Cutting corners on amenities/sharing lockers in another adjacent facility detracts from a "dedicated practice facility".
The biggest obstacle is simply that Cal has very few passionate/wealthy bear backers who are strong basketball supporters (who donate even $25k/year consistently). Take this forum of interested/supportive basketball alums/Cal game attendees - very few actually donate even $10k/year (year after year) - sad but true. Most espouse their critique (and several who do not attend the games), have no interaction with the AD/coaches to develop a objective viewpoint. I don't know the exact #'s donated as of this year, but 4 years ago of the 8,800+- Bear Backer supporters, only 75+- had given individually (donated) a cummulative amount of $1M+(the top 20 have been extremely generous). And those amounts are spread throughout the person's sport/cause of choosing. It took a very passionate small group of 7 donors recently, to raise $250k/year over the next 3 years to be used specifically for the HC of our Football team toward critical staff positions (which are woefully underpaid than their counterparts in our conf.). Yes if we had John Arrillaga of Stanford or Phil Knight of Oregon etc, we would not be facing the glaring obstacles of not having a dedicated practice facility, sufficient/quality housing for the entirety of both the Football and basketball teams - but we don't. The recruiting landscape for Cal is extremely difficult due to the lack of those key factors - simply the facts.

---

So, bottom line is we are unlikely to have a dedicated basketball practice facility any time soon with the added benefit that we will have a perpetual excuse for losing?

---

HoopDreams said:

---

4thGenCal said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Meanwhile UW-Milwaukee is building a dedicated practice facility for $8 million. https://uwm.edu/news/orthopaedic-hospital-of-wisconsin-gives-uwm-2-1-million-for-new-training-facility/

Duke built a 3 story 56,000 square foot athlete academic and dedicated practice facility for $15 million.

Richmond, $15 million

Louisville, $15 million

UCLA was $25 million and is a new, free standing structure and included new locker rooms for both the men and women.

If we can raise $50 million, great, but we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

We could build a dedicated court on the roof of the RSF or adjacent (replacing part of the east stands of Edwards) with light construction at very little cost. Players would use the brand new locker room at RSF that already has 24 hr access. No way it would cost $50 million.

Again, if a $50 million faculty is doable, great, but what we shouldn't do is set an unreachable standard and then complain when we can't reach it and do nothing. Personally, I'd rather spend $10 million on a dedicated court and have money to bring in a top coach, with $millions left over for advertising the program and paying elite players for use of their NIL.

Lavish dedicated practice facilities are how programs competed for players a decade ago. We are entering a new era. We should not go broke spending multiples of what others spent to win yesterday's battles.

---

I wish you were correct, but construction costs have escalated beyond rational expectations - Union labor/material costs/cost of doing business in the Bay Area etc (my business is commercial real estate and I have built./invested in many commercial bldgs, including in the past 12 months). Even if you value engineer/cut back on lockers etc you would still be at $40M+ minimum and contrary to not needing upscale facility - it does influence recruits. Cutting corners on amenities/sharing lockers in another adjacent facility detracts from a "dedicated practice facility".
The biggest obstacle is simply that Cal has very few passionate/wealthy bear backers who are strong basketball supporters (who donate even $25k/year consistently). Take this forum of interested/supportive basketball alums/Cal game attendees - very few actually donate even $10k/year (year after year) - sad but true. Most espouse their critique (and several who do not attend the games), have no interaction with the AD/coaches to develop a objective viewpoint. I don't know the exact #'s donated as of this year, but 4 years ago of the 8,800+- Bear Backer supporters, only 75+- had given individually (donated) a cummulative amount of $1M+(the top 20 have been extremely generous). And those amounts are spread throughout the person's sport/cause of choosing. It took a very passionate small group of 7 donors recently, to raise $250k/year over the next 3 years to be used specifically for the HC of our Football team toward critical staff positions (which are woefully underpaid than their counterparts in our conf.). Yes if we had John Arrillaga of Stanford or Phil Knight of Oregon etc, we would not be facing the glaring obstacles of not having a dedicated practice facility, sufficient/quality housing for the entirety of both the Football and basketball teams - but we don't. The recruiting landscape for Cal is extremely difficult due to the lack of those key factors - simply the facts.

---

this is the reality, which is one reason I've advocated making some low hanging fruit improvements until we can fund the dedicated facility

I am disappointed that we can't expand those 20 generous donors given so many alums have been successful with equity in the hi-tech industry

The Kabam founders are a good example

I also think we should add a small fee (e.g. $25/semester) to our tuition to support athletics, as other schools do this.

---

philbert said:

---

So it sounds like regardless of the status of the beach volleyball courts and softball stadium construction, there won't be any money to move forward with the practice facility. Ugh.

If there's any truth to what shocky said about the lead donor for that facility backing out when Williams hired Wyking instead of Pasternack....good lord.

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Didn't this whole thought cycle take place a number of years back when we had the absolute worst FB facilities in the country and then a fix came. What difference has it made in Ws/Ls? It sure is nice, and was needed, but the claim everyone made that we sat in last place with lousy facilities has not translated. Not much has changed since we got the facilities. Do not get me wrong---Memorial and the facilities are beautiful. Having the drawn BB facility would be great, but will it translate? Not sure on that one.

---

calumnus said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

Didn't this whole thought cycle take place a number of years back when we had the absolute worst FB facilities in the country and then a fix came. What difference has it made in Ws/Ls? It sure is nice, and was needed, but the claim everyone made that we sat in last place with lousy facilities has not translated. Not much has changed since we got the facilities. Do not get me wrong---Memorial and the facilities are beautiful. Having the drawn BB facility would be great, but will it translate? Not sure on that one.

---

Investing in great coaches has a better return on investment. Winning attracts great players which begets more winning.

Faculties were the last era's arms race to attract players. We are entering a new era, beginning with NIL. Yes, the players need a court to practice on, but I really think we should be planning and investing in the new arms race, not the last.

---

4thGenCal said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Meanwhile UW-Milwaukee is building a dedicated practice facility for $8 million. https://uwm.edu/news/orthopaedic-hospital-of-wisconsin-gives-uwm-2-1-million-for-new-training-facility/

Duke built a 3 story 56,000 square foot athlete academic and dedicated practice facility for $15 million.

Richmond, $15 million

Louisville, $15 million

UCLA was $25 million and is a new, free standing structure and included new locker rooms for both the men and women.

If we can raise $50 million, great, but we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

We could build a dedicated court on the roof of the RSF or adjacent (replacing part of the east stands of Edwards) with light construction at very little cost. Players would use the brand new locker room at RSF that already has 24 hr access. No way it would cost $50 million.

Again, if a $50 million faculty is doable, great, but what we shouldn't do is set an unreachable standard and then complain when we can't reach it and do nothing. Personally, I'd rather spend $10 million on a dedicated court and have money to bring in a top coach, with $millions left over for advertising the program and paying elite players for use of their NIL.

Lavish dedicated practice facilities are how programs competed for players a decade ago. We are entering a new era. We should not go broke spending multiples of what others spent to win yesterday's battles.

---

I wish you were correct, but construction costs have escalated beyond rational expectations - Union labor/material costs/cost of doing business in the Bay Area etc (my business is commercial real estate and I have built./invested in many commercial bldgs, including in the past 12 months). Even if you value engineer/cut back on lockers etc you would still be at $40M+ minimum and contrary to not needing upscale facility - it does influence recruits. Cutting corners on amenities/sharing lockers in another adjacent facility detracts from a "dedicated practice facility".
The biggest obstacle is simply that Cal has very few passionate/wealthy bear backers who are strong basketball supporters (who donate even $25k/year consistently). Take this forum of interested/supportive basketball alums/Cal game attendees - very few actually donate even $10k/year (year after year) - sad but true. Most espouse their critique (and several who do not attend the games), have no interaction with the AD/coaches to develop a objective viewpoint. I don't know the exact #'s donated as of this year, but 4 years ago of the 8,800+- Bear Backer supporters, only 75+- had given individually (donated) a cummulative amount of $1M+(the top 20 have been extremely generous). And those amounts are spread throughout the person's sport/cause of choosing. It took a very passionate small group of 7 donors recently, to raise $250k/year over the next 3 years to be used specifically for the HC of our Football team toward critical staff positions (which are woefully underpaid than their counterparts in our conf.). Yes if we had John Arrillaga of Stanford or Phil Knight of Oregon etc, we would not be facing the glaring obstacles of not having a dedicated practice facility, sufficient/quality housing for the entirety of both the Football and basketball teams - but we don't. The recruiting landscape for Cal is extremely difficult due to the lack of those key factors - simply the facts.

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

Seems like a bit of a chicken or egg situation to me. I would imagine not many folks would want to give their money to a program that hires coaches like Jones and Fox. Would be curious to see donation levels when Martin was here vs. now. I'm by no means a big donor, but I know that's the last time I donated specifically to bb. Can't imagine I'm the only one.

---

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

Seems like a bit of a chicken or egg situation to me. I would imagine not many folks would want to give their money to a program that hires coaches like Jones and Fox. Would be curious to see donation levels when Martin was here vs. now. I'm by no means a big donor, but I know that's the last time I donated specifically to bb. Can't imagine I'm the only one.

---

I stopped donating the minute they hired Wyking Jones. As far as I'm concerned, the program died the day he was hired. Although, the heart/spirit of the program died the day they took down the retired jerseys and championship banners from the rafters.

The program is in the hands of idiots.

---

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

Seems like a bit of a chicken or egg situation to me. I would imagine not many folks would want to give their money to a program that hires coaches like Jones and Fox. Would be curious to see donation levels when Martin was here vs. now. I'm by no means a big donor, but I know that's the last time I donated specifically to bb. Can't imagine I'm the only one.

---

I stopped donating the minute they hired Wyking Jones. As far as I'm concerned, the program died the day he was hired. Although, the heart/spirit of the program died the day they took down the retired jerseys and championship banners from the rafters.

The program is in the hands of idiots.

---

Big C said:

---

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

Seems like a bit of a chicken or egg situation to me. I would imagine not many folks would want to give their money to a program that hires coaches like Jones and Fox. Would be curious to see donation levels when Martin was here vs. now. I'm by no means a big donor, but I know that's the last time I donated specifically to bb. Can't imagine I'm the only one.

---

I stopped donating the minute they hired Wyking Jones. As far as I'm concerned, the program died the day he was hired. Although, the heart/spirit of the program died the day they took down the retired jerseys and championship banners from the rafters.

The program is in the hands of idiots.

---

maybe bean counters

---

concernedparent said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

I think this is ucla's practice facility, but not sure (I think they covered up some of the branding)

causal pickup game vs some youtube hoopers (best UCLA player in this pickup playing for the YouTubers)

---

Fun video. The UCLA guys are on autopilot, but you can see how insanely skilled Jaquez and Jules Bernard are. Their best guys aren't that athletic but have tons of moves and can shoot. They can iso and buy a bucket anytime whereas our guys have to scrap for looks.

---