DiabloWags said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

I shouldn't have said country club sports. I really meant non-revenue sports.

So our rosters are full of affluent kids from all over the world on their way to 8th place finishes. How does this help the University again?

---

Ok, so now it's not about country club sports.
You misspoke.

I kind of sensed it was your backhanded way of speaking about racial diversity.

Perhaps you should just come out and say that in the first place, instead of passively-aggressively claiming that I'm the one that conveniently left that out.

But you clearly are not paying attention if you think that these teams are on their way to 8th place finishes.

Perhaps you misspoke again?

Men's Water Polo won an NCAA Championship this past season.

Men's Swim Team won an NCAA Championship this past season.

Men's Varsity 8 Crew Team won an NCAA Championship this past season.

---

You have a funny definition of backhanded. I literally and straight up said one of the only reasons I support collegiate sports is if it brings diversity to the student body, racially and socioeconomically. The other reason is if Cal has been nationally relevant and/or we're producing famous athletes. Remind me again which place Cal's soccer, field hockey, lacrosse, beach volleyball, volleyball, cross-country, etc. teams have been finishing in?

concernedparent said:

---

You have a funny definition of backhanded. I literally and straight up said one of the only reasons I support collegiate sports is if it brings diversity to the student body, racially and socioeconomically. The other reason is if Cal has been nationally relevant and/or we're producing famous athletes. Remind me again which place Cal's soccer, field hockey, lacrosse, beach volleyball, volleyball, cross-country, etc. teams have been finishing in?

---

You keep on deflecting because you have very little awareness when it comes to the Olympic Sports and the 3 teams I mentioned earlier that won NCAA CHAMPTIONSHIPS this season.

First, your narrative starts out criticizing the Country Club Sports because of a lack of diversity.
Then your bouncing ball narrative jumps to athletes from affluent areas and wondering how this helps Cal.
And then you top this rambling narrative off with claiming that these non-revenue sports finish in 8th place.

The fact that you had no clue about these 3 NCAA CHAMPIONSHIPS is pretty telling.
Perhaps you can tell us all about the relevance of a Men's Basketball program that has been totally irrelevant for the last 25 years and literally gone nowhere at the NCAA level.

I'm done wasting my time here.

If you werent pretending to be concerned about a lack of diversity at Cal, you'd be sending letters to the Chancellor questioning why the incoming freshman class of African American kids was only 3.7%

From the wikis:

Cutting a Möbius strip along the centerline with a pair of scissors yields one long strip with two half-twists in it, rather than two separate strips. The result is not a Möbius strip, but instead is topologically equivalent to a cylinder. Cutting this double-twisted strip again along its centerline produces two linked double-twisted strips. If, instead, a Möbius strip is cut lengthwise, a third of the way across its width, it produces two linked strips. One of the two is a central, thinner, Möbius strip, while the other has two half-twists.

Carry on.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

From the wikis:

Cutting a Möbius strip along the centerline with a pair of scissors yields one long strip with two half-twists in it, rather than two separate strips. The result is not a Möbius strip, but instead is topologically equivalent to a cylinder. Cutting this double-twisted strip again along its centerline produces two linked double-twisted strips. If, instead, a Möbius strip is cut lengthwise, a third of the way across its width, it produces two linked strips. One of the two is a central, thinner, Möbius strip, while the other has two half-twists.

Carry on.

---

That last part, about the 1/3 width... for real?!? I gotta try it.

HUGE moment in 5th(?) grade when we did the Mobius strips. I'll never forget the gasps when we drew the line down the center and then when we cut it. I felt like the profundity of the universe was starting to unlock. No progress on that for me since then, unfortunately.

It's surprising, the number of people who have never made a Mobius strip. Maybe that's one of the problems with this country. Maybe, at the next State of the Union, the President should do a Mobius strip and have the whole country do it. I'm sure he would receive accolades for that!

I may have also just stumbled onto the name of the next campus hangout I want to open: The Mobius Strip Club!

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Big C said:

---

I may have also just stumbled onto the name of the next campus hangout I want to open: The Mobius Strip Club!

---

"If you touch one side, you've touched every side."

---

BADA BING!

socaltownie said:

---

But that said, I think there is a fair criticism of Olympic sports that are not prevelent in most California High Schools and which have an economically exclusive "club" system and how it perpetuates class divisions and lack of SES diversity. That is already a problem at the most selective UCs. And it also isn't clear to me (in the slightest) how the old essentially British colonial ethos of acedmics+athletics is necessarily a good thing. Kids (and adults) need to exercise. It isn't clear to me that well being is about competitive sports - ESPECIALLY since those endevours for the vast majority are over by their early 20s. For every 1 kid that gets balance in their life and finds inner strength on the pitch I wonder how many others come to LOATH sports because they are associated with competitive outcomes and thus become fat slobs because of their negative feelings about athletics.

I also pretty much deeply question the brand value of olympic sports success. really ANY sport other than football and BB. I mean I bet not one in 10 posters here can name the mens, womens soccer champions or the winner of this years Frozen Four.

---

Quite frankly, your first sentence makes no sense to me.

Olympic sports such as track, tennis, wrestling, volleyball, swimming, soccer, and softball are in fact prevalent in most California high schools. The "club" system is an entirely different animal and shouldnt be conflated as such.

On another note, it sounds as though you are arguing against Athletics in general being offered at the University or 4 year College level.. If you want Cal to become the University of Chicago, then just say it.

As for kids becoming fat slobs, I dont think that it has anything to do with resentment towards athletics and competitive outcomes. It's mainly to do with a generation growing up in a digital age of computers and cell phones that take up most of their free time, if not all of their free time . . . combined with a poor diet.

Growing up in the 70's we sure as hell didnt see young women walk into Starbuck's and start their day off with a 1200 calorie carmel macchiato before their first class of the day at their high school.

I must say that I find it interesting that people would take issue with the so-called Country Club Sports at CAL, especially when they are largely self-funded and give the University brand recognition around the world. It's literally free advertising.

It's almost as if a previous poster was trying to make a socio-economic argument based on race that the sports that are predominantly played by WHITE student/athletes in upper middle-class neighborhoods of America, are being subsidized at the college level off the backs of African American student/athletes who are involved in revenue raising sports such as Football and Basketball.

Such an argument sure doesnt hold much water when a highly-prized college recruit at CAL goes "1 and Done" in Basketball. As a previous poster mentioned, "How does this help the University again?"

DiabloWags said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

But that said, I think there is a fair criticism of Olympic sports that are not prevelent in most California High Schools and which have an economically exclusive "club" system and how it perpetuates class divisions and lack of SES diversity. That is already a problem at the most selective UCs. And it also isn't clear to me (in the slightest) how the old essentially British colonial ethos of acedmics+athletics is necessarily a good thing. Kids (and adults) need to exercise. It isn't clear to me that well being is about competitive sports - ESPECIALLY since those endevours for the vast majority are over by their early 20s. For every 1 kid that gets balance in their life and finds inner strength on the pitch I wonder how many others come to LOATH sports because they are associated with competitive outcomes and thus become fat slobs because of their negative feelings about athletics.

I also pretty much deeply question the brand value of olympic sports success. really ANY sport other than football and BB. I mean I bet not one in 10 posters here can name the mens, womens soccer champions or the winner of this years Frozen Four.

---

Quite frankly, your first sentence makes no sense to me.

Olympic sports such as track, tennis, wrestling, volleyball, swimming, soccer, and softball are in fact prevalent in most California high schools. The "club" system is an entirely different animal and shouldnt be conflated as such.

On another note, it sounds as though you are arguing against Athletics in general being offered at the University or 4 year College level.. If you want Cal to become the University of Chicago, then just say it.

As for kids becoming fat slobs, I dont think that it has anything to do with resentment towards athletics and competitive outcomes. It's mainly to do with a generation growing up in a digital age of computers and cell phones that take up most of their free time, if not all of their free time . . . combined with a poor diet.

Growing up in the 70's we sure as hell didnt see young women walk into Starbuck's and start their day off with a 1200 calorie carmel macchiato before their first class of the day at their high school.

---

"Olympic sports such as track, tennis, wrestling, volleyball, swimming, soccer, and softball are in fact prevalent in most California high schools. The "club" system is an entirely different animal and shouldnt be conflated as such."

I am not sure if you are a parent in suburban California but I sure as hell am. I can tell you that college coaches are NOT recruiting from HS Swim teams. They are VERY MUCH recruiting from Club Teams where, as noted prior, the cost of admission starts at $500 a month and goes up. Yes, those kiddos nominally particulate in CIF swim but in many cases they practice with their club teams and that is where the coaching resources are.


"On another note, it sounds as though you are arguing against Athletics in general being offered at the University or 4 year College level.. If you want Cal to become the University of Chicago, then just say it."

I think that there is a strong argument to make that the rise of semi-professional sports (true not just in MBB and FB but increasingly in other sports) has a strange relationship with higher education.

"
As for kids becoming fat slobs, I dont think that it has anything to do with resentment towards athletics and competitive outcomes. It's mainly to do with a generation growing up in a digital age of computers and cell phones that take up most of their free time, if not all of their free time . . . combined with a poor diet. "

Actually the social science research here is pretty compelling. Kids that do "non competitive" sports (or sports that are largley non-competitive) had a healtier attitude toward them than sports where winning and competitive outcomes are stressed . Now Americans make EVERYTHING into competitive sports (**** competitive rock climbing, for example) but the more that you have physical activities that deemphasize it has been shown participants are likely to have a life long happier relationshuip to the activity.

DiabloWags said:

---

I must say that I find it interesting that people would take issue with the so-called Country Club Sports at CAL, especially when they are largely self-funded and give the University brand recognition around the world. It's literally free advertising.

It's almost as if a previous poster was trying to make a socio-economic argument based on race that the sports that are predominantly played by WHITE student/athletes in upper middle-class neighborhoods of America, are being subsidized at the college level off the backs of African American student/athletes who are involved in revenue raising sports such as Football and Basketball.

Such an argument sure doesnt hold much water when a highly-prized college recruit at CAL goes "1 and Done" in Basketball. As a previous poster mentioned, "How does this help the University again?"

---

You really want to aruge that winning olympic sport competitions gives brand value? Come on. How many eyeballs in Europe or Asisa watch Pac-12's gymnastics.....or maybe you are Larry Scott ;-)


"It's almost as if a previous poster was trying to make a socio-economic argument based on race that the sports that are predominantly played by WHITE student/athletes in upper middle-class neighborhoods of America, are being subsidized at the college level off the backs of African American student/athletes who are involved in revenue raising sports such as Football and Basketball.

Such an argument sure doesnt hold much water when a highly-prized college recruit at CAL goes "1 and Done" in Basketball. As a previous poster mentioned, "How does this help the University again?""


Cal has had few one and dones. The average tenure at the NFL is 3.5 years (for those that are drafted and not cut on their non-guaranteed contracts). It is undeniable that throughout the NCAA revenue sports played predominately by AA kids from middle and working class backgrounds are subsidizing non-revenue sports played by upper middle class white kids. It is so obviously apparent I am confused as to how you would not think so.

Yes. "self funded" puts POSSIBLY that into context. That said, I would really like to better understand the self funded aspect. If it is that an endowment generates enough for direct expenses, that is not even the tip of the iceburg. What about sunk costs that previously were not recouped, indirect overhead at the AD and the university, opportunity costs for the time, treasure and land. No way that ANY of these sports is actually "self funded" unless we are talking about endownments equal to $100 to 200 million PER SPORT.

socaltownie said:

---

Cal has had few one and dones. The average tenure at the NFL is 3.5 years (for those that are drafted and not cut on their non-guaranteed contracts). It is undeniable that throughout the NCAA revenue sports played predominately by AA kids from middle and working class backgrounds are subsidizing non-revenue sports played by upper middle class white kids. It is so obviously apparent I am confused as to how you would not think so.

Yes. "self funded" puts POSSIBLY that into context. That said, I would really like to better understand the self funded aspect. If it is that an endowment generates enough for direct expenses, that is not even the tip of the iceburg. What about sunk costs that previously were not recouped, indirect overhead at the AD and the university, opportunity costs for the time, treasure and land. No way that ANY of these sports is actually "self funded" unless we are talking about endownments equal to $100 to 200 million PER SPORT.

---

It's the "one and done" structure of NCAA Basketball that isnt healthy to a College or University.
That's what I was arguing. If you want to dismiss that, fine.

I think most would agree that the stark reality is that NCAA Football and Basketball merely serve as a minor league that feeds the NFL and NBA. Think the NCAA cares about all that travel that student/athletes at UCLA and USC will have to suffer from now that they've joined the Big 10?

Of course not.

The cost of this "arrangement" as the minor league to the NFL and NBA means that the revenue sports at the college level subsidize the Olympic Sports, as well as help with Title IX compliance. It's why SJSU has played Alabama in Football. Interestingly enough, a previous poster conveniently ignored Title IX in his S.E.S. narrative. I guess his definition of diversity only revolves around skin color?

Since I dont seem to be very smart about these "things" compared to the Professor Barsky's of the world, I guess I shouldnt ask if it's so obvious as to who would not have been recruited to be an athlete at Cal for a revenue sport like Football or Basketball, based on academics alone. I think that given what the basis was for the firing of Jeff Tedford, we all know the answer to that. And of course, the eligibility requirements (GPA) for Football recruits have been raised ever since, which makes it even more difficult for a Cal Football Program to sustain any kind of success, especially compared to traditional football powers.

I dont pretend to have all the answers.

But I think that the racial argument that was implied here by a previous poster regarding the Country Club (read: WHITE) Sports is BS. - - - I can only imagine that someone will start posting about how the cost of fielding all of these Olympic Sports is what forced Cal into the Stadium Project, which is like a massive albatross around the University's neck.

I'll just leave it at that.

socaltownie said:

---

Yes. "self funded" puts POSSIBLY that into context. That said, I would really like to better understand the self funded aspect. If it is that an endowment generates enough for direct expenses, that is not even the tip of the iceburg. What about sunk costs that previously were not recouped, indirect overhead at the AD and the university, opportunity costs for the time, treasure and land. No way that ANY of these sports is actually "self funded" unless we are talking about endownments equal to $100 to 200 million PER SPORT.

---

Ok, thanks for putting this out there.
Got ya down for shutting ALL sports down at CAL and becoming University of Chicago.

I'm not going to debate the academic or economic or sociological aspects of Olympic sports or their worth to the University. But personally I'm not interested in watching them so if basketball and football disappear I'll have no connection to Cal athletics.

stu said:

---

I'm not going to debate the academic or economic or sociological aspects of Olympic sports or their worth to the University. But personally I'm not interested in watching them so if basketball and football disappear I'll have no connection to Cal athletics.

---

I have a question for you...

Do you enjoy watching mediocre Cal Football and Basketball Teams that struggle to end up with a .500 season?
How do you derive enjoyment from that?

DiabloWags said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Yes. "self funded" puts POSSIBLY that into context. That said, I would really like to better understand the self funded aspect. If it is that an endowment generates enough for direct expenses, that is not even the tip of the iceburg. What about sunk costs that previously were not recouped, indirect overhead at the AD and the university, opportunity costs for the time, treasure and land. No way that ANY of these sports is actually "self funded" unless we are talking about endownments equal to $100 to 200 million PER SPORT.

---

Ok, thanks for putting this out there.
Got ya down for shutting ALL sports down at CAL and becoming University of Chicago.

---

Plenty of schools find a third way. I can not believe you are so ignorant as to not appreciate or know about the athletic programs at UCSD, UCI, UCSB, UCR and UCD. All play D1. Some play D1 Basketball. All seem to have a healthier (IMHO) balance between sports and the academy. Indeed, I believe the Tritons have, with some frequency, beaten Cal's olympic sports and, much to the pain of it, schooled Mark Fox last year.

DiabloWags said:

---

stu said:

---

I'm not going to debate the academic or economic or sociological aspects of Olympic sports or their worth to the University. But personally I'm not interested in watching them so if basketball and football disappear I'll have no connection to Cal athletics.

---

I have a question for you...

Do you enjoy watching mediocre Cal Football and Basketball Teams that struggle to end up with a .500 season?
How do you derive enjoyment from that?

---

Yes, I do. I happen to enjoy the sports and I see things to cheer about even when we aren't winning.

When I was younger I played some volleyball and did some rowing, not at a high level but I enjoyed them immensely and stopped only after injuries piled up to an unacceptable level. However I have no interest in watching either sport, no matter who might be winning.

Big C said:

---

stu said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

stu said:

---

I'm not going to debate the academic or economic or sociological aspects of Olympic sports or their worth to the University. But personally I'm not interested in watching them so if basketball and football disappear I'll have no connection to Cal athletics.

---

I have a question for you...

Do you enjoy watching mediocre Cal Football and Basketball Teams that struggle to end up with a .500 season?
How do you derive enjoyment from that?

---

Yes, I do. I happen to enjoy the sports and I see things to cheer about even when we aren't winning.

When I was younger I played some volleyball and did some rowing, not at a high level but I enjoyed them immensely and stopped only after injuries piled up to an unacceptable level. However I have no interest in watching either sport, no matter who might be winning.

---

Me too. I enjoy football and basketball and Cal's my team. The fact that we are fairly often sub-.500 is disappointing, but doesn't kill my enjoyment. I'm always figuring we will, at some point, get better. And we sometimes do, for brief stretches!

---

Ditto, but I will confess that there were times during the Wyking era when Cal played so badly that I shut it off. It wasn't a function of Cal getting beat, it was just that they were occasionally so inept I couldn't stand watching it.

HearstMining said:

---

Big C said:

---

stu said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

stu said:

---

I'm not going to debate the academic or economic or sociological aspects of Olympic sports or their worth to the University. But personally I'm not interested in watching them so if basketball and football disappear I'll have no connection to Cal athletics.

---

I have a question for you...

Do you enjoy watching mediocre Cal Football and Basketball Teams that struggle to end up with a .500 season?
How do you derive enjoyment from that?

---

Yes, I do. I happen to enjoy the sports and I see things to cheer about even when we aren't winning.

When I was younger I played some volleyball and did some rowing, not at a high level but I enjoyed them immensely and stopped only after injuries piled up to an unacceptable level. However I have no interest in watching either sport, no matter who might be winning.

---

Me too. I enjoy football and basketball and Cal's my team. The fact that we are fairly often sub-.500 is disappointing, but doesn't kill my enjoyment. I'm always figuring we will, at some point, get better. And we sometimes do, for brief stretches!

---

Ditto, but I will confess that there were times during the Wyking era when Cal played so badly that I shut it off. It wasn't a function of Cal getting beat, it was just that they were occasionally so inept I couldn't stand watching it.

---

Some of those games, Jesus...

We had brought "tomato cans" into Haas basically to pad our non-conference record -- teams I had barely even heard of -- and we were getting blown out by 30.

Definite nadir for the program.

I recall the conversation about how we couldn't pay the athletes.
Some traditionalists were like,
"no way!
They get tuition.
It would destroy all the other sports.
They are amateurs!"

But then I see developments like this and laugh in faces.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/gonzaga-michigan-state-to-play-on-uss-abraham-lincoln-deck-in-first-aircraft-carrier-game-since-2012-011258205.html



Basketball on an aircraft carrier.
REALLY?

Where is that in the syllabus?

Hello, world.
It's a BUSINESS.
For PROFIT.

So who cares anymore about Rose Bowls and all the rest of it?

Go Bears, but really now… you've just got to redefine all the old notions.

Give a little props to the Con.

dimitrig said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

Big C said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Big C said:

---

stu said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

stu said:

---

I'm not going to debate the academic or economic or sociological aspects of Olympic sports or their worth to the University. But personally I'm not interested in watching them so if basketball and football disappear I'll have no connection to Cal athletics.

---

I have a question for you...

Do you enjoy watching mediocre Cal Football and Basketball Teams that struggle to end up with a .500 season?
How do you derive enjoyment from that?

---

Yes, I do. I happen to enjoy the sports and I see things to cheer about even when we aren't winning.

When I was younger I played some volleyball and did some rowing, not at a high level but I enjoyed them immensely and stopped only after injuries piled up to an unacceptable level. However I have no interest in watching either sport, no matter who might be winning.

---

Me too. I enjoy football and basketball and Cal's my team. The fact that we are fairly often sub-.500 is disappointing, but doesn't kill my enjoyment. I'm always figuring we will, at some point, get better. And we sometimes do, for brief stretches!

---

Ditto, but I will confess that there were times during the Wyking era when Cal played so badly that I shut it off. It wasn't a function of Cal getting beat, it was just that they were occasionally so inept I couldn't stand watching it.

---

Some of those games, Jesus...

We had brought "tomato cans" into Haas basically to pad our non-conference record -- teams I had barely even heard of -- and we were getting blown out by 30.

Definite nadir for the program.

---

Debatable - IMO we're currently in the nadir. At least with Wyking, there was hope for future improvement considering he was new to the HC position, was able to recruit some talent, and made attempts to improve his staff.

---

I think the program would be in a better state at the moment if we had kept Wyking versus where Fox got us.

At least we'd have some talent on the floor and as Todd Bozeman proved that can get you a long way.

---

I agree. He was in over his head, but seemed to be learning.

Fox is a decent coach, but too old school for the situation.

Oooh, another opportunity to post this:

concordtom said:

---

I recall the conversation about how we couldn't pay the athletes.
Some traditionalists were like,
"no way!
They get tuition.
It would destroy all the other sports.
They are amateurs!"

But then I see developments like this and laugh in faces.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/gonzaga-michigan-state-to-play-on-uss-abraham-lincoln-deck-in-first-aircraft-carrier-game-since-2012-011258205.html



Basketball on an aircraft carrier.
REALLY?

Where is that in the syllabus?

---

Even worse. I love this town but San Diego during that time of the year and in that location gets a nice fog breeze right at tip off time. Every year they try this and they find out that it makes for a dumb game.

Protip - unless baked in take the under.

BeachedBear said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

Big C said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Big C said:

---

stu said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

stu said:

---

I'm not going to debate the academic or economic or sociological aspects of Olympic sports or their worth to the University. But personally I'm not interested in watching them so if basketball and football disappear I'll have no connection to Cal athletics.

---

I have a question for you...

Do you enjoy watching mediocre Cal Football and Basketball Teams that struggle to end up with a .500 season?
How do you derive enjoyment from that?

---

Yes, I do. I happen to enjoy the sports and I see things to cheer about even when we aren't winning.

When I was younger I played some volleyball and did some rowing, not at a high level but I enjoyed them immensely and stopped only after injuries piled up to an unacceptable level. However I have no interest in watching either sport, no matter who might be winning.

---

Me too. I enjoy football and basketball and Cal's my team. The fact that we are fairly often sub-.500 is disappointing, but doesn't kill my enjoyment. I'm always figuring we will, at some point, get better. And we sometimes do, for brief stretches!

---

Ditto, but I will confess that there were times during the Wyking era when Cal played so badly that I shut it off. It wasn't a function of Cal getting beat, it was just that they were occasionally so inept I couldn't stand watching it.

---

Some of those games, Jesus...

We had brought "tomato cans" into Haas basically to pad our non-conference record -- teams I had barely even heard of -- and we were getting blown out by 30.

Definite nadir for the program.

---

Debatable - IMO we're currently in the nadir. At least with Wyking, there was hope for future improvement considering he was new to the HC position, was able to recruit some talent, and made attempts to improve his staff.

---

Very Debatable, I agree. Besides all the things you said, Fox doesn't seem to have any upside and is unaware that it is the 21st century. When FOX arrived, I was simply relieved to see that he could coach and motivate his players in some way. Watching Jones squander the talent that he could recruit seemed like the worst thing to me at the time. There were a number of things about FOX that made me think "OK, he's not great, but if he can just do A,B & C - he could be a competent P5 coach". But early in the second season it was obvious that he was incapable of change for various reasons. Since then it has become worse and supported by the AD for no other reason, than he doesn't want to deal with the problems that come with a competitive MBB program. It is so obvious that Fox should have been gone at the end of year 3 with a "Thanks for pulling us out of the cellar - a bit. Now to step 2".

So for me, Jones was the nadir of coaching, but Fox (and his retention at the end of year 3) is the nadir of the program.

---

When I wrote "nadir for the program", I was referring to what was happening on the court right then, but speaking longer-term, it was the beginning of an unprecedented era of futility, now stretching for five seasons and running.

The reason why I'm hoping we might be in a better position now is that Fox is probably near the end of his run. Of course, as Calumnus notes down thread, the problem goes deeper than the current coach, so maybe not.

dimitrig said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

Big C said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Big C said:

---

stu said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

stu said:

---

I'm not going to debate the academic or economic or sociological aspects of Olympic sports or their worth to the University. But personally I'm not interested in watching them so if basketball and football disappear I'll have no connection to Cal athletics.

---

I have a question for you...

Do you enjoy watching mediocre Cal Football and Basketball Teams that struggle to end up with a .500 season?
How do you derive enjoyment from that?

---

Yes, I do. I happen to enjoy the sports and I see things to cheer about even when we aren't winning.

When I was younger I played some volleyball and did some rowing, not at a high level but I enjoyed them immensely and stopped only after injuries piled up to an unacceptable level. However I have no interest in watching either sport, no matter who might be winning.

---

Me too. I enjoy football and basketball and Cal's my team. The fact that we are fairly often sub-.500 is disappointing, but doesn't kill my enjoyment. I'm always figuring we will, at some point, get better. And we sometimes do, for brief stretches!

---

Ditto, but I will confess that there were times during the Wyking era when Cal played so badly that I shut it off. It wasn't a function of Cal getting beat, it was just that they were occasionally so inept I couldn't stand watching it.

---

Some of those games, Jesus...

We had brought "tomato cans" into Haas basically to pad our non-conference record -- teams I had barely even heard of -- and we were getting blown out by 30.

Definite nadir for the program.

---

Debatable - IMO we're currently in the nadir. At least with Wyking, there was hope for future improvement considering he was new to the HC position, was able to recruit some talent, and made attempts to improve his staff.

---

I think the program would be in a better state at the moment if we had kept Wyking versus where Fox got us.

At least we'd have some talent on the floor and as Todd Bozeman proved that can get you a long way.

---

Sort of like arguing over whether you'd rather be a passenger on the Lusitania or the Titanic, isn't it?

HearstMining said:

---

Sort of like arguing over whether you'd rather be a passenger on the Lusitania or the Titanic, isn't it?

---

Good one! I'll take the Lusitania because there was someone else to blame.