I think Fox's ceiling is too low but considering we do not have a practice facility (and won't have one for at least a few years), our restrictive academic requirements, as well as the fact that we're 11th in conference for spending (I think according to 4thGen) it begs the question whether another coach would even be able to win here. I comment a lot about Fox's recruiting struggles but I have to ask whether the situation can even be improved upon in the near future by a new coach. If we can't sell recruits on a practice facility nor NIL why would they come?
Is it possible to win with Cal Basketball right now?
7,055 Views |
83 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by Chapman_is_Gone
Yes, it's possible.
"Those who say don't know, and those who know don't say." - LT
My suggestion to you is do some research on Mike Montgomery's tenure here as men's basketball coach. His record here will show that you CAN win here.eastcoastcal said:
I think Fox's ceiling is too low but considering we do not have a practice facility (and won't have one for at least a few years) as well as the fact that we're 11th in conference for spending (I think according to 4thGen) it begs the question whether another coach would even be able to win here. I comment a lot about Fox's recruiting struggles but I have to ask whether the situation can even be improved upon in the near future by a new coach. If we can't sell recruits on a practice facility nor NIL why would they come?
eastcoastcal said:
I think Fox's ceiling is too low but considering we do not have a practice facility (and won't have one for at least a few years) as well as the fact that we're 11th in conference for spending (I think according to 4thGen) it begs the question whether another coach would even be able to win here. I comment a lot about Fox's recruiting struggles but I have to ask whether the situation can even be improved upon in the near future by a new coach. If we can't sell recruits on a practice facility nor NIL why would they come?
Just 7 years ago we had three McDonald's All Americans, were undefeated at home, earned a 4 seed and finished ranked all with no dedicated practice facility, Cal academics, low spending levels, the City of Berkeley…
The key is we had a charismatic, up and coming African American coach that embraced and promoted Cal's academics and historic commitment to social justice. That pulled Jaylen Brown from Atlanta as it pulled Shareef Abdul-Rahim from Atlanta previously. We need an administration and coaches that embrace and promote our brand. LeBron James spent summers in Berkeley playing on the Soldiers as a teenager and LOVED hanging out on Telegraph and Durant.
We need to stop hiring administrators and coaches who are disgusted by Berkeley. How can they be sincere and sell the school and location if they do not love it and see it as a great place? If they instead see who we are and where we are located as a problem to be overcome, they will fail. They are the problem.
Get a coach who can coach an interesting quality offense, who isn't an old school guy who will yell at his players, and has a personality to recruit talented players, and we can have success.
Unfortunately, since Monty, we've had a) a coach in Martin who could recruit but who can't coach offense, b) a coach in Jones with zero qualifications to be a D-1 HC, much less a power conference HC, who couldn't get better fundamentals than a mediocre coach gets out of a 5th grade CYO team, whose teams constantly showed a lot of quit during the games, had zero idea of how to be a head coach once he got the job, and was a poor to mediocre recruiter, and c) a "my way or the highway" old school guy who yells at his players, can't coach offense, and can't recruit (but at least can get some decent fundamental play and has about 100 times better a grasp on how to be a HC than his predecessor).
The net result is that the program is a Pac-12 bottom dwelling wanker with no hope of escape any time soon.
Yes, we can have success, but I doubt it will happen until at least the 2030's. It will require a big positive change in the program for that to happen, and who knows effect the changing college sports landscape will have on our chances for that to happen.
Unfortunately, since Monty, we've had a) a coach in Martin who could recruit but who can't coach offense, b) a coach in Jones with zero qualifications to be a D-1 HC, much less a power conference HC, who couldn't get better fundamentals than a mediocre coach gets out of a 5th grade CYO team, whose teams constantly showed a lot of quit during the games, had zero idea of how to be a head coach once he got the job, and was a poor to mediocre recruiter, and c) a "my way or the highway" old school guy who yells at his players, can't coach offense, and can't recruit (but at least can get some decent fundamental play and has about 100 times better a grasp on how to be a HC than his predecessor).
The net result is that the program is a Pac-12 bottom dwelling wanker with no hope of escape any time soon.
Yes, we can have success, but I doubt it will happen until at least the 2030's. It will require a big positive change in the program for that to happen, and who knows effect the changing college sports landscape will have on our chances for that to happen.
SFCALBear72 said:My suggestion to you is do some research on Mike Montgomery's tenure here as men's basketball coach. His record here will show that you CAN win here.eastcoastcal said:
I think Fox's ceiling is too low but considering we do not have a practice facility (and won't have one for at least a few years) as well as the fact that we're 11th in conference for spending (I think according to 4thGen) it begs the question whether another coach would even be able to win here. I comment a lot about Fox's recruiting struggles but I have to ask whether the situation can even be improved upon in the near future by a new coach. If we can't sell recruits on a practice facility nor NIL why would they come?
Yes either good recruiting (Bozeman, Braun and Martin) or great coaching (Monty) produces winning at a high level in Berkeley. Imagine if we had both in the same coach? We currently have neither, but some people want to blame our school and location for his failure while taking $3 million a year from us in salary and causing even greater damage to our program.
Sure, there's the lack of practice facility, the NIL situation and the academic restrictions. Making in-roads there will help pave the way for the future.
But the coach is always the most important factor.
Would love a younger Monty, a little better with the recruiting, or a Cuonzo, a little better with the offense. (obviously, at this point either of them, as is, would be an improvement)
Telegraph and Durant these days is a known kill zone.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Guonzo has a worse track record at this stage in his career than Fox had when he came to Cal. Leaving the Bears with the cupboard bare, just like he did at Tennessee, is a part of the reason we are where we are now. Unless he could bring three 5*'s and a 4* as good as Brown, Rabb, Bird, and Wallace, I do not see how he would be an improvement.Big C said:
Sure, there's the lack of practice facility, the NIL situation and the academic restrictions. Making in-roads there will help pave the way for the future.
But the coach is always the most important factor.
Would love a younger Monty, a little better with the recruiting, or a Cuonzo, a little better with the offense. (obviously, at this point either of them, as is, would be an improvement)
Not without a special coach who can either:eastcoastcal said:
I think Fox's ceiling is too low but considering we do not have a practice facility (and won't have one for at least a few years), our restrictive academic requirements, as well as the fact that we're 11th in conference for spending (I think according to 4thGen) it begs the question whether another coach would even be able to win here. I comment a lot about Fox's recruiting struggles but I have to ask whether the situation can even be improved upon in the near future by a new coach. If we can't sell recruits on a practice facility nor NIL why would they come?
-recruit like crazy
or
-who is so good at coaching he can dominate the other coach during the game.
Outside of that, no you can not win here. Our current coach cannot do either of those things.
bearister said:
Telegraph and Durant these days is a known kill zone.
For the cow or the person eating it?
Civil Bear said:Guonzo has a worse track record at this stage in his career than Fox had when he came to Cal. Leaving the Bears with the cupboard bare, just like he did at Tennessee, is a part of the reason we are where we are now. Unless he could bring three 5*'s and a 4* as good as Brown, Rabb, Bird, and Wallace, I do not see how he would be an improvement.Big C said:
Sure, there's the lack of practice facility, the NIL situation and the academic restrictions. Making in-roads there will help pave the way for the future.
But the coach is always the most important factor.
Would love a younger Monty, a little better with the recruiting, or a Cuonzo, a little better with the offense. (obviously, at this point either of them, as is, would be an improvement)
Proof that, for a coach that embraces and sells Berkeley, Cal is a better place to recruit to and win than Missouri. Think about it: would Jaylen Brown ever have considered Missouri, even if Cuonzo were still there? No, it was the combination of Cuonzo and Berkeley that worked. Same with Rabb, who wouldn't consider Cal until Martin came here.
civil, you are ignorant as ****Civil Bear said:Guonzo has a worse track record at this stage in his career than Fox had when he came to Cal. Leaving the Bears with the cupboard bare, just like he did at Tennessee, is a part of the reason we are where we are now. Unless he could bring three 5*'s and a 4* as good as Brown, Rabb, Bird, and Wallace, I do not see how he would be an improvement.Big C said:
Sure, there's the lack of practice facility, the NIL situation and the academic restrictions. Making in-roads there will help pave the way for the future.
But the coach is always the most important factor.
Would love a younger Monty, a little better with the recruiting, or a Cuonzo, a little better with the offense. (obviously, at this point either of them, as is, would be an improvement)
This is a classic post. Cal team hires bad coach. Cal team does not win. Cal fan posts maybe Cal can't win, despite success with better coaches, or that maybe Cal does not want to win.
There are barriers to success at Cal, but there are also advantages. I know the basketball team could be better with a coach who brings something, anything, to the table.
There are barriers to success at Cal, but there are also advantages. I know the basketball team could be better with a coach who brings something, anything, to the table.
I keep looking for the practice facility that Jason Kidd used, and can't find it. Jaylen Brown swears it's on campus somewhere, and if he had found it, he might have been a top 10 pick.eastcoastcal said:
I think Fox's ceiling is too low but considering we do not have a practice facility (and won't have one for at least a few years), our restrictive academic requirements, as well as the fact that we're 11th in conference for spending (I think according to 4thGen) it begs the question whether another coach would even be able to win here. I comment a lot about Fox's recruiting struggles but I have to ask whether the situation can even be improved upon in the near future by a new coach. If we can't sell recruits on a practice facility nor NIL why would they come?
Smart ass comments aside, Cal basketball had an awful lot of years with good players, and solid performances...and excellent attendance. Haas got built (or Harmon remodeled to be technical) because of that. NIL is obviously being worked on, and, to how it might be relative to the next coach is really about fan excitement and engagement....which we aren't seeing right now.
Facilities are not what's stopping us from being a much better program.
In basketball, more than any other sport, there is a lot of parity. We see every year that some mid-major schools can beat major powers in the Tournament, sometimes with lightly regarded players.
We had Damian Lillard right here in Oakland and we didn't offer him. Weber State pulled him right from our backyard. It's not like we lost him to Duke or even UCLA. That was at the tail end of Braun's tenure.
I am not sure Cal will ever be a Final Four team, but there is no reason we should be finishing 11th every season.
Hey shock, how about explaining where I am wrong rather than just spouting off like a d*ckwad.Shocky1 said:civil, you are ignorant as ****Civil Bear said:Guonzo has a worse track record at this stage in his career than Fox had when he came to Cal. Leaving the Bears with the cupboard bare, just like he did at Tennessee, is a part of the reason we are where we are now. Unless he could bring three 5*'s and a 4* as good as Brown, Rabb, Bird, and Wallace, I do not see how he would be an improvement.Big C said:
Sure, there's the lack of practice facility, the NIL situation and the academic restrictions. Making in-roads there will help pave the way for the future.
But the coach is always the most important factor.
Would love a younger Monty, a little better with the recruiting, or a Cuonzo, a little better with the offense. (obviously, at this point either of them, as is, would be an improvement)
Let's say you are right that Brown wouldn't have gone to Missouri: do you seriously believe Cal is easier to recruit? Guys with Brown's skillset (top 5 in HS) that consider themselves intellectuals don't come around that often. That's why Martin wasn't able to repeat it. In fact, some of the best players he recruited couldn't get accepted to Cal. And it's a good thing Rabb was from Oakland, because without his commitment we may not have seen Brown either.calumnus said:Civil Bear said:Guonzo has a worse track record at this stage in his career than Fox had when he came to Cal. Leaving the Bears with the cupboard bare, just like he did at Tennessee, is a part of the reason we are where we are now. Unless he could bring three 5*'s and a 4* as good as Brown, Rabb, Bird, and Wallace, I do not see how he would be an improvement.Big C said:
Sure, there's the lack of practice facility, the NIL situation and the academic restrictions. Making in-roads there will help pave the way for the future.
But the coach is always the most important factor.
Would love a younger Monty, a little better with the recruiting, or a Cuonzo, a little better with the offense. (obviously, at this point either of them, as is, would be an improvement)
Proof that, for a coach that embraces and sells Berkeley, Cal is a better place to recruit to and win than Missouri. Think about it: would Jaylen Brown ever have considered Missouri, even if Cuonzo were still there? No, it was the combination of Cuonzo and Berkeley that worked. Same with Rabb, who wouldn't consider Cal until Martin came here.
And how do you know Fox doesn't embrace and try to sell Berkeley? I would guess he does, but just isn't as slick a salesman as Martin.
I know you were responding to Calumnus, but I feel in terms of recruiting, that Cal is in the bottom half of over 300 D1 programs (i.e. worse than 150 other programs). Definitely in the bottom of the high major programs.Civil Bear said:Let's say you are right that Brown wouldn't have gone to Missouri: do you seriously believe Cal is easier to recruit? Guys with Brown's skillset (top 5 in HS) that consider themselves intellectuals don't come around that often. That's why Martin wasn't able to repeat it. In fact, some of the best players he recruited couldn't get accepted to Cal. And it's a good thing Rabb was from Oakland, because without his commitment we may not have seen Brown either.calumnus said:Civil Bear said:Guonzo has a worse track record at this stage in his career than Fox had when he came to Cal. Leaving the Bears with the cupboard bare, just like he did at Tennessee, is a part of the reason we are where we are now. Unless he could bring three 5*'s and a 4* as good as Brown, Rabb, Bird, and Wallace, I do not see how he would be an improvement.Big C said:
Sure, there's the lack of practice facility, the NIL situation and the academic restrictions. Making in-roads there will help pave the way for the future.
But the coach is always the most important factor.
Would love a younger Monty, a little better with the recruiting, or a Cuonzo, a little better with the offense. (obviously, at this point either of them, as is, would be an improvement)
Proof that, for a coach that embraces and sells Berkeley, Cal is a better place to recruit to and win than Missouri. Think about it: would Jaylen Brown ever have considered Missouri, even if Cuonzo were still there? No, it was the combination of Cuonzo and Berkeley that worked. Same with Rabb, who wouldn't consider Cal until Martin came here.
And how do you know Fox doesn't embrace and try to sell Berkeley? I would guess he does, but just isn't as slick a salesman as Martin.
Every school has its pros and cons - and some more than others, but I feel that the last two coaching staffs are definitely recruiting below Cals weight.
I don't expect Cal to have a top 25 class every year, but we should regularly be in the 25-100 range most seasons - regardless of our shortcomings. We have been well below that level for quite a while now.
I agree.BeachedBear said:I know you were responding to Calumnus, but I feel in terms of recruiting, that Cal is in the bottom half of over 300 D1 programs (i.e. worse than 150 other programs). Definitely in the bottom of the high major programs.Civil Bear said:Let's say you are right that Brown wouldn't have gone to Missouri: do you seriously believe Cal is easier to recruit? Guys with Brown's skillset (top 5 in HS) that consider themselves intellectuals don't come around that often. That's why Martin wasn't able to repeat it. In fact, some of the best players he recruited couldn't get accepted to Cal. And it's a good thing Rabb was from Oakland, because without his commitment we may not have seen Brown either.calumnus said:Civil Bear said:Guonzo has a worse track record at this stage in his career than Fox had when he came to Cal. Leaving the Bears with the cupboard bare, just like he did at Tennessee, is a part of the reason we are where we are now. Unless he could bring three 5*'s and a 4* as good as Brown, Rabb, Bird, and Wallace, I do not see how he would be an improvement.Big C said:
Sure, there's the lack of practice facility, the NIL situation and the academic restrictions. Making in-roads there will help pave the way for the future.
But the coach is always the most important factor.
Would love a younger Monty, a little better with the recruiting, or a Cuonzo, a little better with the offense. (obviously, at this point either of them, as is, would be an improvement)
Proof that, for a coach that embraces and sells Berkeley, Cal is a better place to recruit to and win than Missouri. Think about it: would Jaylen Brown ever have considered Missouri, even if Cuonzo were still there? No, it was the combination of Cuonzo and Berkeley that worked. Same with Rabb, who wouldn't consider Cal until Martin came here.
And how do you know Fox doesn't embrace and try to sell Berkeley? I would guess he does, but just isn't as slick a salesman as Martin.
Every school has its pros and cons - and some more than others, but I feel that the last two coaching staffs are definitely recruiting below Cals weight.
I don't expect Cal to have a top 25 class every year, but we should regularly be in the 25-100 range most seasons - regardless of our shortcomings. We have been well below that level for quite a while now.
Even known non-recruiter (Cal-era) Mike Montgomery got a bunch of 4 stars to come here. Allen Crabbe, Wallace, Bird, Mathews, D.J Seeley...BeachedBear said:I know you were responding to Calumnus, but I feel in terms of recruiting, that Cal is in the bottom half of over 300 D1 programs (i.e. worse than 150 other programs). Definitely in the bottom of the high major programs.Civil Bear said:Let's say you are right that Brown wouldn't have gone to Missouri: do you seriously believe Cal is easier to recruit? Guys with Brown's skillset (top 5 in HS) that consider themselves intellectuals don't come around that often. That's why Martin wasn't able to repeat it. In fact, some of the best players he recruited couldn't get accepted to Cal. And it's a good thing Rabb was from Oakland, because without his commitment we may not have seen Brown either.calumnus said:Civil Bear said:Guonzo has a worse track record at this stage in his career than Fox had when he came to Cal. Leaving the Bears with the cupboard bare, just like he did at Tennessee, is a part of the reason we are where we are now. Unless he could bring three 5*'s and a 4* as good as Brown, Rabb, Bird, and Wallace, I do not see how he would be an improvement.Big C said:
Sure, there's the lack of practice facility, the NIL situation and the academic restrictions. Making in-roads there will help pave the way for the future.
But the coach is always the most important factor.
Would love a younger Monty, a little better with the recruiting, or a Cuonzo, a little better with the offense. (obviously, at this point either of them, as is, would be an improvement)
Proof that, for a coach that embraces and sells Berkeley, Cal is a better place to recruit to and win than Missouri. Think about it: would Jaylen Brown ever have considered Missouri, even if Cuonzo were still there? No, it was the combination of Cuonzo and Berkeley that worked. Same with Rabb, who wouldn't consider Cal until Martin came here.
And how do you know Fox doesn't embrace and try to sell Berkeley? I would guess he does, but just isn't as slick a salesman as Martin.
Every school has its pros and cons - and some more than others, but I feel that the last two coaching staffs are definitely recruiting below Cals weight.
I don't expect Cal to have a top 25 class every year, but we should regularly be in the 25-100 range most seasons - regardless of our shortcomings. We have been well below that level for quite a while now.
https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/110786/0Civil Bear said:Hey shock, how about explaining where I am wrong rather than just spouting off like a d*ckwad.Shocky1 said:civil, you are ignorant as ****Civil Bear said:Guonzo has a worse track record at this stage in his career than Fox had when he came to Cal. Leaving the Bears with the cupboard bare, just like he did at Tennessee, is a part of the reason we are where we are now. Unless he could bring three 5*'s and a 4* as good as Brown, Rabb, Bird, and Wallace, I do not see how he would be an improvement.Big C said:
Sure, there's the lack of practice facility, the NIL situation and the academic restrictions. Making in-roads there will help pave the way for the future.
But the coach is always the most important factor.
Would love a younger Monty, a little better with the recruiting, or a Cuonzo, a little better with the offense. (obviously, at this point either of them, as is, would be an improvement)
it ur intent in spelling "guonzo" was not intentional, my apologies for the tone of my post
Yes all true on the comments as to Cal should be recruiting better than they have over the past 5+ seasons. Cal does have a few (but it is few) advantages to recruit too. Yes its a great academic school/world wide reputation(minimal importance though to most recruits), its also in a hip/college town area with immediate access to the better parts of Oakland/SF, high probability of early PT and it competes in a good Power 5 conference. The flip side and not to be understated as now its a different recruiting landscape (even comparing to Monty, Cuonzo, Jones etc ) where its nearly ALL about NIL packages. Players who come from poor families and thus feel pressure and obligation to support) weigh their decision on monies offered. No way a player takes $10K-$20K and thus turns down $100K+ elsewhere. "Money does not talk, it Shouts". Cal does not have a basketball only NIL program in place (though monies donated can be self directed). It's the rare top player now, who overlooks the NIL packages offered elsewhere, to choose a different option. It means taking a chance on the injured player who missed the senior year show case, an international player and finding a diamond in the rough player. It can be done, but extremely difficult. I do believe a HC who is familiar with Cal, has deep connections to the major donors and respected ties to the local leading programs would succeed at Cal. Final point - a practice facility is an important recruiting tool - and being one of just 4 programs nationally to not have one is a huge detriment. W/O one, its an easy negative pitch by other schools - "basketball is not a priority there, they don't even have a practice facility" etc. Bottom line - recruiting has changed significantly over the past.concernedparent said:Even known non-recruiter (Cal-era) Mike Montgomery got a bunch of 4 stars to come here. Allen Crabbe, Wallace, Bird, Mathews, D.J Seeley...BeachedBear said:I know you were responding to Calumnus, but I feel in terms of recruiting, that Cal is in the bottom half of over 300 D1 programs (i.e. worse than 150 other programs). Definitely in the bottom of the high major programs.Civil Bear said:Let's say you are right that Brown wouldn't have gone to Missouri: do you seriously believe Cal is easier to recruit? Guys with Brown's skillset (top 5 in HS) that consider themselves intellectuals don't come around that often. That's why Martin wasn't able to repeat it. In fact, some of the best players he recruited couldn't get accepted to Cal. And it's a good thing Rabb was from Oakland, because without his commitment we may not have seen Brown either.calumnus said:Civil Bear said:Guonzo has a worse track record at this stage in his career than Fox had when he came to Cal. Leaving the Bears with the cupboard bare, just like he did at Tennessee, is a part of the reason we are where we are now. Unless he could bring three 5*'s and a 4* as good as Brown, Rabb, Bird, and Wallace, I do not see how he would be an improvement.Big C said:
Sure, there's the lack of practice facility, the NIL situation and the academic restrictions. Making in-roads there will help pave the way for the future.
But the coach is always the most important factor.
Would love a younger Monty, a little better with the recruiting, or a Cuonzo, a little better with the offense. (obviously, at this point either of them, as is, would be an improvement)
Proof that, for a coach that embraces and sells Berkeley, Cal is a better place to recruit to and win than Missouri. Think about it: would Jaylen Brown ever have considered Missouri, even if Cuonzo were still there? No, it was the combination of Cuonzo and Berkeley that worked. Same with Rabb, who wouldn't consider Cal until Martin came here.
And how do you know Fox doesn't embrace and try to sell Berkeley? I would guess he does, but just isn't as slick a salesman as Martin.
Every school has its pros and cons - and some more than others, but I feel that the last two coaching staffs are definitely recruiting below Cals weight.
I don't expect Cal to have a top 25 class every year, but we should regularly be in the 25-100 range most seasons - regardless of our shortcomings. We have been well below that level for quite a while now.
this all makes sense but regarding the practice facility, I just think the decision to go for a 125M (or 80 if using p3) one is frankly ill contrived. Will take way longer, I just doubt we can raise 80M, at least not quickly. Plus it will be a headache with CEQA (yes all development in the bay is but I imagine this will be very annoying to deal with). Plus, you said it yourself- NIL is the name of the game now. Having a practice facility is like ticking a box, it's just a prerequisite, the NIL package is what is actually determinative of where recruits go. I can't imagine our practice facility will be able to push us over the top, plus it's years away anyways. Would MUCH rather see us build RSF rooftop light court (10-20M) and then direct another 5-10M towards basketball NIL- would set us up for a decade (500k-1M/class would make us nationally relevant I have to assume). We tick the box for recruits by saying we have a practice facility (nice SF views woohoo) and then we land the recruits with NIL.4thGenCal said:Yes all true on the comments as to Cal should be recruiting better than they have over the past 5+ seasons. Cal does have a few (but it is few) advantages to recruit too. Yes its a great academic school/world wide reputation(minimal importance though to most recruits), its also in a hip/college town area with immediate access to the better parts of Oakland/SF, high probability of early PT and it competes in a good Power 5 conference. The flip side and not to be understated as now its a different recruiting landscape (even comparing to Monty, Cuonzo, Jones etc ) where its nearly ALL about NIL packages. Players who come from poor families and thus feel pressure and obligation to support) weigh their decision on monies offered. No way a player takes $10K-$20K and thus turns down $100K+ elsewhere. "Money does not talk, it Shouts". Cal does not have a basketball only NIL program in place (though monies donated can be self directed). It's the rare top player now, who overlooks the NIL packages offered elsewhere, to choose a different option. It means taking a chance on the injured player who missed the senior year show case, an international player and finding a diamond in the rough player. It can be done, but extremely difficult. I do believe a HC who is familiar with Cal, has deep connections to the major donors and respected ties to the local leading programs would succeed at Cal. Final point - a practice facility is an important recruiting tool - and being one of just 4 programs nationally to not have one is a huge detriment. W/O one, its an easy negative pitch by other schools - "basketball is not a priority there, they don't even have a practice facility" etc. Bottom line - recruiting has changed significantly over the past.concernedparent said:Even known non-recruiter (Cal-era) Mike Montgomery got a bunch of 4 stars to come here. Allen Crabbe, Wallace, Bird, Mathews, D.J Seeley...BeachedBear said:I know you were responding to Calumnus, but I feel in terms of recruiting, that Cal is in the bottom half of over 300 D1 programs (i.e. worse than 150 other programs). Definitely in the bottom of the high major programs.Civil Bear said:Let's say you are right that Brown wouldn't have gone to Missouri: do you seriously believe Cal is easier to recruit? Guys with Brown's skillset (top 5 in HS) that consider themselves intellectuals don't come around that often. That's why Martin wasn't able to repeat it. In fact, some of the best players he recruited couldn't get accepted to Cal. And it's a good thing Rabb was from Oakland, because without his commitment we may not have seen Brown either.calumnus said:Civil Bear said:Guonzo has a worse track record at this stage in his career than Fox had when he came to Cal. Leaving the Bears with the cupboard bare, just like he did at Tennessee, is a part of the reason we are where we are now. Unless he could bring three 5*'s and a 4* as good as Brown, Rabb, Bird, and Wallace, I do not see how he would be an improvement.Big C said:
Sure, there's the lack of practice facility, the NIL situation and the academic restrictions. Making in-roads there will help pave the way for the future.
But the coach is always the most important factor.
Would love a younger Monty, a little better with the recruiting, or a Cuonzo, a little better with the offense. (obviously, at this point either of them, as is, would be an improvement)
Proof that, for a coach that embraces and sells Berkeley, Cal is a better place to recruit to and win than Missouri. Think about it: would Jaylen Brown ever have considered Missouri, even if Cuonzo were still there? No, it was the combination of Cuonzo and Berkeley that worked. Same with Rabb, who wouldn't consider Cal until Martin came here.
And how do you know Fox doesn't embrace and try to sell Berkeley? I would guess he does, but just isn't as slick a salesman as Martin.
Every school has its pros and cons - and some more than others, but I feel that the last two coaching staffs are definitely recruiting below Cals weight.
I don't expect Cal to have a top 25 class every year, but we should regularly be in the 25-100 range most seasons - regardless of our shortcomings. We have been well below that level for quite a while now.
Now I get that it is hard to convince donors to send money which would just go to paying players, but i'd argue its proportionately harder to raise 80 or 125M than it would be to raise 20-30 where most goes to a light court and a fraction to NIL. Pitch as an basketball revitalization plan- need like 5-6 donors to go in at 5M or 2-3 at 8 figures, majority of their money goes towards court construction, portion goes to landing recruits
I really just think the practice facility plan is misguided and attempting to win a battle that was pre-NIL. Plus I am skeptical that there are enough donors who'd go in at 8 figures for a fractional share of a practice facility that costs 80-125.
4th gen, that's just another foxcuse rebundled by knowlton & sold to the remaining donors
hoopers have been paid forever, jaydn told me he was offered 200k from georgia when fox was the head coach there among the dozens of under the table financial inducements
ivan got similar stories as does the bird, marcus lee, etc.
the primary reason there is no practice facility is because knowlton is trying to build a facility that will require almost ten $10,000,000 donations, what do you think the odds of that happening are with donors?
and it's only a ridiculously overpriced facility because knowlton is trying to include other sports instead of a simple basketball only practice gym
do you think jim knowlton is doing a good job & is he the right person for this job?
hoopers have been paid forever, jaydn told me he was offered 200k from georgia when fox was the head coach there among the dozens of under the table financial inducements
ivan got similar stories as does the bird, marcus lee, etc.
the primary reason there is no practice facility is because knowlton is trying to build a facility that will require almost ten $10,000,000 donations, what do you think the odds of that happening are with donors?
and it's only a ridiculously overpriced facility because knowlton is trying to include other sports instead of a simple basketball only practice gym
do you think jim knowlton is doing a good job & is he the right person for this job?
Great questions Shocky and thoughts as usual - but the practice facility request has been from All of the previous HC's. Yes on recruits being offered major $'s in select instances - Leon Powe was offered $100k by a SEC school and that was 24+- years ago. But those "deals" were illegal and could severely impact schools. Without including other sports there would be virtually zero chance to get it approved within campus and all of the necessary approvals and then the Chancellor sign off etc. Have to have a facility that benefits multiple uses (ie women sports too). Yes its ridiculously expensive, but I am in the commercial real estate business and see first hand the escalating construction costs - several factors: union required work, supply chain issues, inflation and California related tax/expenses. Its brutal - I upgraded a house for the football team and spent $550k on fairly basic needed upgrades (foundation, electrical, new bathrooms, new kitchen, new carpeting, new windows, painting, needed repairs as well) but that same work as an example was $250k+- 4 years ago. Have to give Knowlton big props for working all the necessary channels and being relentless to get the project to where it is. He has a very good relationship with the Chancellor and that was also key in getting support for the campus committee approvals.Shocky1 said:
4th gen, that's just another foxcuse rebundled by knowlton & sold to the remaining donors
hoopers have been paid forever, jaydn told me he was offered 200k from georgia when fox was the head coach there among the dozens of under the table financial inducements
ivan got similar stories as does the bird, marcus lee, etc.
the primary reason there is no practice facility is because knowlton is trying to build a facility that will require almost ten $10,000,000 donations, what do you think the odds of that happening are with donors?
and it's only a ridiculously overpriced facility because knowlton is trying to include other sports instead of a simple basketball only practice gym
do you think jim knowlton is doing a good job & is he the right person for this job?
Regarding some posters thoughts on some sort of "simple upper level/ inexpensive facility" air tight no frills etc. Far more expensive than the #'s thrown out, would not serve multiple sports, would likely be more difficult to gain approvals and the end product IF it could get built, would be cheesy and substandard. Do I think enough money will be raised? I don't know, but yes it is a Huge need and it has ongoing value/use and politically is acceptable. Interesting how the people who often don't put money up, criticize any progress
. I do think with a HC that would connect better to the key financial donors, that would increase the likelihood of the necessary funding being raised. Joe P has deep/important relationships for example. However He is content where He is.
I have been saying something related to this for nearly a decade now. Cal Athletics has WAY too many staffers that either never went to Cal or previously worked at athletic departments that are much more low maintenance than Cal (Ivy leagues, etc...). I have previously worked for Cal basketball while I was a student (I graduated 3 years ago) and I'm not overstating when I say that the athletic admin couldn't give a **** about the daily operations of any team. Cal AD delegates a lot of responsibility to team staffs, so much so that I wondered what in the world they do all day besides sit in their Memorial offices looking out towards the bay for hours.
But to get back to your point. I believe their is a reason as to why Cal has been largely unsuccessful across all sports the last 7-8 years. To give my two cents, as someone who would have daily run ins with several key AD personnel while I was a student at Cal, these people have been on cruise control for years. There is little to no eagerness to push the AD through thresholds that allow us to actually compete with the rest of the teams we play year in and year out. This level of complacency is rare in D1 sports and in my opinion its due to the fact that key AD personnel come in, slowly realize the unique and inherent challenges that athletics have at Cal, and become complacent in trying to fix a problem they see as unfixable and just collect checks. Just my two cents, but we've had LOTS of poison in our AD the past 7-8 years.
But to get back to your point. I believe their is a reason as to why Cal has been largely unsuccessful across all sports the last 7-8 years. To give my two cents, as someone who would have daily run ins with several key AD personnel while I was a student at Cal, these people have been on cruise control for years. There is little to no eagerness to push the AD through thresholds that allow us to actually compete with the rest of the teams we play year in and year out. This level of complacency is rare in D1 sports and in my opinion its due to the fact that key AD personnel come in, slowly realize the unique and inherent challenges that athletics have at Cal, and become complacent in trying to fix a problem they see as unfixable and just collect checks. Just my two cents, but we've had LOTS of poison in our AD the past 7-8 years.
Agreed, but its a combination of many factors - with relatively low total funding to support the key sports budgets the biggest factor (basketball is 11th in funds raised) and football finally (thx to Kevin/Greg etc) is making substantial in roads to 7th in conf funds wise (but that impact will occur over next 2 years not today). But yes, basketball support person to HC (and then to the donors/Excellence Club) is on person #3 in the last 3 years. Really hope that people support both key sports and attend as many games as their schedule permits - energy level has been understandably low.uplandbear said:
I have been saying something related to this for nearly a decade now. Cal Athletics has WAY too many staffers that either never went to Cal or previously worked at athletic departments that are much more low maintenance than Cal (Ivy leagues, etc...). I have previously worked for Cal basketball while I was a student (I graduated 3 years ago) and I'm not overstating when I say that the athletic admin couldn't give a **** about the daily operations of any team. Cal AD delegates a lot of responsibility to team staffs, so much so that I wondered what in the world they do all day besides sit in their Memorial offices looking out towards the bay for hours.
But to get back to your point. I believe their is a reason as to why Cal has been largely unsuccessful across all sports the last 7-8 years. To give my two cents, as someone who would have daily run ins with several key AD personnel while I was a student at Cal, these people have been on cruise control for years. There is little to no eagerness to push the AD through thresholds that allow us to actually compete with the rest of the teams we play year in and year out. This level of complacency is rare in D1 sports and in my opinion its due to the fact that key AD personnel come in, slowly realize the unique and inherent challenges that athletics have at Cal, and become complacent in trying to fix a problem they see as unfixable and just collect checks. Just my two cents, but we've had LOTS of poison in our AD the past 7-8 years.
Thanks for the clarification. I was recently advised to be more pressing and ask tougher questions so I am going to do that-4thGenCal said:Great questions Shocky and thoughts as usual - but the practice facility request has been from All of the previous HC's. Yes on recruits being offered major $'s in select instances - Leon Powe was offered $100k by a SEC school and that was 24+- years ago. But those "deals" were illegal and could severely impact schools. Without including other sports there would be virtually zero chance to get it approved within campus and all of the necessary approvals and then the Chancellor sign off etc. Have to have a facility that benefits multiple uses (ie women sports too). Yes its ridiculously expensive, but I am in the commercial real estate business and see first hand the escalating construction costs - several factors: union required work, supply chain issues, inflation and California related tax/expenses. Its brutal - I upgraded a house for the football team and spent $550k on fairly basic needed upgrades (foundation, electrical, new bathrooms, new kitchen, new carpeting, new windows, painting, needed repairs as well) but that same work as an example was $250k+- 4 years ago. Have to give Knowlton big props for working all the necessary channels and being relentless to get the project to where it is. He has a very good relationship with the Chancellor and that was also key in getting support for the campus committee approvals.Shocky1 said:
4th gen, that's just another foxcuse rebundled by knowlton & sold to the remaining donors
hoopers have been paid forever, jaydn told me he was offered 200k from georgia when fox was the head coach there among the dozens of under the table financial inducements
ivan got similar stories as does the bird, marcus lee, etc.
the primary reason there is no practice facility is because knowlton is trying to build a facility that will require almost ten $10,000,000 donations, what do you think the odds of that happening are with donors?
and it's only a ridiculously overpriced facility because knowlton is trying to include other sports instead of a simple basketball only practice gym
do you think jim knowlton is doing a good job & is he the right person for this job?
Regarding some posters thoughts on some sort of "simple upper level/ inexpensive facility" air tight no frills etc. Far more expensive than the #'s thrown out, would not serve multiple sports, would likely be more difficult to gain approvals and the end product IF it could get built, would be cheesy and substandard. Do I think enough money will be raised? I don't know, but yes it is a Huge need and it has ongoing value/use and politically is acceptable. Interesting how the people who often don't put money up, criticize any progress
Why not build two courts on top of RSF; one for men one for women --> Equality. Be clear to chancellor that we cannot raise funds (or will take way too long) for the multi-sport facility, much simpler to at least solve MBB/WBB practice court issue. How evil would the university have to be to force the department to pursue a goal that won't be reached just for the sake of theoretically helping a couple more teams?
Why would a light court on the RSF "likely be more difficult to gain approvals"? Do you mean by campus or by CEQA/CA legislation? I can't imagine a light court is more onerous to get thru regulatory stuff (if anything it would be way easier than a 120M facility) so I assume you mean campus approvals-- again, can't Knowlton make a really simple pitch that we cannot raise 120M for a facility, if we build 2 courts we equally help the MBB/WBB team. what psychos in campus admin would reject that because it doesn't help out the volleyball team or something?
Regarding it being more expensive than the #s we are throwing out- makes sense, was using 10-20M because i'd seen those figures elsewhere but I understand your expertise lies within real estate-- comparatively the light court has to be way cheaper than a full fledged multi-sport facility right? Even if the light courts would be 30, 35M then 80M must be WAY underselling the pricepoint even if done with p3. The point I'm getting as is that I just don't see 10+ donors giving away 10M dollars for a practice facility where they wouldn't even get their name on it or something. For a tenth of the share of funding, they're giving 10M dollars to make a practice facility... that doesn't sound enticing at all and I would assume most 8-figure donors would only want to sign sizable checks if it's going towards getting their name on a building/stadium, building something meaningful/extraordinary (which ours is not).
Finally you said that if we did build the light courts then it would come off as "cheesy and substandard" --> again I really want to ask if a practice facility does anything other than check a box in the post-NIL world. It really seems like we're trying to fight a battle meant for 10 years ago. What recruit is choosing a school with a super nice practice facility but giving them 20k in NIL over a school with an okay practice facility that essentially gives them a court to work on their game at any point, but 100-150k in NIL. They're choosing the latter I think.
I can't help but think we are going about it in the wrong way-- I think it would be so much easier if we dedicated 1M (yes I know easier said than done but this is comparatively NOTHING compared to the figures we're looking at for this practice facility) to NIL, paid 10 players 100k each over say 3-4 classes. With this we likely get top 30 recruiting classes for 3-4 years, we're making the tournament, donations are much easier to come by, and donors are much more willing to pony up for a practice facility.
Appreciate the work you're doing as always
You raise good fair questions and I don't know all of the obstacles, process etc. Suffice to say building 2 courts on top of an existing structure while creative, is not needed and with all of the earthquake requirements/extra materials sheer extra sq.ft construction the cost would very likely be $50M+ (sounds crazy, but the costs I see for commercial interior renovations/spec buildouts have doubled over past 2 years). A practice facility is definitely needed (not looking at this as an "either or" its a HUGE negative to recruiting (not saying NIL monies are less important) but when you are the only conference program and just one of four NCAA programs D1 that don't have one, its a hurdle to overcome that is bigger than realized. Nearly every approval is political on campus - is it helpful to different programs? Women's softball and sand volleyball projects are Exhibit A., how does this help women and men programs? questions arise. There literally becomes potential legal issues/due to the public nature of UC Berkeley if both sexes do not benefit. Having a multi purpose facility (gymnastics, improved nutrition areas, locker rooms, even larger weight rooms which are currently way too small, to accommodate multiple sports etc) carries a LOT of weight for sought after necessary campus committee approvals (and there are a large # of those that have signed off on the proposed facility). Also once its built - its an ongoing benefit for generations to use. By the way the construction time for a smaller vs larger multi purpose facility is at most 9 months difference - its the committee approvals, Chancellor approval, architectural drawings for review and modifications incorporated, submittal, City plan check approval (back and forth) permit issuance etc. That process is at least 4 years (but 2 years+- has been accomplished already). Then multiple union bids have to put out, received, and finally selected - likely after multiple"value add discussions" are weighed. Construction is likely a 2 year timeframe+-. Regarding donor level/interest on where to put funds etc - I don't know the appetite for substantial NIL monies (hopefully there) but from a personal standpoint for a larger donation - I would want something enduring for future programs etc and that is vitally needed. Self sustaining use etc. If I had extra funds beyond the financial support of the practice facility then certainly would help out for players. I am but one voice and not a mega donor, loyal yes and consistent donor, but not an 8 figure prospect. When I pass on, different story as I will plan to have a larger impact - hopefully that is 25+ years awayeastcoastcal said:Thanks for the clarification. I was recently advised to be more pressing and ask tougher questions so I am going to do that-4thGenCal said:Great questions Shocky and thoughts as usual - but the practice facility request has been from All of the previous HC's. Yes on recruits being offered major $'s in select instances - Leon Powe was offered $100k by a SEC school and that was 24+- years ago. But those "deals" were illegal and could severely impact schools. Without including other sports there would be virtually zero chance to get it approved within campus and all of the necessary approvals and then the Chancellor sign off etc. Have to have a facility that benefits multiple uses (ie women sports too). Yes its ridiculously expensive, but I am in the commercial real estate business and see first hand the escalating construction costs - several factors: union required work, supply chain issues, inflation and California related tax/expenses. Its brutal - I upgraded a house for the football team and spent $550k on fairly basic needed upgrades (foundation, electrical, new bathrooms, new kitchen, new carpeting, new windows, painting, needed repairs as well) but that same work as an example was $250k+- 4 years ago. Have to give Knowlton big props for working all the necessary channels and being relentless to get the project to where it is. He has a very good relationship with the Chancellor and that was also key in getting support for the campus committee approvals.Shocky1 said:
4th gen, that's just another foxcuse rebundled by knowlton & sold to the remaining donors
hoopers have been paid forever, jaydn told me he was offered 200k from georgia when fox was the head coach there among the dozens of under the table financial inducements
ivan got similar stories as does the bird, marcus lee, etc.
the primary reason there is no practice facility is because knowlton is trying to build a facility that will require almost ten $10,000,000 donations, what do you think the odds of that happening are with donors?
and it's only a ridiculously overpriced facility because knowlton is trying to include other sports instead of a simple basketball only practice gym
do you think jim knowlton is doing a good job & is he the right person for this job?
Regarding some posters thoughts on some sort of "simple upper level/ inexpensive facility" air tight no frills etc. Far more expensive than the #'s thrown out, would not serve multiple sports, would likely be more difficult to gain approvals and the end product IF it could get built, would be cheesy and substandard. Do I think enough money will be raised? I don't know, but yes it is a Huge need and it has ongoing value/use and politically is acceptable. Interesting how the people who often don't put money up, criticize any progress
Why not build two courts on top of RSF; one for men one for women --> Equality. Be clear to chancellor that we cannot raise funds (or will take way too long) for the multi-sport facility, much simpler to at least solve MBB/WBB practice court issue. How evil would the university have to be to force the department to pursue a goal that won't be reached just for the sake of theoretically helping a couple more teams?
Why would a light court on the RSF "likely be more difficult to gain approvals"? Do you mean by campus or by CEQA/CA legislation? I can't imagine a light court is more onerous to get thru regulatory stuff (if anything it would be way easier than a 120M facility) so I assume you mean campus approvals-- again, can't Knowlton make a really simple pitch that we cannot raise 120M for a facility, if we build 2 courts we equally help the MBB/WBB team. what psychos in campus admin would reject that because it doesn't help out the volleyball team or something?
Regarding it being more expensive than the #s we are throwing out- makes sense, was using 10-20M because i'd seen those figures elsewhere but I understand your expertise lies within real estate-- comparatively the light court has to be way cheaper than a full fledged multi-sport facility right? Even if the light courts would be 30, 35M then 80M must be WAY underselling the pricepoint even if done with p3. The point I'm getting as is that I just don't see 10+ donors giving away 10M dollars for a practice facility where they wouldn't even get their name on it or something. For a tenth of the share of funding, they're giving 10M dollars to make a practice facility... that doesn't sound enticing at all and I would assume most 8-figure donors would only want to sign sizable checks if it's going towards getting their name on a building/stadium, building something meaningful/extraordinary (which ours is not).
Finally you said that if we did build the light courts then it would come off as "cheesy and substandard" --> again I really want to ask if a practice facility does anything other than check a box in the post-NIL world. It really seems like we're trying to fight a battle meant for 10 years ago. What recruit is choosing a school with a super nice practice facility but giving them 20k in NIL over a school with an okay practice facility that essentially gives them a court to work on their game at any point, but 100-150k in NIL. They're choosing the latter I think.
I can't help but think we are going about it in the wrong way-- I think it would be so much easier if we dedicated 1M (yes I know easier said than done but this is comparatively NOTHING compared to the figures we're looking at for this practice facility) to NIL, paid 10 players 100k each over say 3-4 classes. With this we likely get top 30 recruiting classes for 3-4 years, we're making the tournament, donations are much easier to come by, and donors are much more willing to pony up for a practice facility.
Appreciate the work you're doing as always
. Not sure if I answered your questions, but an attempt at doing so. 
based on the construction projects I've been involved with in California $50M for a roof top court/facility is not out of the question, and actually could be more considering supply chain and labor shortage, especially because the current RSF was not designed for it, and it's not just an interior build out (the shell also needs to be built)
$50M sounds like a lot, but in construction it's surprisingly not.
Of course you could build a basic high school-type gym at a substantially lower cost (two baskets and a ball) if all you wanted was a court to put up shots or run a practice similar to the Gold gym
$50M sounds like a lot, but in construction it's surprisingly not.
Of course you could build a basic high school-type gym at a substantially lower cost (two baskets and a ball) if all you wanted was a court to put up shots or run a practice similar to the Gold gym
4thGenCal said:You raise good fair questions and I don't know all of the obstacles, process etc. Suffice to say building 2 courts on top of an existing structure while creative, is not needed and with all of the earthquake requirements/extra materials sheer extra sq.ft construction the cost would very likely be $50M+ (sounds crazy, but the costs I see for commercial interior renovations/spec buildouts have doubled over past 2 years). A practice facility is definitely needed (not looking at this as an "either or" its a HUGE negative to recruiting (not saying NIL monies are less important) but when you are the only conference program and just one of four NCAA programs D1 that don't have one, its a hurdle to overcome that is bigger than realized. Nearly every approval is political on campus - is it helpful to different programs? Women's softball and sand volleyball projects are Exhibit A., how does this help women and men programs? questions arise. There literally becomes potential legal issues/due to the public nature of UC Berkeley if both sexes do not benefit. Having a multi purpose facility (gymnastics, improved nutrition areas, locker rooms, even larger weight rooms which are currently way too small, to accommodate multiple sports etc) carries a LOT of weight for sought after necessary campus committee approvals (and there are a large # of those that have signed off on the proposed facility). Also once its built - its an ongoing benefit for generations to use. By the way the construction time for a smaller vs larger multi purpose facility is at most 9 months difference - its the committee approvals, Chancellor approval, architectural drawings for review and modifications incorporated, submittal, City plan check approval (back and forth) permit issuance etc. That process is at least 4 years (but 2 years+- has been accomplished already). Then multiple union bids have to put out, received, and finally selected - likely after multiple"value add discussions" are weighed. Construction is likely a 2 year timeframe+-. Regarding donor level/interest on where to put funds etc - I don't know the appetite for substantial NIL monies (hopefully there) but from a personal standpoint for a larger donation - I would want something enduring for future programs etc and that is vitally needed. Self sustaining use etc. If I had extra funds beyond the financial support of the practice facility then certainly would help out for players. I am but one voice and not a mega donor, loyal yes and consistent donor, but not an 8 figure prospect. When I pass on, different story as I will plan to have a larger impact - hopefully that is 25+ years awayeastcoastcal said:Thanks for the clarification. I was recently advised to be more pressing and ask tougher questions so I am going to do that-4thGenCal said:Great questions Shocky and thoughts as usual - but the practice facility request has been from All of the previous HC's. Yes on recruits being offered major $'s in select instances - Leon Powe was offered $100k by a SEC school and that was 24+- years ago. But those "deals" were illegal and could severely impact schools. Without including other sports there would be virtually zero chance to get it approved within campus and all of the necessary approvals and then the Chancellor sign off etc. Have to have a facility that benefits multiple uses (ie women sports too). Yes its ridiculously expensive, but I am in the commercial real estate business and see first hand the escalating construction costs - several factors: union required work, supply chain issues, inflation and California related tax/expenses. Its brutal - I upgraded a house for the football team and spent $550k on fairly basic needed upgrades (foundation, electrical, new bathrooms, new kitchen, new carpeting, new windows, painting, needed repairs as well) but that same work as an example was $250k+- 4 years ago. Have to give Knowlton big props for working all the necessary channels and being relentless to get the project to where it is. He has a very good relationship with the Chancellor and that was also key in getting support for the campus committee approvals.Shocky1 said:
4th gen, that's just another foxcuse rebundled by knowlton & sold to the remaining donors
hoopers have been paid forever, jaydn told me he was offered 200k from georgia when fox was the head coach there among the dozens of under the table financial inducements
ivan got similar stories as does the bird, marcus lee, etc.
the primary reason there is no practice facility is because knowlton is trying to build a facility that will require almost ten $10,000,000 donations, what do you think the odds of that happening are with donors?
and it's only a ridiculously overpriced facility because knowlton is trying to include other sports instead of a simple basketball only practice gym
do you think jim knowlton is doing a good job & is he the right person for this job?
Regarding some posters thoughts on some sort of "simple upper level/ inexpensive facility" air tight no frills etc. Far more expensive than the #'s thrown out, would not serve multiple sports, would likely be more difficult to gain approvals and the end product IF it could get built, would be cheesy and substandard. Do I think enough money will be raised? I don't know, but yes it is a Huge need and it has ongoing value/use and politically is acceptable. Interesting how the people who often don't put money up, criticize any progress
Why not build two courts on top of RSF; one for men one for women --> Equality. Be clear to chancellor that we cannot raise funds (or will take way too long) for the multi-sport facility, much simpler to at least solve MBB/WBB practice court issue. How evil would the university have to be to force the department to pursue a goal that won't be reached just for the sake of theoretically helping a couple more teams?
Why would a light court on the RSF "likely be more difficult to gain approvals"? Do you mean by campus or by CEQA/CA legislation? I can't imagine a light court is more onerous to get thru regulatory stuff (if anything it would be way easier than a 120M facility) so I assume you mean campus approvals-- again, can't Knowlton make a really simple pitch that we cannot raise 120M for a facility, if we build 2 courts we equally help the MBB/WBB team. what psychos in campus admin would reject that because it doesn't help out the volleyball team or something?
Regarding it being more expensive than the #s we are throwing out- makes sense, was using 10-20M because i'd seen those figures elsewhere but I understand your expertise lies within real estate-- comparatively the light court has to be way cheaper than a full fledged multi-sport facility right? Even if the light courts would be 30, 35M then 80M must be WAY underselling the pricepoint even if done with p3. The point I'm getting as is that I just don't see 10+ donors giving away 10M dollars for a practice facility where they wouldn't even get their name on it or something. For a tenth of the share of funding, they're giving 10M dollars to make a practice facility... that doesn't sound enticing at all and I would assume most 8-figure donors would only want to sign sizable checks if it's going towards getting their name on a building/stadium, building something meaningful/extraordinary (which ours is not).
Finally you said that if we did build the light courts then it would come off as "cheesy and substandard" --> again I really want to ask if a practice facility does anything other than check a box in the post-NIL world. It really seems like we're trying to fight a battle meant for 10 years ago. What recruit is choosing a school with a super nice practice facility but giving them 20k in NIL over a school with an okay practice facility that essentially gives them a court to work on their game at any point, but 100-150k in NIL. They're choosing the latter I think.
I can't help but think we are going about it in the wrong way-- I think it would be so much easier if we dedicated 1M (yes I know easier said than done but this is comparatively NOTHING compared to the figures we're looking at for this practice facility) to NIL, paid 10 players 100k each over say 3-4 classes. With this we likely get top 30 recruiting classes for 3-4 years, we're making the tournament, donations are much easier to come by, and donors are much more willing to pony up for a practice facility.
Appreciate the work you're doing as always
What "extra materials"? It is flooring on a roof with an enclosure supported by light metal framework and clear plastic walls providing for fantastic views of the hills, campus, San Francisco Bay and the City.
Locker rooms, showers vending machines and 24 hr access and security are already existent.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Give the savings to the players as NIL.
Yes that is correct, with "ADA" (American Disabilites Act" and foundation reinforcement code requirements - (thus extra materials/ costs increase and union prices especially in California are extremely high - all before the supply chain, inflation factors weigh in. Elevators required along with bathrooms double sets of stairwells etc. Costs would spiral to the point where building on the proposed ground to the Arena would result in a Far greater use/multi purpose facility at a surprisingly closer total cost(to a "stream lined roof added facility in RSF) than thought. But the main issue goes to the earlier points raised: required benefit to multiple programs, improved weight training facilities for both men and women (current layout is woefully inefficient and too small an area) and huge need for nutritional support, better Rehab support etc. Its a needed facility that will address multiple needs, plus satisfy the voices(campus committee's) who demand multiple benefits be spread around.HoopDreams said:
based on the construction projects I've been involved with in California $50M for a roof top court/facility is not out of the question, and actually could be more considering supply chain and labor shortage, especially because the current RSF was not designed for it, and it's not just an interior build out (the shell also needs to be built)
$50M sounds like a lot, but in construction it's surprisingly not.
Of course you could build a basic high school-type gym at a substantially lower cost (two baskets and a ball) if all you wanted was a court to put up shots or run a practice similar to the Gold gym
I worked with a government contractor to install a humidifier in an existing room. The cost was $90K even though the price of the unit itself was just $10K. I could have rebuilt the entire room for $90K and had money left over.
I read that Caltrans replaced a roof for a rather typical house they owned (eminent domain) and it cost $200K.
Don't compare private sector to government when it comes to facilities costs. Contractors see the government is paying and bid accordingly.
Government construction projects go to the low bidder with discounts awarded to local, women, and minority owned businesses. That said, responsible bidders need to factor in all the additional costs incurred due to the red tape inherent with government projects (additional staffing needed for more paperwork, inspections, environmental regs, community relations, ADA requirements, etc.), as does the government agency to monitor it all. Low-bidders also tend to be particularly adept at seeking out Change Orders that do not have to be competitively priced, which always drives up the final cost considerably.dimitrig said:
I worked with a government contractor to install a humidifier in an existing room. The cost was $90K even though the price of the unit itself was just $10K. I could have rebuilt the entire room for $90K and had money left over.
I read that Caltrans replaced a roof for a rather typical house they owned (eminent domain) and it cost $200K.
Don't compare private sector to government when it comes to facilities costs. Contractors see the government is paying and bid accordingly.
Featured Stories
See All
Mendoza Named ACC Quarterback Of The Week
by Cal Athletics
Bears Slip By Sac State, 83-77
by Jim McGill
The Rodcast: The Greatest Drive Ever?
by Rod Benson
Cal Hosts Stanford In 127th Big Game
by Cal Athletics