dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

eastcoastcal said:

---

Big C said:

---

calumnus said:

---

udaman1 said:

---

The Mavs not making the playoffs after signing Kyrie would be a pretty big fumble. Are we waiting for Kidd at this point? Please yes

---

Maybe they reached out for advice and Kidd reiterated that he wants the job? One can dream!

---

I can imagine that, with each passing day of having Kyrie Irving on one's roster, the HC wants to keep his job a little bit less.

---

I think this is an intriguing strategy. Maybe we can get Shareef and Sean Marks to pull some strings and get as many toxic personalities on the Mavs as possible...

---

Mavs CEO Cyn Marshall is a proud Golden Bear and former Cal cheerleader:
https://www.instagram.com/cyntgm/?hl=en

Cyn would make a great Cal AD. Maybe we can get a package deal with Kidd?

---

Cal Bears having success all over the place except at Cal.

That is pretty typical for us actually. Our undergrads have a hard time getting into our grad schools and then kill it elsewhere, too. We have so much self-loathing.

---

It is not self-loathing. Our administrators are almost never Cal grads. Then they hire (and overpay) people who are also not Cal grads. The process that leads to the hiring of a chancellor is 100% focused on academic administration. It almost guarantees someone who is not qualified to oversee P5 athletics as well.

---

I would imagine the process of selecting a Chancellor at Cal is very similar to that of UCLA, no?

By the way, I think having an academic focus is the correct tack being that we are an educational and research institution.

I just wonder why we so often overlook our own alumni.

---

The Berkeley campus still has MUCH more academic prestige as a research institution. And the donors on the academic side generally do not put any pressure for athletic success. UCLA chancellors know that athletic success is very important to the UCLA donor community.

Compare the UCLA AD to Knowlton:
https://uclabruins.com/staff-directory/martin-jarmond/6865

UCLA's AD for the previous 17 years, Dan Guerrero, was a UCLA alum and former UCLA student athlete (baseball) who was previously AD at UC Irvine.

BearGreg said:

---

There's a lot of misinformation and poor reporting out there.

---

I have seen a sampling of your "insider" reporting for this coaching search.

CAL4LIFE said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

There's a lot of misinformation and poor reporting out there.

---

I have seen a sampling of your "insider" reporting for this coaching search.

---

Membership has it's privileges.

calumnus said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

calumnus said:

---

eastcoastcal said:

---

Big C said:

---

calumnus said:

---

udaman1 said:

---

The Mavs not making the playoffs after signing Kyrie would be a pretty big fumble. Are we waiting for Kidd at this point? Please yes

---

Maybe they reached out for advice and Kidd reiterated that he wants the job? One can dream!

---

I can imagine that, with each passing day of having Kyrie Irving on one's roster, the HC wants to keep his job a little bit less.

---

I think this is an intriguing strategy. Maybe we can get Shareef and Sean Marks to pull some strings and get as many toxic personalities on the Mavs as possible...

---

Mavs CEO Cyn Marshall is a proud Golden Bear and former Cal cheerleader:
https://www.instagram.com/cyntgm/?hl=en

Cyn would make a great Cal AD. Maybe we can get a package deal with Kidd?

---

Cal Bears having success all over the place except at Cal.

That is pretty typical for us actually. Our undergrads have a hard time getting into our grad schools and then kill it elsewhere, too. We have so much self-loathing.

---

It is not self-loathing. Our administrators are almost never Cal grads. Then they hire (and overpay) people who are also not Cal grads. The process that leads to the hiring of a chancellor is 100% focused on academic administration. It almost guarantees someone who is not qualified to oversee P5 athletics as well.

---

I would imagine the process of selecting a Chancellor at Cal is very similar to that of UCLA, no?

By the way, I think having an academic focus is the correct tack being that we are an educational and research institution.

I just wonder why we so often overlook our own alumni.

---

The Berkeley campus still has MUCH more academic prestige as a research institution. And the donors on the academic side generally do not put any pressure for athletic success. UCLA chancellors know that athletic success is very important to the UCLA donor community.

Compare the UCLA AD to Knowlton:
https://uclabruins.com/staff-directory/martin-jarmond/6865

UCLA's AD for the previous 17 years, Dan Guerrero, was a UCLA alum and former UCLA student athlete (baseball) who was previously AD at UC Irvine.

---

The Southern Branch rivals Cal in academic prestige. It receives a higher number of applications and has a lower acceptance rate. We need to wake up and realize we are no longer in the early 20th century or we will be left behind.

Southseasbear wrote: "The Southern Branch rivals Cal in academic prestige. It receives a higher number of applications and has a lower acceptance rate. We need to wake up and realize we are no longer in the early 20th century or we will be left behind"



The Southern Branch has a medical school and medical complex. Take away their medical school - or combine Cal with UCSF - and Cal stays firmly ahead of Westwood.

ncbears said:

---

Southseasbear wrote: "The Southern Branch rivals Cal in academic prestige. It receives a higher number of applications and has a lower acceptance rate. We need to wake up and realize we are no longer in the early 20th century or we will be left behind"



The Southern Branch has a medical school and medical complex. Take away their medical school - or combine Cal with UCSF - and Cal stays firmly ahead of Westwood.

---

UCSF has better teams.

What color is their laundry?

GoCal80 said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

ncbears said:

---

Southseasbear wrote: "The Southern Branch rivals Cal in academic prestige. It receives a higher number of applications and has a lower acceptance rate. We need to wake up and realize we are no longer in the early 20th century or we will be left behind"



The Southern Branch has a medical school and medical complex. Take away their medical school - or combine Cal with UCSF - and Cal stays firmly ahead of Westwood.

---

How many high school students consider the presence of a medical school when applying to 4-year colleges and universities?

---

You are confounding two different things. In essentially any ranking based on scholarly research output, UCLA is not anywhere near Cal.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2023/world-ranking

In terms of an undergraduate educational experience, there are many other factors. Although UCLA does not have nearly as prestigious a faculty as Cal, their classes cover similar material and the experience on the UCLA campus is different from Cal in many ways. It largely comes down to personal preferences when choosing an undergraduate campus

---

Southern Branch is quickly catching up in the nebulous "prestige" standard. (In some recent lists of best public schools published by US News, they were ranked #1 with us at #2.)

It is more popular now, and the average freshman class GPA and SAT exceeds ours.

Yes, "there are many other factors" which may affect their growing popularity among top high school graduates. Perhaps their commitment to athletic excellence (which is part of the student experience) may be one of those factors.

Cal rose to prominence as a great university in the late 1940's to early 1960's. During that time Cal faculty averaged winning Nobel Prizes at a rate of every other year. Cal also went to 4 Rose Bowls, 2 NCAA championship games (winning one), and won 2 College World Series. The Southern Branch understands this. So does Michigan, Washington, Stanford, etc.

US News rankings are based on undergraduate educational experience offered by a campus, not excellence in research. I think that the competition in this ranking between Cal and UCLA can hopefully push both campuses to make improvements. Cal is the worst UC for ability to house its undergraduates, but has made addressing this issue a major priority.

Research output is a major economic driver for the state. Education is also an economic driver and a path for social mobility.

And...pick your favorite undergraduate education ranking: https://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/

Med Schools mean money for the campus - sometimes lots of money. I understood rankings reflected money.

southseasbear said:

---

GoCal80 said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

ncbears said:

---

Southseasbear wrote: "The Southern Branch rivals Cal in academic prestige. It receives a higher number of applications and has a lower acceptance rate. We need to wake up and realize we are no longer in the early 20th century or we will be left behind"



The Southern Branch has a medical school and medical complex. Take away their medical school - or combine Cal with UCSF - and Cal stays firmly ahead of Westwood.

---

How many high school students consider the presence of a medical school when applying to 4-year colleges and universities?

---

You are confounding two different things. In essentially any ranking based on scholarly research output, UCLA is not anywhere near Cal.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/rankings
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2023/world-ranking

In terms of an undergraduate educational experience, there are many other factors. Although UCLA does not have nearly as prestigious a faculty as Cal, their classes cover similar material and the experience on the UCLA campus is different from Cal in many ways. It largely comes down to personal preferences when choosing an undergraduate campus

---

Southern Branch is quickly catching up in the nebulous "prestige" standard. (In some recent lists of best public schools published by US News, they were ranked #1 with us at #2.)

It is more popular now, and the average freshman class GPA and SAT exceeds ours.

Yes, "there are many other factors" which may affect their growing popularity among top high school graduates. Perhaps their commitment to athletic excellence (which is part of the student experience) may be one of those factors.

Cal rose to prominence as a great university in the late 1940's to early 1960's. During that time Cal faculty averaged winning Nobel Prizes at a rate of every other year. Cal also went to 4 Rose Bowls, 2 NCAA championship games (winning one), and won 2 College World Series. The Southern Branch understands this. So does Michigan, Washington, Stanford, etc.

---

The point I was making is NOT about undergraduate education and the various rankings. It is only somewhat graduate educational rankings. It is academic prestige, as evaluated by other academics. If you are faculty member with your research published in a scholarly journal, if you want a Nobel Prize, you still want "Berkeley" next to your name. THAT is more clearly the culture of Cal and the administrators are hired to satisfy that constituency. Knowledge of athletics plays no role in that selection process and so the process is likely to produce the opposite: a chancellor who has no knowledge of athletics and/or is even hostile to athletics.

UCLA has a different constituency. Performing arts and athletics are a big part of UCLA's donor culture. They hire chancellors who will pay attention to those aspects in addition to academics.

This. But also the influence of Chancellor young and the strength of the Chancellor office. A big challenge for cal has been that ist Chancellor have been short in tenure and not great. Faculty senate likes it that way. If you look at campus builders they all have taken about 10 years to hit stride. Let's see if they get a good once post christ.