If we put $100M into NIL then a return of 2% over inflation would give us $2M per year for players. Maybe the return would be better, dunno.calumnus said:oski003 said:calumnus said:
Bruce Pearl Prioritizes NIL Funding Over New Auburn Practice Facility
https://www.athleticbusiness.com/facilities/practice-conditioning/article/15296957/bruce-pearl-prioritizes-nil-funding-over-new-auburn-basketball-facility
NIL > Second Practice Gym
Sort of, the men's and women's teams both practice at Auburn Arena, either on the main court, or on a side court when their schedules conflict or the main court is being used by gymnastics, volleyball, etc. This would have built a standalone, dedicated practice facility assuring both the men's and women's teams that they would always have a court when they want it and players can practice individually whenever they want. Pearl said he rather continue sharing the two courts at Auburn Arena with the other teams and instead have donors put the money into NIL.
New practice facility being approved?
9,315 Views |
65 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by tequila4kapp
stu said:If we put $100M into NIL then a return of 2% over inflation would give us $2M per year for players. Maybe the return would be better, dunno.calumnus said:oski003 said:calumnus said:
Bruce Pearl Prioritizes NIL Funding Over New Auburn Practice Facility
https://www.athleticbusiness.com/facilities/practice-conditioning/article/15296957/bruce-pearl-prioritizes-nil-funding-over-new-auburn-basketball-facility
NIL > Second Practice Gym
Sort of, the men's and women's teams both practice at Auburn Arena, either on the main court, or on a side court when their schedules conflict or the main court is being used by gymnastics, volleyball, etc. This would have built a standalone, dedicated practice facility assuring both the men's and women's teams that they would always have a court when they want it and players can practice individually whenever they want. Pearl said he rather continue sharing the two courts at Auburn Arena with the other teams and instead have donors put the money into NIL.
I definitely think the return would be better. Do the players really not like the designated courts at RSF for their individual workouts? If given the choice of a new facility or continuing to workout at RSF and get an extra $100,000 to $300,000 a year, which would they choose?
I still think given the above, if players need better access to RSF courts, giving them exclusive use of a court or attaching/adding a court to RSF, which has lockers and 24 access would make better financial sense.
However, donors can do what they want, it is their money. A new facility would be nice, sure.
In my limited experience with budgeting at an educational institution I discovered big capital projects were the easiest to get funded, small capital expenditures less so, supplies difficult, and support (personnel) nearly impossible
Maybe we should think of endowing positions, like faculty chairs. Imagine introducing a player as the "John Doe point guard".
Maybe we should think of endowing positions, like faculty chairs. Imagine introducing a player as the "John Doe point guard".
calumnus said:oski003 said:calumnus said:
Bruce Pearl Prioritizes NIL Funding Over New Auburn Practice Facility
https://www.athleticbusiness.com/facilities/practice-conditioning/article/15296957/bruce-pearl-prioritizes-nil-funding-over-new-auburn-basketball-facility
NIL > Second Practice Gym
Sort of, the men's and women's teams both practice at Auburn Arena, either on the main court, or on a side court when their schedules conflict or the main court is being used by gymnastics, volleyball, etc. This would have built a standalone, dedicated practice facility assuring both the men's and women's teams that they would always have a court when they want it and players can practice individually whenever they want. Pearl said he rather continue sharing the two courts at Auburn Arena with the other teams and instead have donors put the money into NIL.
Do we have a side practice court at HAAS?
oski003 said:calumnus said:oski003 said:calumnus said:
Bruce Pearl Prioritizes NIL Funding Over New Auburn Practice Facility
https://www.athleticbusiness.com/facilities/practice-conditioning/article/15296957/bruce-pearl-prioritizes-nil-funding-over-new-auburn-basketball-facility
NIL > Second Practice Gym
Sort of, the men's and women's teams both practice at Auburn Arena, either on the main court, or on a side court when their schedules conflict or the main court is being used by gymnastics, volleyball, etc. This would have built a standalone, dedicated practice facility assuring both the men's and women's teams that they would always have a court when they want it and players can practice individually whenever they want. Pearl said he rather continue sharing the two courts at Auburn Arena with the other teams and instead have donors put the money into NIL.
Do we have a side practice court at HAAS?
We did when it was Harmon. We have Hearst Gym, we have RSF, we have the gym at Clark Kerr….
Not saying Auburn's current situation is not better than Cal's, but you have to know Auburn would not have approved spending $80 million on a dedicated basketball practice facility if they really already had one (or one for both the men's te and the women's team).
Point being, Cal's team practices now. Cal's players have access to courts 247 to work on their game. A dedicated facility would be better. Spending that money on NIL might be more better.
Dedicated bball practice courts seem to be the new athletic performance facility, the new facility fetish. I hope they add more utility to the facility. Rooftop venue or pub, something.
movielover said:
Dedicated bball practice courts seem to be the new athletic performance facility, the new facility fetish. I hope they add more utility to the facility. Rooftop venue or pub, something.
They are the old fetish, used to impress and attract recruits before the NIL era. It is the weapon of the last war. Like the US spending huge amounts on battleships going into WW2 when they were already eclipsed by aircraft carriers, or the US spending huge amounts on aircraft carriers now when they have already been eclipsed by hypersonic missiles and drones….
We are in the NIL era now. That is the reality. We need to max out our NIL.
That said, I think a court on the roof of RSF, with a light see through enclosure, would be awesome.
What he said literally means between 1-6 steps need to be met. He used ranges of 5 for both lists. The most logical reading to me is that he doesn't know the exact number of each list but about 5 remain. If one item was remaining the most obvious and simple thing for him to say would be "everything is done except 1 last item."Pittstop said:
He actually said that there were "25-30 checkpoints that needed to be met", and that Cal had "already met 24-29" of those checkpoints. So that seems to be saying that if the number of "checkpoints" is 25, then 24 have already been met. And if the number is 30, then 29 have already been met. In either case, it sounds like they maybe only have one more to check off.
This makes perfect sense for a coach. Coaches know they'll almost certainly be gone within 3 years. They need to win now. That protects their current position and empowers them to land better next gigs.calumnus said:
Bruce Pearl Prioritizes NIL Funding Over New Auburn Practice Facility
https://www.athleticbusiness.com/facilities/practice-conditioning/article/15296957/bruce-pearl-prioritizes-nil-funding-over-new-auburn-basketball-facility
And like aircraft carriers, building dedicated practice facilities are about a lot more than what the perceived need is.calumnus said:movielover said:
Dedicated bball practice courts seem to be the new athletic performance facility, the new facility fetish. I hope they add more utility to the facility. Rooftop venue or pub, something.
They are the old fetish, used to impress and attract recruits before the NIL era. It is the weapon of the last war. Like the US spending huge amounts on battleships going into WW2 when they were already eclipsed by aircraft carriers, or the US spending huge amounts on aircraft carriers now when they have already been eclipsed by hypersonic missiles and drones….
We are in the NIL era now. That is the reality. We need to max out our NIL.
That said, I think a court on the roof of RSF, with a light see through enclosure, would be awesome.
I would think that until such time as fighter Jets and actual "aircraft" are no longer used by the military, then "aircraft" carriers would still have some utility.
Couldn't we just tart up Hearst Gym and call it a 'practice facility' until the Taj Mahal one gets funded and built?calumnus said:movielover said:
Dedicated bball practice courts seem to be the new athletic performance facility, the new facility fetish. I hope they add more utility to the facility. Rooftop venue or pub, something.
They are the old fetish, used to impress and attract recruits before the NIL era. It is the weapon of the last war. Like the US spending huge amounts on battleships going into WW2 when they were already eclipsed by aircraft carriers, or the US spending huge amounts on aircraft carriers now when they have already been eclipsed by hypersonic missiles and drones….
We are in the NIL era now. That is the reality. We need to max out our NIL.
That said, I think a court on the roof of RSF, with a light see through enclosure, would be awesome.
I have a feeling that in the next war all surface ships will stay in port or be sunk by missiles. Kinda like Russia's Black Sea fleet but worse against a better-equipped enemy.Pittstop said:
I would think that until such time as fighter Jets and actual "aircraft" are no longer used by the military, then "aircraft" carriers would still have some utility.
stu said:I have a feeling that in the next war all surface ships will stay in port or be sunk by missiles. Kinda like Russia's Black Sea fleet but worse against a better-equipped enemy.Pittstop said:
I would think that until such time as fighter Jets and actual "aircraft" are no longer used by the military, then "aircraft" carriers would still have some utility.
Exactly. Sure, aircraft carriers with manned aircraft are still useful for a show of force, especially for exerting our will over third-world countries, but they are huge targets: really expensive with a lot of sailors, pilots and expensive aircraft on board and can be taken out by small fast moving vessels and submarines with hypersonic missiles and drones and need to be protected by their own fleet of fast moving vessels with hypersonic missiles and drones. With the advances in AI that even the private sector has, the future is smaller, faster, mass produced and unmanned.
stu said:I have a feeling that in the next war all surface ships will stay in port or be sunk by missiles. Kinda like Russia's Black Sea fleet but worse against a better-equipped enemy.Pittstop said:
I would think that until such time as fighter Jets and actual "aircraft" are no longer used by the military, then "aircraft" carriers would still have some utility.
War against who?
The idea of aircraft carriers isn't to sit in port. It is to project power. So even with no allies in a region a floating Air Force Base can be positioned off their coast.
It's not that a country could not attack and sink an aircraft carrier as much as what the repercussions would be if they did.
Any country, even China, would be foolish to do that as it would be an act of open war on the United States. That would be a really dumb thing to do.
Now, if you want to argue that maybe some terrorists somewhere not technically affiliated with a nation state could obtain a missile and destroy a carrier - at port or at sea - then I could see that but ask Al Qaeda how well that tactic worked for them and their supporters.
dimitrig said:stu said:I have a feeling that in the next war all surface ships will stay in port or be sunk by missiles. Kinda like Russia's Black Sea fleet but worse against a better-equipped enemy.Pittstop said:
I would think that until such time as fighter Jets and actual "aircraft" are no longer used by the military, then "aircraft" carriers would still have some utility.
War against who?
The idea of aircraft carriers isn't to sit in port. It is to project power. So even with no allies in a region a floating Air Force Base can be positioned off their coast.
It's not that a country could not attack and sink an aircraft carrier as much as what the repercussions would be if they did.
Any country, even China, would be foolish to do that as it would be an act of open war on the United States. That would be a really dumb thing to do.
Now, if you want to argue that maybe some terrorists somewhere not technically affiliated with a nation state could obtain a missile and destroy a carrier - at port or at sea - then I could see that but ask Al Qaeda how well that tactic worked for them and their supporters.
Battleships positioned off the coast used to do the same. Aircraft carriers are good "symbols" of power, but if actual fighting ever starts they are now very expensive white elephants. The battle will be won by hypersonic missies and small, fast unmanned aircraft before the aircraft carrier can launch a handful of fighters. Arguing that they are easy to take out, but taking one out is an "act of war" (largely because it would be such a huge loss of American lives) then begs the question of their value in a war. Moreover, how does the US respond? With more aircraft carriers that are easily sunk or nuclear war and mutual assured destruction?
That is why the future of warfare, for good or evil, is more smaller, faster and unmanned. If instead of 1 aircraft carrier you deploy 1,000 unmanned high speed vessels each able to launch 1,000 tactical drones or high speed missies…. How do you attack that?
I agree carriers are useful for projecting power against adversaries who lack the means to threaten the carriers.
However as time passes more and more adversaries with not much to lose will acquire those means.
In the event of an actual war, like China invading Taiwan, I think out carriers would be sitting ducks.
However as time passes more and more adversaries with not much to lose will acquire those means.
In the event of an actual war, like China invading Taiwan, I think out carriers would be sitting ducks.
Mods, can we get this crap to off topic. Let's talk basketball.
Here's my attempt to bring this back on topic:
So like an... Air Raid offense you say?calumnus said:
That is why the future of warfare, for good or evil, is more smaller, faster and unmanned. If instead of 1 aircraft carrier you deploy 1,000 unmanned high speed vessels each able to launch 1,000 tactical drones or high speed missies…. How do you attack that?
parentswerebears said:
Mods, can we get this crap to off topic. Let's talk basketball.
We can tie the two topics together.
This is one idea for a practice facility:
Will that fit in Strawberry Creek?
philbert said:
Will that fit in Strawberry Creek?
I was thinking Berkeley Marina
Maybe we'll have a Biblical flood.dimitrig said:philbert said:
Will that fit in Strawberry Creek?
I was thinking Berkeley Marina
On the BI aside we've got a running semi-joke that thread derailers have to put a dollar in the CalLegends cookie jar. Some people here would have light wallets about right now.parentswerebears said:
Mods, can we get this crap to off topic. Let's talk basketball.
We'll need a large dedicated practice facility for this Cal legend.
0-11 nightmare.
Bobodeluxe said:
0-11 nightmare.
?
stu said:I have a feeling that in the next war all surface ships will stay in port or be sunk by missiles. Kinda like Russia's Black Sea fleet but worse against a better-equipped enemy.Pittstop said:
I would think that until such time as fighter Jets and actual "aircraft" are no longer used by the military, then "aircraft" carriers would still have some utility.
Colonel Douglass McGregor says there are two types of ships now: submarines and targets.
I can't think of a significant naval battle since WW2. Not that naval forces haven't been impactful, but not in the sense that many think of (battle of Coral Sea, Midway, North Atlantic).movielover said:stu said:I have a feeling that in the next war all surface ships will stay in port or be sunk by missiles. Kinda like Russia's Black Sea fleet but worse against a better-equipped enemy.Pittstop said:
I would think that until such time as fighter Jets and actual "aircraft" are no longer used by the military, then "aircraft" carriers would still have some utility.
Colonel Douglass McGregor says thete are two types of ships now: submarines and targets.
As for air combat, I can't think of a significant air conflict since the Iraq/Iran conflict. Most have been complete air dominance by one side in one day (US in Iraq or Nato in Balkans) or very sporadic, limited action as in Ukraine or Syrian Civil war.
And this is why Cal needs a dedicated practice facility for the Men's Basketball team. Otherwise, there will be nothing to protect them from drones, hypersonic missiles, aircraft carriers, F22 jets and vaccines.
Also, they need somewhere safer than their apartment to store all of their NIL money!
Good one!BeachedBear said:I can't think of a significant naval battle since WW2. Not that naval forces haven't been impactful, but not in the sense that many think of (battle of Coral Sea, Midway, North Atlantic).movielover said:Colonel Douglass McGregor says thete are two types of ships now: submarines and targets.stu said:I have a feeling that in the next war all surface ships will stay in port or be sunk by missiles. Kinda like Russia's Black Sea fleet but worse against a better-equipped enemy.Pittstop said:
I would think that until such time as fighter Jets and actual "aircraft" are no longer used by the military, then "aircraft" carriers would still have some utility.
As for air combat, I can't think of a significant air conflict since the Iraq/Iran conflict. Most have been complete air dominance by one side in one day (US in Iraq or Nato in Balkans) or very sporadic, limited action as in Ukraine or Syrian Civil war.
And this is why Cal needs a dedicated practice facility for the Men's Basketball team. Otherwise, there will be nothing to protect them from drones, hypersonic missiles, aircraft carriers, F22 jets and vaccines.
Also, they need somewhere safer than their apartment to store all of their NIL money!
Featured Stories
See All
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
Cal Wins Thriller Over Auburn
by Cal Athletics