I propose this: If we don't show significant progress this season (winning record and upper third of the ACC in both basketball and football), then we leave the ACC and join the Ivy League, if they will take us.

This was an idea which had the support by a number of fans of Cal football way back in the late 1950's, when Cal recruiting violations got us in trouble with the NCAA, and really hurt our recruiting. It was years before Cal got competitive in football again.

The timing of this idea would be good, before we have thrown too much money down the drain for NIL, and Portal acquisitions.

The Ivy League is a Conference we could be competitive in, unlike the ACC, which will take years and loads of money for us to to achieve.

Players, parents, coaches, and fans are already comfortable with Cal traveling so far and playing in an East Coast Conference, the ACC. The shift to the Ivy League would mean less national prestige in those sports, but we are already at the bottom of the barrel in basketball. We might even be favored to win in most or all football games at the beginning.

We can do the usual and propose that Stanford join us. Cal and Stanford have long standing academic rivalries with several Ivy League schools. It would be a natural. Don't we have to stop thinking we are just a player or two away like Jason Kidd or Jaylen Brown and a coach like Newell, Monty, or Cuonzo away from our next NCAA Title? It ain't happening, folks.

And wouldn't you just love to stomp and get bragging rights over Harvard, Yale and the rest of those stuck up snobs?

Think about it.

I love the idea, but it will never happen because onward and upward is about as American as you get. And money. And going ivy brings none of those three.

While the basic concept of SFCB is within reason, I would agree with Stu that if we were to exit the ACC, to turn around and join a conference located in the east doesn't make sense. A conference on the west coast would make more sense. Except for the competition issue, the geography issue of the ACC has to be the second biggest factor. The irony of all this is that after the general feeling that joining the ACC saved us, after one season in the two major sports, many of us are having second thoughts on whether it was really the right move.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

While the basic concept of SFCB is within reason, I would agree with Stu that if we were to exit the ACC, to turn around and join a conference located in the east doesn't make sense. A conference on the west coast would make more sense. Except for the competition issue, the geography issue of the ACC has to be the second biggest factor. The irony of all this is that after the general feeling that joining the ACC saved us, after one season in the two major sports, many of us are having second thoughts on whether it was really the right move.

---

If Wilcox/Bloesch had not throttled the offense when we had 4th quarter leads we could have easily been undefeated heading into Dallas for a big matchup with SMU to determine who plays Clemson in the ACC championship game. It was that close.

Stanford hired Kyle Smith after we hired Mark Madsen and Smith won 21 games, finished in the top half of the ACC with an NIT berth.

Ron Rivera became available Jan 8. 2024. He wanted to come back to Cal so badly he eventually took a powerless advisor job. For the same money we are currently spending, Ron Rivera could have been our coach last season and be heading into his second season this Fall.

The ACC is still a great opportunity. We are just not making good decisions at the top.

calumnus said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

While the basic concept of SFCB is within reason, I would agree with Stu that if we were to exit the ACC, to turn around and join a conference located in the east doesn't make sense. A conference on the west coast would make more sense. Except for the competition issue, the geography issue of the ACC has to be the second biggest factor. The irony of all this is that after the general feeling that joining the ACC saved us, after one season in the two major sports, many of us are having second thoughts on whether it was really the right move.

---

If Wilcox/Bloesch had not throttled the offense when we had 4th quarter leads we could have easily been undefeated heading into Dallas for a big matchup with SMU to determine who plays Clemson in the ACC championship game. It was that close.

Stanford hired Kyle Smith after we hired Mark Madsen and Smith won 21 games, finished in the top half of the ACC with an NIT berth.

Ron Rivera became available Jan 8. 2024. He wanted to come back to Cal so badly he eventually took a powerless advisor job. For the same money we are currently spending, Ron Rivera could have been our coach last season and be heading into his second season this Fall.

The ACC is still a great opportunity. We are just not making good decisions at the top.

---

And we need more money to compete at the ACC level.

stu said:

---

calumnus said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

While the basic concept of SFCB is within reason, I would agree with Stu that if we were to exit the ACC, to turn around and join a conference located in the east doesn't make sense. A conference on the west coast would make more sense. Except for the competition issue, the geography issue of the ACC has to be the second biggest factor. The irony of all this is that after the general feeling that joining the ACC saved us, after one season in the two major sports, many of us are having second thoughts on whether it was really the right move.

---

If Wilcox/Bloesch had not throttled the offense when we had 4th quarter leads we could have easily been undefeated heading into Dallas for a big matchup with SMU to determine who plays Clemson in the ACC championship game. It was that close.

Stanford hired Kyle Smith after we hired Mark Madsen and Smith won 21 games, finished in the top half of the ACC with an NIT berth.

Ron Rivera became available Jan 8. 2024. He wanted to come back to Cal so badly he eventually took a powerless advisor job. For the same money we are currently spending, Ron Rivera could have been our coach last season and be heading into his second season this Fall.

The ACC is still a great opportunity. We are just not making good decisions at the top.

---

And we need more money to compete at the ACC level.

---

My point is, we don't, not really. At least in football (the more expensive sport) we had enough talent last season to challenge for the conference championship. Our collective had delivered 2 top 20 portal classes in a row. Coaching held us back, but not because of how much we spend. The problem is who we spend it on.

However, If we had better coaching and our donors were assured their money would produce wins, I am sure they would donate more.

calumnus said:

---

stu said:

---

calumnus said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

While the basic concept of SFCB is within reason, I would agree with Stu that if we were to exit the ACC, to turn around and join a conference located in the east doesn't make sense. A conference on the west coast would make more sense. Except for the competition issue, the geography issue of the ACC has to be the second biggest factor. The irony of all this is that after the general feeling that joining the ACC saved us, after one season in the two major sports, many of us are having second thoughts on whether it was really the right move.

---

If Wilcox/Bloesch had not throttled the offense when we had 4th quarter leads we could have easily been undefeated heading into Dallas for a big matchup with SMU to determine who plays Clemson in the ACC championship game. It was that close.

Stanford hired Kyle Smith after we hired Mark Madsen and Smith won 21 games, finished in the top half of the ACC with an NIT berth.

Ron Rivera became available Jan 8. 2024. He wanted to come back to Cal so badly he eventually took a powerless advisor job. For the same money we are currently spending, Ron Rivera could have been our coach last season and be heading into his second season this Fall.

The ACC is still a great opportunity. We are just not making good decisions at the top.

---

And we need more money to compete at the ACC level.

---

My point is, we don't, not really. At least in football (the more expensive sport) we had enough talent last season to challenge for the conference championship. Our collective had delivered 2 top 20 portal classes in a row. Coaching held us back, but not because of how much we spend. The problem is who we spend it on.

However, If we had better coaching and our donors were assured their money would produce wins, I am sure they would donate more.

---

You make good points, but based on the events that have occurred since last Saturday, things sure aren't going good right now - at least as far as football is concerned.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

calumnus said:

---

stu said:

---

calumnus said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

While the basic concept of SFCB is within reason, I would agree with Stu that if we were to exit the ACC, to turn around and join a conference located in the east doesn't make sense. A conference on the west coast would make more sense. Except for the competition issue, the geography issue of the ACC has to be the second biggest factor. The irony of all this is that after the general feeling that joining the ACC saved us, after one season in the two major sports, many of us are having second thoughts on whether it was really the right move.

---

If Wilcox/Bloesch had not throttled the offense when we had 4th quarter leads we could have easily been undefeated heading into Dallas for a big matchup with SMU to determine who plays Clemson in the ACC championship game. It was that close.

Stanford hired Kyle Smith after we hired Mark Madsen and Smith won 21 games, finished in the top half of the ACC with an NIT berth.

Ron Rivera became available Jan 8. 2024. He wanted to come back to Cal so badly he eventually took a powerless advisor job. For the same money we are currently spending, Ron Rivera could have been our coach last season and be heading into his second season this Fall.

The ACC is still a great opportunity. We are just not making good decisions at the top.

---

And we need more money to compete at the ACC level.

---

My point is, we don't, not really. At least in football (the more expensive sport) we had enough talent last season to challenge for the conference championship. Our collective had delivered 2 top 20 portal classes in a row. Coaching held us back, but not because of how much we spend. The problem is who we spend it on.

However, If we had better coaching and our donors were assured their money would produce wins, I am sure they would donate more.

---

You make good points, but based on the events that have occurred since last Saturday, things sure aren't going good right now - at least as far as football is concerned.

---

Whereas, on the basketball side, things are going swimmingly.

"Whereas, on the basketball side, things are going swimmingly."

Compared to the football team, one could make a case they actually are.

SFCityBear said:

---

I propose this: If we don't show significant progress this season (winning record and upper third of the ACC in both basketball and football), then we leave the ACC and join the Ivy League, if they will take us.

This was an idea which had the support by a number of fans of Cal football way back in the late 1950's, when Cal recruiting violations got us in trouble with the NCAA, and really hurt our recruiting. It was years before Cal got competitive in football again.

The timing of this idea would be good, before we have thrown too much money down the drain for NIL, and Portal acquisitions.

The Ivy League is a Conference we could be competitive in, unlike the ACC, which will take years and loads of money for us to to achieve.

Players, parents, coaches, and fans are already comfortable with Cal traveling so far and playing in an East Coast Conference, the ACC. The shift to the Ivy League would mean less national prestige in those sports, but we are already at the bottom of the barrel in basketball. We might even be favored to win in most or all football games at the beginning.

We can do the usual and propose that Stanford join us. Cal and Stanford have long standing academic rivalries with several Ivy League schools. It would be a natural. Don't we have to stop thinking we are just a player or two away like Jason Kidd or Jaylen Brown and a coach like Newell, Monty, or Cuonzo away from our next NCAA Title? It ain't happening, folks.

And wouldn't you just love to stomp and get bragging rights over Harvard, Yale and the rest of those stuck up snobs?

Think about it.

---

We are legally committed to the ACC through the end of the contract

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

I propose this: If we don't show significant progress this season (winning record and upper third of the ACC in both basketball and football), then we leave the ACC and join the Ivy League, if they will take us.

This was an idea which had the support by a number of fans of Cal football way back in the late 1950's, when Cal recruiting violations got us in trouble with the NCAA, and really hurt our recruiting. It was years before Cal got competitive in football again.

The timing of this idea would be good, before we have thrown too much money down the drain for NIL, and Portal acquisitions.

The Ivy League is a Conference we could be competitive in, unlike the ACC, which will take years and loads of money for us to to achieve.

Players, parents, coaches, and fans are already comfortable with Cal traveling so far and playing in an East Coast Conference, the ACC. The shift to the Ivy League would mean less national prestige in those sports, but we are already at the bottom of the barrel in basketball. We might even be favored to win in most or all football games at the beginning.

We can do the usual and propose that Stanford join us. Cal and Stanford have long standing academic rivalries with several Ivy League schools. It would be a natural. Don't we have to stop thinking we are just a player or two away like Jason Kidd or Jaylen Brown and a coach like Newell, Monty, or Cuonzo away from our next NCAA Title? It ain't happening, folks.

And wouldn't you just love to stomp and get bragging rights over Harvard, Yale and the rest of those stuck up snobs?

Think about it.

---

We are legally committed to the ACC through the end of the contract

---

If the ACC wants a jc team in their league, whatever.

stu said:

---

I'd rather stay on this coast and join up with Stanford, UC Davis, UC Santa Barbara, UC Irvine, UC Riverside, UC San Diego, and Cal Poly SLO. Same rules as the Ivy and plenty of games with them.

Unfortunately I don't think we'll ever get the donors to part with their "big time" football team. Since the Rose Bowl is gone I don't care anymore.

---

This.

That is the core of the decent basketball conference. Probably add St. Mary's and USF. Possibly USD and Pepperdine.

Football is a LOT more challenging but I am guessing back to the pac12.

but you are right. Essentially Cal athletics caters (it really does) to a bunch of guys in the 80s....many with intergenerational SF/Bay Area wealth that harken back to a time long lost into the ages and who refuse (or don't invest time) in understanding the new landscape. In some cases they HATE the new landscape and apparently wish to be crushed and embarrassed rather than competitive and then blame "the coach" for what clearly are mostly systemic failures.

stu said:

---

I'd rather stay on this coast and join up with Stanford, UC Davis, UC Santa Barbara, UC Irvine, UC Riverside, UC San Diego, and Cal Poly SLO. Same rules as the Ivy and plenty of games with them.

Unfortunately I don't think we'll ever get the donors to part with their "big time" football team. Since the Rose Bowl is gone I don't care anymore.

---

If we did move back to the West Coast, one option might be to return to the PAC12, which now includes Boise State, Fresno State, Utah State, and San Diego State, along with OSU and WSU, with whom we have traditional rivalries in football and basketball. It would be a conference where we would be very competitive, maybe even win with our current teams in both men's major sports.

SFCityBear said:

---

stu said:

---

I'd rather stay on this coast and join up with Stanford, UC Davis, UC Santa Barbara, UC Irvine, UC Riverside, UC San Diego, and Cal Poly SLO. Same rules as the Ivy and plenty of games with them.

Unfortunately I don't think we'll ever get the donors to part with their "big time" football team. Since the Rose Bowl is gone I don't care anymore.

---

If we did move back to the West Coast, one option might be to return to the PAC12, which now includes Boise State, Fresno State, Utah State, and San Diego State, along with OSU and WSU, with whom we have traditional rivalries in football and basketball. It would be a conference where we would be very competitive, maybe even win with our current teams in both men's major sports.

---

My list of schools may be less practical to realize but I think they're more compatible academically and possibly more inclined to go with the Ivy model.

socaltownie said:

---

stu said:

---

I'd rather stay on this coast and join up with Stanford, UC Davis, UC Santa Barbara, UC Irvine, UC Riverside, UC San Diego, and Cal Poly SLO. Same rules as the Ivy and plenty of games with them.

Unfortunately I don't think we'll ever get the donors to part with their "big time" football team. Since the Rose Bowl is gone I don't care anymore.

---

This.

That is the core of the decent basketball conference. Probably add St. Mary's and USF. Possibly USD and Pepperdine.

Football is a LOT more challenging but I am guessing back to the pac12.

but you are right. Essentially Cal athletics caters (it really does) to a bunch of guys in the 80s....many with intergenerational SF/Bay Area wealth that harken back to a time long lost into the ages and who refuse (or don't invest time) in understanding the new landscape. In some cases they HATE the new landscape and apparently wish to be crushed and embarrassed rather than competitive and then blame "the coach" for what clearly are mostly systemic failures.

---

Could you clarify this post a bit - When you wrote "Cal athletics caters to a bunch of guys in the 80s....",
did you mean guys who were fans in the 1980s? Or did you mean a bunch of guys who were in the 80-89 year old age bracket?

If it was the latter, then I would agree that we 80 year old Cal fans don't like, maybe do hate the new landscape. We do hate getting crushed. We can't stand it anymore. Do you expect us to give money? We come from a time when kids grew up playing amateur sports, with all the rules and principles that entails. And many of us continued that all our lives, playing in basketball leagues after college, and playing tennis or golf in later years. The prize was never money, and the players were never paid just for showing up. Nearly all of us were and are fans of pro athletes and pro sports. We can do both. We have respect for both. But now every 80 year old Cal fan I know personally has gradually stopped going to Cal games, and most have stopped watching Cal on TV.

None of them are of the Donor class. We are Cal graduates, and we all had season tickets for many years in both sports. I am a small donor, as the Environmental Design Dept (Architecture) was gracious enough to accept my gift of my architect father's (Cal Class of 1935) drawings, photographs, and his business files after he passed away. Then the Department ran short of funds, so I donate a small sum for maintenance and taking care of those drawings and records. I donate what I can, but it wouldn't keep one basketball player in shoes for a season. And I wouldn't give it to the Athletic Department if they asked. Not in the direction they are heading.

The same conversation must be taking place at a lot of schools who are not able to be financially competitive, especially since NIL has to be raised year after year after year. If tv ratings stay up, this chaos will likely continue since it was tv dollars that started the ball rolling in the first place. But fans in the stands, or lack thereof, will likely show what a disaster this has been for college sports along the way. After 60 years as a Cal fan with two Cal degrees, I have been shocked at how my own interest has quickly fallen off. I could see regaining interest in a UC Davis-type program. But I just can't get interested in the rent-a-player model.

Yes. It is guys in their 80s. You may not give but the haas family sure does.

But this group is stuck. It hates (for good reaason) the new landscape. But it won't take the time to understand that cheese has long since moved. In some cases (I think the swim and rowing mafia fit on here) they do not care that football and bb suck bit do care if conference change threatened those sports positions.

This is what frustrates me a bit on this board. Someone asked of i give up to easily. 56 years a bears fan. No rose bowl and 1 sweet 16. That ain't giving g up easily.

+1 And I would go as far as encouraging Cal Tech to put together an Ivy League level football team and join up as well. We'd have the west coast all-academic schools locked up and can call something less stodgy than Ivy league.

I'm not convinced that if there's eventually a 36-48 team super league for football, that Utah, UCLA, and even UW have the financial horsepower to make the cut. So, those teams would be potential opponents, as well.

socaltownie said:

---

Yes. It is guys in their 80s. You may not give but the haas family sure does.

But this group is stuck. It hates (for good reaason) the new landscape. But it won't take the time to understand that cheese has long since moved. In some cases (I think the swim and rowing mafia fit on here) they do not care that football and bb suck bit do care if conference change threatened those sports positions.

This is what frustrates me a bit on this board. Someone asked of i give up to easily. 56 years a bears fan. No rose bowl and 1 sweet 16. That ain't giving g up easily.

---

Well if it makes you feel better, Cal has gone to 3 Sweet Sixteens in that period

MilleniaBear said:

---

+1 And I would go as far as encouraging Cal Tech to put together an Ivy League level football team and join up as well. We'd have the west coast all-academic schools locked up and can call something less stodgy than Ivy league.

---

Yes, include Cal Tech. Call it the California Conference or the Poppy League or whatever.

HoopDreams said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Yes. It is guys in their 80s. You may not give but the haas family sure does.

But this group is stuck. It hates (for good reaason) the new landscape. But it won't take the time to understand that cheese has long since moved. In some cases (I think the swim and rowing mafia fit on here) they do not care that football and bb suck bit do care if conference change threatened those sports positions.

This is what frustrates me a bit on this board. Someone asked of i give up to easily. 56 years a bears fan. No rose bowl and 1 sweet 16. That ain't giving g up easily.

---

Well if it makes you feel better, Cal has gone to 3 Sweet Sixteens in that period

---

Why am I only remembering The Kidd team. Which ones am I forgetting?

(edit)

Ah yeah - the Braun team. Both of us wrong. TWICE. Google it ;-)