My point is not that we should eliminate women's sports. But that the main focus of our AD at this time should be strive towards making programs self sustaining. I understand that it is not easy to do but as we saw after the sport's cuts there are people out there willing to help drive us in that direction.

I was trying to strike at the reason as to why we won't have a highly paid BBall coach. We should strive to create an endowment for this issue like Stanfurd. The reality is that compensation for coaches and the cost of maintaining a competitive D1 athletic program are going to continue to rise. And if the university does have to cut programs b/c of funding issues athletics is going to come first (rightly so). My point is that IWW should heading that direction now before it really becomes an issue.

I also think we should change the way we give bonuses to our AD. For example, Sandy got $11 grand because the Men's swimming team one the national title. It seems that her only involvement in this is hiring the coach. I am well aware that these types of bonuses are commonplace throughout the NCAA. But maybe one of the ways we could set ourselves apart is by having our AD get bonuses when our grad rates are a certain number. We could also give a bonus to the AD if they raise a certain amount if money throughout the year.
The two main goals of our AD to graduate athletes and maintain fiscal responsibility. I feel that we need be innovative with our incentive structure. Because, let's face it does having men's swimming win the national title really move the needle in our AD money wise? It just doesn't make sense to me to have bonuses for a team being successful because the revenue generated wouldn't match.

LOL. If I was worried about my time and emotions, I would have switched allegiances decades ago! Thanks for the chuckle.

No successful small school BB coach is going to come to Cal, no matter the pay...be that Few, Smart, Miller, etc. Why?

I think it comes down to: a) control, b) recruiting, and c) an easy place a kid playing hoops will commit to

Small, private or small private school have a huge advantage for a BB coach. He only needs 12-15 players. Small or off the radar schools (VCU) get a huge lift off success of BB, so they'll let a coach do what he wants within reason. And lets face it, coming to sink or swim Cal makes a coach's job more difficult and for players it's like taking on two FT jobs at once...so you ask who or why would any one do that? Not a lot will. Even at Furd, the load will be easier even if the kid is fully qualified.

Why would any coach step into that?

Cal's best chance will be with an ambitious Pac-12 assistant coach, who won't fear things as much as others. (see Tedford)

socaltownie;842300033 said:

---

I wrote that to get a chuckle but I am serious about it. There are too many people at UC that simply think of sports as somehow "less serious" than things like...well....how about Women's studies. They would NEVER tolerate creating a program/department and not absolutely trying to be the absolute best in the country at it. They would identify and recruit bright faculty well respected in the field. They would demand at tenure review a loaded CV. They would seek excellence and invest in it.

Not so sports - even though both are endevours that are not about really creating direct connections to future employment (you can't get hired to "do" women's studies outside of a PhD in it...to make other PhDs) but rather teaching and molding individuals who will use those skills in other areas to lead productive lives.

---

Last time I heard the professed purpose of the University was education not sports. Seem to have left that out of your rant. Is it possible that despite throwing top dollar/vast sums at athletics at Cal they still will not come, and we will, as a result, be bankrupt? I suspect that is the worry. It seems like almost all the traditionally great college programs are in smaller towns with less competition from pro sports. UCLA is an exception---their ridiculously long run with Wooden cemented their success.

SouthBayPhenom;842300182 said:

---

What schtick?

GB54 said if Shaka Smart says no we should go after Coach K and Billy Donovan. I said it would make sense to at least approach Calipari as well, and he added Brad Stevens into the mix. I was actually pointing out that this would be a challenge this year (more so than last season) with the obvious point being he's coaching in the NBA now. I don't think it's likely but it's possible.

---

Your definition of "it's possible" reminds me a lot of an argument GMP and I had with a bunch of old(er) timers on this board about 5 years ago. We were saying Chris Paul could "arguably" go down as the best point guard of all time and I latched on to the word "arguably" to insist that we were correct no matter what ended up happening. (In my defense, I was studying for the LSAT at the time.)

I guess what I'm saying is, we're not going to get any of those guys as our head coach, but, to quote Kevin Garnett, anything is "possssibbllllle".

Its not that Smart won't leave VCU-its that he is in a position to leave VCU on his terms for a program of his choosing. I would wager that when he leaves it will be for a program that we all consider a "traditional power" and/or to a school with a really strong athletic department.
I want Cal to find the next "Smart," someone who, for the most part, is not known here on the board, but will soon be a hot up and comer...

we should hire him; no question. BUT that doesn't guarantee success. There are dozens of very hot "can't miss" coaches from mid-majors who flame out at the next level. Remember Dan Hawkins? Tore it up at Boise State, and was an utter disaster at Colorado. Not saying this would be true of Shaka, but just that it's always a crapshoot. Also, keep in mind that his VCU teams are 90% kids from Maryland, Virginia, and DC. It might take quite a while to get up to recruiting speed here.

socaltownie;842300033 said:

---

I wrote that to get a chuckle but I am serious about it. There are too many people at UC that simply think of sports as somehow "less serious" than things like...well....how about Women's studies. They would NEVER tolerate creating a program/department and not absolutely trying to be the absolute best in the country at it. They would identify and recruit bright faculty well respected in the field. They would demand at tenure review a loaded CV. They would seek excellence and invest in it.

Not so sports - even though both are endevours that are not about really creating direct connections to future employment (you can't get hired to "do" women's studies outside of a PhD in it...to make other PhDs) but rather teaching and molding individuals who will use those skills in other areas to lead productive lives.

---

In the world of academics, Cal is like Alabama (football) or Duke (basketball), we can attract top talent without having to do too much.

But look at SC (academically), yes they've improved, but they are still no where near us academically despite probably spending 100x more than us.

so i think we are trying to attain excellence in athletics, its just easier for some schools than others. just like not all schools can be Cal or Harvard or Stanford.

UrsaMajor;842300824 said:

---

Also, keep in mind that his VCU teams are 90% kids from Maryland, Virginia, and DC. It might take quite a while to get up to recruiting speed here.

---

I doubt it. He is a hot name and would likely garner immediate interest from kids and coaches on the west coast.

ducky23;842300829 said:

---

In the world of academics, Cal is like Alabama (football) or Duke (basketball), we can attract top talent without having to do too much.

But look at SC (academically), yes they've improved, but they are still no where near us academically despite probably spending 100x more than us.

so i think we are trying to attain excellence in athletics, its just easier for some schools than others. just like not all schools can be Cal or Harvard or Stanford.

---

I agree with this. Cal gets a "discount" for many hires because...well...it is Berkeley. But doesn't that mean, since we don't have a good reputation in revenue sports, that we need to reach DEEPER to be competitive?

Again, I have not too many problems with a future where Cal goes the route of UCSD. That institution made a choice to never be an athletic scholarship granting institution. But what I cringe about is rolling out programs that are underfunded compared to our competitors, penny wise and pound foolish on the coaching salary side and then get clobbered. Honestly it isn't fair to our ATHLETES.

Now that gets the hackles up of those that either retreat to "well we don't recruit dumb azzez" or "I pay a lot, what do you pay" arguments. Both seem specious. The first seems to lead back to the same place - if one can only compete by signing dumb azzez and you don't want to do so, then what is the purpose? We are never getting a time machine to turn back the clock to 1960 or pappy's era. College sports _IS_ big business and that is the reality. In the second, it seems to be to equate donations with agenda setting power - which s is fine but then the whales we shouldn't be surprised (or disparage) people don't spend hard earned money because they disagree with the philosophy of the whales and dont' really see the point of spending several hundred (if not thousands) of dollars to attend games where our boys are overmatched.

Civil Bear;842300841 said:

---

I doubt it. He is a hot name and would likely garner immediate interest from kids and coaches on the west coast.

---

Agreed. Smart would recruit like gangbusters on the west coast (all apologies to the long beach crips).

Vandalus;842300872 said:

---

Agreed. Smart would recruit like gangbusters on the west coast (all apologies to the long beach crips).

---

The Sex Maniacs (NorCal Asian gang) might take offense.

socaltownie;842300845 said:

---

I agree with this. Cal gets a "discount" for many hires because...well...it is Berkeley. But doesn't that mean, since we don't have a good reputation in revenue sports, that we need to reach DEEPER to be competitive?

Again, I have not too many problems with a future where Cal goes the route of UCSD. That institution made a choice to never be an athletic scholarship granting institution. But what I cringe about is rolling out programs that are underfunded compared to our competitors, penny wise and pound foolish on the coaching salary side and then get clobbered. Honestly it isn't fair to our ATHLETES.

Now that gets the hackles up of those that either retreat to "well we don't recruit dumb azzez" or "I pay a lot, what do you pay" arguments. Both seem specious. The first seems to lead back to the same place - if one can only compete by signing dumb azzez and you don't want to do so, then what is the purpose? We are never getting a time machine to turn back the clock to 1960 or pappy's era. College sports _IS_ big business and that is the reality. In the second, it seems to be to equate donations with agenda setting power - which s is fine but then the whales we shouldn't be surprised (or disparage) people don't spend hard earned money because they disagree with the philosophy of the whales and dont' really see the point of spending several hundred (if not thousands) of dollars to attend games where our boys are overmatched.

---

I thought UCSD was looking at moving up and adding some scholarship sports? Benefits cited are improved campus cohesion, [U]reduction[/U] in the athletics deficit, improved racial diversity and increased alumni giving?

I could see the backers of those sports, such as the Spiekers, then telling the university to just dump basketball and football, because those two sports don't have true student athletes. You would then be directly confronted with the question of whether those sports are necessary to drive academic donations to the university.

It's an interesting question, since SCT's position has been that the non-revenue sports should mostly be eliminated, because he feels the Missy Franklins of the world should be paying for college themselves, and that any acclaim the school gets for such sports is of little value.

calumnus;842300879 said:

---

I thought UCSD was looking at moving up and adding some scholarship sports? Benefits cited are improved campus cohesion, [U]reduction[/U] in the athletics deficit, improved racial diversity and increased alumni giving?

---

Here is the background. I should have qualified the stipend. I think right now that $500 equates to about 6% of the cost of attending.

http://collegeinsurrection.com/2013/01/at-ucsd-athletics-and-scholarship-have-healthy-relationship/

Jeff82;842300887 said:

---

I could see the backers of those sports, such as the Spiekers, then telling the university to just dump basketball and football, because those two sports don't have true student athletes. You would then be directly confronted with the question of whether those sports are necessary to drive academic donations to the university.

It's an interesting question, since SCT's position has been that the non-revenue sports should mostly be eliminated, because he feels the Missy Franklins of the world should be paying for college themselves, and that any acclaim the school gets for such sports is of little value.

---

To be precise, my beef is with the Missy Franklin's of the world receiving something of value (20K+) that is generated by the labor of kids from much harsher circumstances and who play a sport (football) which clearly has long term health impacts which the university does not address after the student gets out of school. In a world in which swimming was shown to be revenue neutral (or it could really be demonstrated that the giving of swim parents equaled/exceeded the value of the scholarships) I have no problem with it. Again, it is the transfer of wealth that sticks in my liberal Berkeley craw.

Jeff82;842300887 said:

---

I could see the backers of those sports, such as the Spiekers, then telling the university to just dump basketball and football, because those two sports don't have true student athletes. You would then be directly confronted with the question of whether those sports are necessary to drive academic donations to the university.

It's an interesting question, since SCT's position has been that the non-revenue sports should mostly be eliminated, because he feels the Missy Franklins of the world should be paying for college themselves, and that any acclaim the school gets for such sports is of little value.

---

If the non-revenue sports magically became self-supporting then the AD would generate a surplus and be a huge revenue source for the university.

Dumping football and basketball would be a financial disaster as we would still have to pay for Memorial and Haas whether we use them to generate revenue or not. We would not be able to be members of the Pac-12. We would no longer participate in the TV contracts or receive our share of the bowl revenues. It would be a financial disaster.

socaltownie;842300890 said:

---

To be precise, my beef is with the Missy Franklin's of the world receiving something of value (20K+) that is generated by the labor of kids from much harsher circumstances and who play a sport (football) which clearly has long term health impacts which the university does not address after the student gets out of school. In a world in which swimming was shown to be revenue neutral (or it could really be demonstrated that the giving of swim parents equaled/exceeded the value of the scholarships) I have no problem with it. Again, it is the transfer of wealth that sticks in my liberal Berkeley craw.

---

I'm sure you've addressed this before (i'm too lazy to look), but if you get rid of scholarships for non revenue sports and then keep bball and football, how do we remain Title IX compliant?

ducky23;842300935 said:

---

I'm sure you've addressed this before (i'm too lazy to look), but if you get rid of scholarships for non revenue sports and then keep bball and football, how do we remain Title IX compliant?

---

e Ducky, you don't. Title IX is part of the problem. I fully understand that my alternative has a snowballs chance of every being adopted - just that I think that the present system is grossly unfair to kids from lower socio-economic backgrounds that play football.

socaltownie;842300939 said:

---

e Ducky, you don't. Title IX is part of the problem. I fully understand that my alternative has a snowballs chance of every being adopted - just that I think that the present system is grossly unfair to kids from lower socio-economic backgrounds that play football.

---

Fair? The kids in non-revenue sports are far more likely to qualify than the kids who play football or basketball.
The sword cuts both ways.

Holmoephobic;842300948 said:

---

Fair? The kids in non-revenue sports are far more likely to qualify than the kids who play football or basketball.
The sword cuts both ways.

---

Hmmm....do you know that? At least one measure would be to take all...say Golfers and put them on a distribution of test scores/GPAs. We could then see where Cal admits fit on that distribution. We could then do that for scholarship receiving football players.

You need to do it that way because, odds are, that golfers "skew" higher based on the socioeconomics of the game at the elite High school level.