socaliganbear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

I agree with SFCity that this "arms race" of facilities is absurd and a waste of $$ that could be better spent elsewhere. Unfortunately it is the lay of the land right now, and kids take that kind of thing seriously.

Before the Legends Aquatic Center was built, Cal had among the worst swimming facilities of any top-flight program and all we did was win 6 natties combined in 7 years. The Women's program had as their slogan: "Blue collars; gold medals." I wish other teams would adopt that mantra.

---

In revenue sports, you don't need to build Oregon's facilities. But you can't have among the worst either. Some people still think keeping up to date facilities is about gaining an edge. It's not. It's about eliminating a potential liability. USF did not spend a fortune building their very nice locker rooms, yet it's miles ahead of what we have.

Cal is never going to get the players that chase the biggest, most expensive shiny thing. However, Cal does lose players who aren't convinced we're fully invested in running a legit p5 program, all they have to do is look around and see the lack of commitment.

And basketball, or football for that matter, can adopt that old aquatic philosophy when they become sports of the top middle and upper class and their $$$ pro leagues cease to be the main objective.

---

Sorry, but I call BS on this socaliganbear. I've been in our locker rooms and they are not as bad as you suggest to the point of significantly impacting recruting (they were upgrade during the Braun era about 12 years ago). While there are significant disparities around a dedicated practice facility, the locker room is not the problem (nor is the weight room, equipment, others).

Now, the football locker rooms before the remodel were actually bad enough to impact recruiting.

---

Then you are out of touch. It's not good. Again, USF has a much better locker room than Cal. Also, please note that I said the lack of apparent commitment is a detriment to recruitment. I did not say the locker room specifically is "significantly impacting recruting".

USF's locker rooms would be a major upgrade over what we have. And STILL those would be no where near what a program like.... Utah has.

---

It wouldn't be the first time that 'out of touch' best describes me. So educate me on the specifics of the CURRENT locker room vs USF, Utah and what we spend a few hundred grand on 12 years ago. What I saw in the video is not that different than what I saw in Cal's locker room then.

We DO agree on the commitment thing, I just thing locker rooms weaken your point.

BeachedBear said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

BeachedBear said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

I agree with SFCity that this "arms race" of facilities is absurd and a waste of $$ that could be better spent elsewhere. Unfortunately it is the lay of the land right now, and kids take that kind of thing seriously.

Before the Legends Aquatic Center was built, Cal had among the worst swimming facilities of any top-flight program and all we did was win 6 natties combined in 7 years. The Women's program had as their slogan: "Blue collars; gold medals." I wish other teams would adopt that mantra.

---

In revenue sports, you don't need to build Oregon's facilities. But you can't have among the worst either. Some people still think keeping up to date facilities is about gaining an edge. It's not. It's about eliminating a potential liability. USF did not spend a fortune building their very nice locker rooms, yet it's miles ahead of what we have.

Cal is never going to get the players that chase the biggest, most expensive shiny thing. However, Cal does lose players who aren't convinced we're fully invested in running a legit p5 program, all they have to do is look around and see the lack of commitment.

And basketball, or football for that matter, can adopt that old aquatic philosophy when they become sports of the top middle and upper class and their $$$ pro leagues cease to be the main objective.

---

Sorry, but I call BS on this socaliganbear. I've been in our locker rooms and they are not as bad as you suggest to the point of significantly impacting recruting (they were upgrade during the Braun era about 12 years ago). While there are significant disparities around a dedicated practice facility, the locker room is not the problem (nor is the weight room, equipment, others).

Now, the football locker rooms before the remodel were actually bad enough to impact recruiting.

---

Then you are out of touch. It's not good. Again, USF has a much better locker room than Cal. Also, please note that I said the lack of apparent commitment is a detriment to recruitment. I did not say the locker room specifically is "significantly impacting recruting".

USF's locker rooms would be a major upgrade over what we have. And STILL those would be no where near what a program like.... Utah has.

---

It wouldn't be the first time that 'out of touch' best describes me. So educate me on the specifics of the CURRENT locker room vs USF, Utah and what we spend a few hundred grand on 12 years ago. What I saw in the video is not that different than what I saw in Cal's locker room then.

We DO agree on the commitment thing, I just thing locker rooms weaken your point.

---

University of San Francisco:


University of California


Cal "upgraded" the locker rooms under Cuonzo by putting up new signage and paint.

socaliganbear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

I agree with SFCity that this "arms race" of facilities is absurd and a waste of $$ that could be better spent elsewhere. Unfortunately it is the lay of the land right now, and kids take that kind of thing seriously.

Before the Legends Aquatic Center was built, Cal had among the worst swimming facilities of any top-flight program and all we did was win 6 natties combined in 7 years. The Women's program had as their slogan: "Blue collars; gold medals." I wish other teams would adopt that mantra.

---

In revenue sports, you don't need to build Oregon's facilities. But you can't have among the worst either. Some people still think keeping up to date facilities is about gaining an edge. It's not. It's about eliminating a potential liability. USF did not spend a fortune building their very nice locker rooms, yet it's miles ahead of what we have.

Cal is never going to get the players that chase the biggest, most expensive shiny thing. However, Cal does lose players who aren't convinced we're fully invested in running a legit p5 program, all they have to do is look around and see the lack of commitment.

And basketball, or football for that matter, can adopt that old aquatic philosophy when they become sports of the top middle and upper class and their $$$ pro leagues cease to be the main objective.

---

I would argue that the hiring and retaining of Jones (and to a lesser extent, BB in FB) sends a far stronger message about Cal's indifference (or hostility) toward quality P5 revenue sports than the locker room.

First things first, Cal need to clean up its filthy, dilapidated house, clean out the vermin and stock some food in the fridge on a regular basis. Then we can talk about remodeling the kitchen. Right now we'd just be giving the rats and cockroaches a nicer home.

Uthaithani said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

I agree with SFCity that this "arms race" of facilities is absurd and a waste of $$ that could be better spent elsewhere. Unfortunately it is the lay of the land right now, and kids take that kind of thing seriously.

Before the Legends Aquatic Center was built, Cal had among the worst swimming facilities of any top-flight program and all we did was win 6 natties combined in 7 years. The Women's program had as their slogan: "Blue collars; gold medals." I wish other teams would adopt that mantra.

---

In revenue sports, you don't need to build Oregon's facilities. But you can't have among the worst either. Some people still think keeping up to date facilities is about gaining an edge. It's not. It's about eliminating a potential liability. USF did not spend a fortune building their very nice locker rooms, yet it's miles ahead of what we have.

Cal is never going to get the players that chase the biggest, most expensive shiny thing. However, Cal does lose players who aren't convinced we're fully invested in running a legit p5 program, all they have to do is look around and see the lack of commitment.

And basketball, or football for that matter, can adopt that old aquatic philosophy when they become sports of the top middle and upper class and their $$$ pro leagues cease to be the main objective.

---

I would argue that the hiring and retaining of Jones (and to a lesser extent, BB in FB) sends a far stronger message about Cal's indifference (or hostility) toward quality P5 revenue sports than the locker room.

First things first, Cal need to clean up its filthy, dilapidated house, clean out the vermin and stock some food in the fridge on a regular basis. Then we can talk about remodeling the kitchen. Right now we'd just be giving the rats and cockroaches a nicer home.

---

Agree. Cal needs to invest in the right people, first and foremost. All other considerations are secondary right now. If the current MBB coach is retained after this season, donors and season ticket holders should take that as confirmation that hiring and retention in the AD is driven be politics over performance/achievement.

socaliganbear said:

---

Then you are out of touch. It's not good. Again, USF has a much better locker room than Cal.

---

What percentage of programs have a locker room as nice as USF?

Civil Bear said:

---

socaliganbear said:

---

Then you are out of touch. It's not good. Again, USF has a much better locker room than Cal.

---

What percentage of programs have a locker room as nice as USF?

---

It's probably very high. And the percentage who have either a great locker room or dedicated practice facility is prob near 90%. At least in p6.