Intuit said:

---

Sunshine, sunscreen and a healthy tan

---

AND visually pleasing co-eds.

Intuit said:

---

Sunshine, sunscreen and a healthy tan

---

Well how about the Wildcats? Plus the girls are smarter.

GBear4Life said:

---

I get that he probably doesn't intend to be in school for 4 years but c'mon.

What is Bobby Hurley selling over there?????

---

What do we have to sell any more? Lol - we aren't even in the top 25 academically anymore

GBear4Life said:

---

I get that he probably doesn't intend to be in school for 4 years but c'mon.

What is Bobby Hurley selling over there?????

---

Answer: Some of the best sports facilities in the country, $20 million, 103,000 square foot practice facility and a great arena for basketball for openers, and a huge fitness center. The difference is they have land to expand, and they have the money to do it, with a great fan base. Plus, Hurley has the program on the upswing, the energy is positive. Hurley took over a program from a pretty good coach, and is now making his own mark. Plus Hurley was one of the best point guards ever, a well known basketball figure nationally. It will be easier for him to recruit at ASU, without even going in to things like entrance requirements. It's a jock school. Always has been. Compared to Cal, where we were in the depths of despair for two years, and are now waiting to see what a new coach and some new players will bring.

Co-eds?

75bear said:

---

Co-eds?

---

Right also. The Phoenix airport seems to have more beautiful girls than any other I've visited.

ASU has a lot of relatively cheaper land, and building costs also lower there

They are building an entertainment complex right next to their stadium which will be a fun and vibrant site for visitors, game day atmosphere and would likely be a selling point to recruits

On the other hand, I thought the ASU campus itself was unimpressive, and not much better than many California JCs

Bottom line is ASU has recruiting advantages. The concept of a 'level playing field' is just not the reality

fat_slice said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

I get that he probably doesn't intend to be in school for 4 years but c'mon.

What is Bobby Hurley selling over there?????

---

What do we have to sell any more? Lol - we aren't even in the top 25 academically anymore

---

I think those academic rankings may have become more about the cost to get a degree at an institution than the excellence of the instruction a student can receive there. Thus more expensive private schools lead the pack by wider margins now.

stu said:

---

FWIW I'm glad we're not trying to be ASU. I follow Cal basketball only because I got my degree at Cal. I could have attended a school with better sports programs or more focus on undergraduates or a more tranquil setting but I wouldn't trade my Cal experience for anything.

A few years ago a kid our women's team was recruiting decided to go elsewhere. Among other things she commented she wanted to be "the face of the university". To me the face of our university is the row of parking spaces reserved for Nobel Laureates. I want student athletes who are comfortable with that.

---

Well said.

stu said:

---

FWIW I'm glad we're not trying to be ASU. I follow Cal basketball only because I got my degree at Cal. I could have attended a school with better sports programs or more focus on undergraduates or a more tranquil setting but I wouldn't trade my Cal experience for anything.

A few years ago a kid our women's team was recruiting decided to go elsewhere. Among other things she commented she wanted to be "the face of the university". To me the face of our university is the row of parking spaces reserved for Nobel Laureates. I want student athletes who are comfortable with that.

---

What is ASU trying to be like? A university with resources on par with their counterparts? What's wrong with that.

I see posts like yours all the time, and I'm sure you mean well, but I'd guess it's perceived by most, particularly non Cal folks, as excruciatingly sanctimonious and bigotry of low expectations. "Hey, we haven't been very good, and may not ever be, so let's just always fall on academic reputation".

These are not mutually exclusive. That female recruit's comment was really stupid. "Face of the university". I don't know what that even means, except that it's assuredly delusional. It's a red herring to the fact that Cal didn't get her and there wouldn't have been anything wrong with getting her. Getting good players or investing in resources to support athletic success does not require abandoning the academic values or culture of the university at large. And that's even if academic standards are lowered for athletes (which in my view is GOOD thing).

What ASU is simply investing in resources in an effort to increase revenue and ROI.

This is what any competent school should be doing. That doesn't mean going tit for tat with every program on facilities. But generally, that should be what schools are doing and it IS what Cal is doing to a certain extent.

GBear4Life said:

---

What ASU is simply investing in resources in an effort to increase revenue and ROI.

This is what any competent school should be doing. That doesn't mean going tit for tat with every program on facilities. But generally, that should be what schools are doing and it IS what Cal is doing to a certain extent.

---

Well, tearing down fabled Edwards Stadium with no replacement venue does not look good for both of the track and field teams. Edwards held 22,000 fans, and once was the largest facility in the country dedicated solely to track and field. If no plan comes forth for a Cal track and field facility, I expect it will affect the ability of those coaches to recruit. Not only those teams, but it could affect in a small way the occasional great athlete who plays football or basketball, but also wants to compete in track and field for Cal might choose a school that has their own track and field facility. The list of Cal football and basketball players who also excelled at Cal in track and field includes Brick Muller, Grover Klemmer, Clarence Johnson, Isaac Curtis, Wesley Walker, Jack Yerman, Chuck Hanger, Mike White, Khalfani Muhammad, and more. Many of Cal's footballers and basketballers who played two sports also played baseball at Cal. I figure Evans Diamond will be the next sports stadium to be scrapped, presenting similar problems in finding a place to play and players to recruit.

GBear4Life said:

---

What ASU is simply investing in resources in an effort to increase revenue and ROI.

This is what any competent school should be doing. That doesn't mean going tit for tat with every program on facilities. But generally, that should be what schools are doing and it IS what Cal is doing to a certain extent.

---

I disagree. That is not what ASU is doing. There is no way in hell they are getting positive ROI on a $20M practice facility for basketball. Look at the revenue Pac-12 schools make on basketball. Subtract out the revenue that they make by just fielding a team. There isn't enough left over to make investment in a $20M practice facility increase your annual revenue enough to make it worth it in the rosiest of scenarios. Most likely, ASU won't earn a dime off of it because most likely it won't make them significantly better at all. That is the problem for Cal. Athletics is something that many schools are willing to operate at a loss or they are willing to move buckets around to make it look not as bad.

If ASU is trying to make a financial investment, that is a bad one. Their average annual revenue for basketball for the past 3 years is $8.2M. Cal's is $9.7. I don't know how it breaks out for ASU, but over $5M of Cal's basketball revenue comes from media rights and conference distributions which are not going to change much based on success. So ASU just plunked down 2.5 years of total revenue (not profit, revenue) on a practice facility that may or may not have a marginal impact on roughly $4M a year in a variable profit.

The college athletics landscape would look a lot different if actual financial experts were running all these schools as a business to maximize profits. A lot of schools are running on the concept that "Texas and Alabama make a bajillion dollars. If I invest $50M I can be like them and make a bajillion dollars too". But they can't be Texas or Alabama. To make that kind of money you have to be really good for a long time. And there are a lot of schools trying to do exactly the same thing. The top schools don't change that much.

The top 5 revenue basketball programs in the country are Louiville, Kentucky, Indiana, Duke, Kansas. Schools that were all major basketball powers when my father was young. The top 20 are virtually all perennial powers from perennial basketball areas of the country. Arizona is the only west coast team on the list. Arizona basically hit the lottery 35 years ago by hiring Lute Olson. Otherwise no west coast team would be there. It makes perfect sense for Kentucky to invest that kind of money in facilities because they do have a good chance at getting that return on investment. ASU might as well sink the money in lottery tickets.

And as these schools have gotten big television pay outs from conference deals, they have mostly just chucked the money out the window. They have not analyzed spending for ROI. They do not say "I have an extra $10M. How can I turn that into $12M?" They have said "Now I have $10M more to spend on football"

And that is perfectly okay. If ASU or anyone else really wants a better basketball team, that is up to them. Just don't call it a ROI. Your return is basketball, not money. Which brings us back to priorities for Cal. With Cal's financial situation, I don't want them making an investment in basketball that is not at least break even financially.

Honestly, at Cal, from a purely basketball perspective, $20M would be better spent on an endowment for coaching salaries than a practice facility.

the $20M on practice is obviously playing the long game.

The theory goes: improve facilities > attract higher caliber athletes > generate revenue from increased ticket sales, merchandise etc etc.

I have issues with this philosophy too, but I get it.

GBear4Life said:

---

the $20M on practice is obviously playing the long game.

The theory goes: improve facilities > attract higher caliber athletes > generate revenue from increased ticket sales, merchandise etc etc.

I have issues with this philosophy too, but I get it.

---

I also know (from conversations) that schools like ASU hope that national basketball success (or football, for that matter) will eventually raise the stature of the university and eventually their academic reputation. A number of tier 3 schools see a spike in applications when they go to major bowls, Final Four, etc. Of course, this doesn't actually make their academics any better, but at least they can brag about applications and a lower admission rate.

UrsaMajor said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

the $20M on practice is obviously playing the long game.

The theory goes: improve facilities > attract higher caliber athletes > generate revenue from increased ticket sales, merchandise etc etc.

I have issues with this philosophy too, but I get it.

---

I also know (from conversations) that schools like ASU hope that national basketball success (or football, for that matter) will eventually raise the stature of the university and eventually their academic reputation. A number of tier 3 schools see a spike in applications when they go to major bowls, Final Four, etc. Of course, this doesn't actually make their academics any better, but at least they can brag about applications and a lower admission rate.

---

yes good points, I've heard that too.

Though ASU has a pretty popular (and reputable) global (online) platform offering varying degrees, which I'm sure generates tons of revenue, and theoretically has unlimited capacity to serve students. So for ASU, I think they're raking in so much dough that they view the facilities much differently than some other public universities. Their online programs aren't cheap, IIRC.

I think admission standards are same as their brick and mortar similar to a CSU.

https://asuonline.asu.edu/newsroom/asu-online-news/asu-online-bachelors-programs-ranked-among-best-us/

SFCityBear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

He'll be better than Rabb.

Fingers crossed. At least at Cal he'll step right in and play 30 mpg as the best player on the team the moment he steps on the practice floor.

24/7 sports has ASU as the clear front runner.

---

Wow! Jumpin' Joe Caldwell's grandson? If he is half as good as Joe, he'll be a good one. Can he play defense? One of the greatest Warrior games I ever saw was a playoff game vs the Hawks at Civic Auditorium. It went a couple of overtime periods, with Caldwell and Jeff Mullins each scoring 40 points.Neither one could be stopped. It seems that Bagley lived in Phoenix when he was young and went to a lot of ASU games, and of course, grandpa was a big basketball and track star at ASU, so I would say ASU has a big edge.

I think if he comes to Cal, Cal already has a few players who might have a thing or two to say about who is Cal's best player.

---

I was at that game. That Hawks' team had Caldwell, Lou Hudson, Zelmo Beatty, Paul Silas and Lenny Wilkens.
BTW... Jeff Mullins is probably the most underrated player in Dubs' history.

I heard an espn interview with the AD of the Zags

their basketball program has greatly raised the profile and applicants and enrollment at the school

when I went there for the NCAA (despite my ongoing attempt to erase that from my memory) there wasn't much there, so for the school it's been huge

If spending big money on college sports was a losing proposition, then why do so many schools do it? Are all those administrators stupid? Can none of them add? Are they all enamored of going to basketball games?

If Division I athletics hurt universities, why do no schools drop down to Division II or III? And why do more schools keep moving up?

There are enormous advantages to skewing the accounting about athletics, not the least of which is avoiding paying players what they're worth. If athletics is shown as a money loser, then donors pony up to buy out coaches, build facilities, etc., which would otherwise come out of the school's budget.

ASU's $20 million investment is presumably going to be balanced by increased donations, free marketing from sports success, more applications and continued accounting magic.

And re Gonzaga, I too had a long talk with someone who knew that school's history. Gonzaga made a conscious decision to invest in men's basketball many years ago, and bought time on Seattle and Portland TV stations to gain exposure. Over the years, Gonzaga's student population has almost doubled due to that success -- and yet I'm willing to bet their accounting shows athletics is a net loss.

Bottom line: This is Darwinian -- if college athletics were a negative for universities, then schools would be dropping these programs. Instead, there are more Division I schools than ever before. When those numbers reverse, then I will believe athletics is a money loser.

ClayK said:

---

If spending big money on college sports was a losing proposition, then why do so many schools do it? Are all those administrators stupid? Can none of them add? Are they all enamored of going to basketball games?

If Division I athletics hurt universities, why do no schools drop down to Division II or III? And why do more schools keep moving up?

There are enormous advantages to skewing the accounting about athletics, not the least of which is avoiding paying players what they're worth. If athletics is shown as a money loser, then donors pony up to buy out coaches, build facilities, etc., which would otherwise come out of the school's budget.

ASU's $20 million investment is presumably going to be balanced by increased donations, free marketing from sports success, more applications and continued accounting magic.

And re Gonzaga, I too had a long talk with someone who knew that school's history. Gonzaga made a conscious decision to invest in men's basketball many years ago, and bought time on Seattle and Portland TV stations to gain exposure. Over the years, Gonzaga's student population has almost doubled due to that success -- and yet I'm willing to bet their accounting shows athletics is a net loss.

Bottom line: This is Darwinian -- if college athletics were a negative for universities, then schools would be dropping these programs. Instead, there are more Division I schools than ever before. When those numbers reverse, then I will believe athletics is a money loser.

---

I totally agree--with one caveat: the calculus is different for different schools. For schools like Cal, Furd, Virginia, etc. there is no percentage in raising the # of applicants; we already have too many. And a winning basketball team isn't going to significantly raise our profile. It's the Gonzagas, the ASUs, the Clemsons of the world that will profit from raising the profile of their sports teams.

UrsaMajor said:

---

ClayK said:

---

If spending big money on college sports was a losing proposition, then why do so many schools do it? Are all those administrators stupid? Can none of them add? Are they all enamored of going to basketball games?

If Division I athletics hurt universities, why do no schools drop down to Division II or III? And why do more schools keep moving up?

There are enormous advantages to skewing the accounting about athletics, not the least of which is avoiding paying players what they're worth. If athletics is shown as a money loser, then donors pony up to buy out coaches, build facilities, etc., which would otherwise come out of the school's budget.

ASU's $20 million investment is presumably going to be balanced by increased donations, free marketing from sports success, more applications and continued accounting magic.

And re Gonzaga, I too had a long talk with someone who knew that school's history. Gonzaga made a conscious decision to invest in men's basketball many years ago, and bought time on Seattle and Portland TV stations to gain exposure. Over the years, Gonzaga's student population has almost doubled due to that success -- and yet I'm willing to bet their accounting shows athletics is a net loss.

Bottom line: This is Darwinian -- if college athletics were a negative for universities, then schools would be dropping these programs. Instead, there are more Division I schools than ever before. When those numbers reverse, then I will believe athletics is a money loser.

---

I totally agree--with one caveat: the calculus is different for different schools. For schools like Cal, Furd, Virginia, etc. there is no percentage in raising the # of applicants; we already have too many. And a winning basketball team isn't going to significantly raise our profile. It's the Gonzagas, the ASUs, the Clemsons of the world that will profit from raising the profile of their sports teams.

---

Agreed. For us it's more a matter of alumni engagement or re-engagement.

kelly09 said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

He'll be better than Rabb.

Fingers crossed. At least at Cal he'll step right in and play 30 mpg as the best player on the team the moment he steps on the practice floor.

24/7 sports has ASU as the clear front runner.

---

Wow! Jumpin' Joe Caldwell's grandson? If he is half as good as Joe, he'll be a good one. Can he play defense? One of the greatest Warrior games I ever saw was a playoff game vs the Hawks at Civic Auditorium. It went a couple of overtime periods, with Caldwell and Jeff Mullins each scoring 40 points.Neither one could be stopped. It seems that Bagley lived in Phoenix when he was young and went to a lot of ASU games, and of course, grandpa was a big basketball and track star at ASU, so I would say ASU has a big edge.

I think if he comes to Cal, Cal already has a few players who might have a thing or two to say about who is Cal's best player.

---

I was at that game. That Hawks' team had Caldwell, Lou Hudson, Zelmo Beatty, Paul Silas and Lenny Wilkens.
BTW... Jeff Mullins is probably the most underrated player in Dubs' history.

---

Those games at the old Civic Auditorium were a hoot, weren't they? Every seat was close to the court, it seemed, and a great seat unless you got stuck sitting behind one of the many posts supporting the roof. Today, capacity is 8500, but back in the 1960's for basketball, capacity was a lot less, I would guess.

I agree completely on Mullins. What a player he was. Great player for Duke as well. He could drive and was a great outside shot. As the years went by, he developed different shots in the lane. Was nearing the end of his career, but still was a major contributor when the Warriors won in the NBA Championship in 1975.

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

ClayK said:

---

If spending big money on college sports was a losing proposition, then why do so many schools do it? Are all those administrators stupid? Can none of them add? Are they all enamored of going to basketball games?

If Division I athletics hurt universities, why do no schools drop down to Division II or III? And why do more schools keep moving up?

There are enormous advantages to skewing the accounting about athletics, not the least of which is avoiding paying players what they're worth. If athletics is shown as a money loser, then donors pony up to buy out coaches, build facilities, etc., which would otherwise come out of the school's budget.

ASU's $20 million investment is presumably going to be balanced by increased donations, free marketing from sports success, more applications and continued accounting magic.

And re Gonzaga, I too had a long talk with someone who knew that school's history. Gonzaga made a conscious decision to invest in men's basketball many years ago, and bought time on Seattle and Portland TV stations to gain exposure. Over the years, Gonzaga's student population has almost doubled due to that success -- and yet I'm willing to bet their accounting shows athletics is a net loss.

Bottom line: This is Darwinian -- if college athletics were a negative for universities, then schools would be dropping these programs. Instead, there are more Division I schools than ever before. When those numbers reverse, then I will believe athletics is a money loser.

---

I totally agree--with one caveat: the calculus is different for different schools. For schools like Cal, Furd, Virginia, etc. there is no percentage in raising the # of applicants; we already have too many. And a winning basketball team isn't going to significantly raise our profile. It's the Gonzagas, the ASUs, the Clemsons of the world that will profit from raising the profile of their sports teams.

---

Agreed. For us it's more a matter of alumni engagement or re-engagement.

---

I live in the south bay and go to campus about 21 times a year (20 for games, 1 for other reasons)
if it wasn't for cal sports, it would be easy to lose touch with the university

GBear4Life said:

---

I get that he probably doesn't intend to be in school for 4 years but c'mon.

What is Bobby Hurley selling over there?????

---

Sunshine, easy classes and attractive student bodies.

How do schools make sure that students actually take online classes and tests as opposed to hiring proxies?

oski003 said:

---

How do schools make sure that students actually take online classes and tests as opposed to hiring proxies?

---

.Shhhh. Ix-nay on the alk-tay of ompliance-cay.

I'm sure the NCAA has not at all seen this as a loophole you cold drive a battleship through and cares dramatically about students doing their own work.

The NCAA could care less about academics -- just look at North Carolina.

Graduated a man who claimed to be illiterate and never took classes.

Had bogus courses, proven, that athletes took. Others wrote papers and grades were changed -- evidence everywhere.

NCAA response? Zero. Because any student could sign up for the bogus courses, NCAA said it was an academic issue and out of its control.

So Roy Williams continues to get his millions, and undereducated basketball players produce the income and get no pay and a bad education.

HoopDreams said:

---

NYCGOBEARS said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

ClayK said:

---

If spending big money on college sports was a losing proposition, then why do so many schools do it? Are all those administrators stupid? Can none of them add? Are they all enamored of going to basketball games?

If Division I athletics hurt universities, why do no schools drop down to Division II or III? And why do more schools keep moving up?

There are enormous advantages to skewing the accounting about athletics, not the least of which is avoiding paying players what they're worth. If athletics is shown as a money loser, then donors pony up to buy out coaches, build facilities, etc., which would otherwise come out of the school's budget.

ASU's $20 million investment is presumably going to be balanced by increased donations, free marketing from sports success, more applications and continued accounting magic.

And re Gonzaga, I too had a long talk with someone who knew that school's history. Gonzaga made a conscious decision to invest in men's basketball many years ago, and bought time on Seattle and Portland TV stations to gain exposure. Over the years, Gonzaga's student population has almost doubled due to that success -- and yet I'm willing to bet their accounting shows athletics is a net loss.

Bottom line: This is Darwinian -- if college athletics were a negative for universities, then schools would be dropping these programs. Instead, there are more Division I schools than ever before. When those numbers reverse, then I will believe athletics is a money loser.

---

I totally agree--with one caveat: the calculus is different for different schools. For schools like Cal, Furd, Virginia, etc. there is no percentage in raising the # of applicants; we already have too many. And a winning basketball team isn't going to significantly raise our profile. It's the Gonzagas, the ASUs, the Clemsons of the world that will profit from raising the profile of their sports teams.

---

Agreed. For us it's more a matter of alumni engagement or re-engagement.

---

I live in the south bay and go to campus about 21 times a year (20 for games, 1 for other reasons)
if it wasn't for cal sports, it would be easy to lose touch with the university

---

Ditto. Except I live farther than the south bay and go more often.

SFCityBear said:

---

south bender said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

he is still the best freshman big man I've seen at Cal.

How about Shareef?

I think that both were about the same height.

---

---

Rabb was supposedly 2" taller. I always thought of Shareef as a three, with that frame and skill set.

---

Funny I remember Shareef as a low block, back to the basket guy. Also je guarded the 4 or 5. Did.Not.Miss inside 10 feet.

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

south bender said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

he is still the best freshman big man I've seen at Cal.

How about Shareef?

I think that both were about the same height.

---

---

Rabb was supposedly 2" taller. I always thought of Shareef as a three, with that frame and skill set.

---

Funny I remember Shareef as a low block, back to the basket guy. Also je guarded the 4 or 5. Did.Not.Miss inside 10 feet.

---

Funny. Your memory is accurate.

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

south bender said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

he is still the best freshman big man I've seen at Cal.

How about Shareef?

I think that both were about the same height.

---

---

Rabb was supposedly 2" taller. I always thought of Shareef as a three, with that frame and skill set.

---

Funny I remember Shareef as a low block, back to the basket guy. Also je guarded the 4 or 5. Did.Not.Miss inside 10 feet.

---

You are right as well. Maybe it is a matter of semantics. I think of him as a three, because he was finesse player. He did not bull his way to the basket like most good 4s, overpowering his opponent with brute strength like Derrick Williams, Mark Madsen, or Leon Powe. He did it with little moves, fakes, and jukes with his head, his feet, his shoulders, his dribble, and seemingly every part of his body. I don't think I ever saw him run over anyone. He had great offensive skill, and most fans liked to watch him. I didn't because it took too much time for him to get his shot off while his teammates just stood around on the opposite side of the court and watched. It took too much away from the team concept of the game. I prefer to watch players sharing the ball on the way to the basket, and sharing the scoring that way.