So women's basketball has changed, and is changing, and Cal now must compete in the arguably the toughest conference in the country. The question, then, in this new landscape, is what kind of program can Cal build that will be successful in the 2020s?

But first, I think it's important to set aside any notion that Cal's academic reputation is going to help recruit elite talent. In very rare cases, it might be that an elite basketball player has a focused interest in a particular academic area in which Cal can claim clear superiority, and thus tilt the scales, but for the most part, elite basketball players are expecting a career in women's basketball that begins with professional play in the WNBA and/or overseas, followed by coaching or athletic administration. Those plans, of course, are as likely to be fulfilled as the plans of any incoming freshman in any field, but the issue is what players are looking for at age 17, not the reality of the world at age 22.

That said, though, here's one path:

Create a program and system that is designed to attract a group of players who appreciate Cal's academic excellence and its location in Northern California. Reality suggests that those players are not going to be top-shelf athletes who can press, outrun and outjump opponents (the elite athletes referenced above) -- more likely, they will be suburban girls who are looking for a city experience and arrive on campus with more than a passing interest in their education.

If a program/system is put in place that can attract a group of complementary players, whose basketball IQ and academic IQ are both high, reasonable success is possible. And then, perhaps, a player like Kristine Anigwe can be recruited who will elevate the game of those around her.

So what kind of system would work with those kinds of players? The Princeton offense springs to mind, but regardless, it must rely on three-point shooting and patience (think Villanova in the old days) and strive to avoid getting into games where size and athleticism are the determining factors.

What kind of program? One that structures itself so that players can take care of their academic business without too much basketball interference and one, perhaps, that doesn't require a student with 3.0 to go to mandatory study hall (maybe they do that now). A program that is open to a diverse group of individuals, all of whom feel comfortable and welcomed. A program that is more cerebral than emotional, perhaps.

There are other paths, certainly, but I think it is clear that Cal cannot just be like every other P5 program in the way it operates. It must choose a path and follow it, creating a strong identity that can attract a certain kind of player to play in a certain kind of system, a system that must, given Cal's unique circumstances, be clearly different than its competitors.

You are right that WBB is changing

WBB is getting more like MBB every year and unfortunately our strategy to recruit elite, athletic, highly rated players didn't result in the expected results. We never parlayed our Final Four team into building an WBB power program

The last season was the culmination of that era, and now we are back to square one with 2 of our best 3 players transferring out

So increaseingly the challenges with our MBB team are becoming the same issues for our WBB. Lack of facilities, lower financial support, smaller recruiting pool and hard sell due to tough academics, and now competing from behind (looks like we will remain a bottom half Pac-12 team this season.

So what are the solutions? Hopefully bettter coaching, better recruiting with our best recruiter now our head coach, plus addition of a top recruiting coach, and incremental improvements in things we can afford (improve game day experience, improved marketing and fund raising, bringing more students back to the games, improved academic, training and nutrition support for athletes, etc)

Quote:

---

So what are the solutions? Hopefully bettter coaching, better recruiting with our best recruiter now our head coach, plus addition of a top recruiting coach, and incremental improvements in things we can afford (improve game day experience, improved marketing and fund raising, bringing more students back to the games, improved academic, training and nutrition support for athletes, etc)

---

My top priority is better rebounding and defense, areas I think can be improved quickly with changes in emphasis and attitude.

I think if we make the most of the talent we have and put player evaluation over recruiting just All-Americans then we'll get the players we need.

It is going to need to be a team that is a lot more than the sum of its individual parts. ASU manages to do that year after year. Coaching makes a huge difference in that type of team. Hopefully, Charmin will be able to pull that off for us in the future.

Of course, some people still don't get it, but Cal no longer is as attractive enough landing spot to basketball players to allow them the philosophic wiggle room to make PC directed hires. Basketball is inclusive enough as is without attempting to utilize it a vehicle for social engineering. Most elite players are smart enough to commit to programs that will give them the optimum opportunities at the next level. Build that kind of environment and they will come.

ClayK said:

---

So women's basketball has changed, and is changing, and Cal now must compete in the arguably the toughest conference in the country. The question, then, in this new landscape, is what kind of program can Cal build that will be successful in the 2020s?

But first, I think it's important to set aside any notion that Cal's academic reputation is going to help recruit elite talent. In very rare cases, it might be that an elite basketball player has a focused interest in a particular academic area in which Cal can claim clear superiority, and thus tilt the scales, but for the most part, elite basketball players are expecting a career in women's basketball that begins with professional play in the WNBA and/or overseas, followed by coaching or athletic administration. Those plans, of course, are as likely to be fulfilled as the plans of any incoming freshman in any field, but the issue is what players are looking for at age 17, not the reality of the world at age 22.

That said, though, here's one path:

Create a program and system that is designed to attract a group of players who appreciate Cal's academic excellence and its location in Northern California. Reality suggests that those players are not going to be top-shelf athletes who can press, outrun and outjump opponents (the elite athletes referenced above) -- more likely, they will be suburban girls who are looking for a city experience and arrive on campus with more than a passing interest in their education.

If a program/system is put in place that can attract a group of complementary players, whose basketball IQ and academic IQ are both high, reasonable success is possible. And then, perhaps, a player like Kristine Anigwe can be recruited who will elevate the game of those around her.

So what kind of system would work with those kinds of players? The Princeton offense springs to mind, but regardless, it must rely on three-point shooting and patience (think Villanova in the old days) and strive to avoid getting into games where size and athleticism are the determining factors.

What kind of program? One that structures itself so that players can take care of their academic business without too much basketball interference and one, perhaps, that doesn't require a student with 3.0 to go to mandatory study hall (maybe they do that now). A program that is open to a diverse group of individuals, all of whom feel comfortable and welcomed. A program that is more cerebral than emotional, perhaps.

There are other paths, certainly, but I think it is clear that Cal cannot just be like every other P5 program in the way it operates. It must choose a path and follow it, creating a strong identity that can attract a certain kind of player to play in a certain kind of system, a system that must, given Cal's unique circumstances, be clearly different than its competitors.

---

Okay, I'm not going to argue the top talent is becoming like the men, I agree. But Cal actually has been putting players into pro basketball. I think that Cal's international brand would help with players from abroad. The irony is that posters were complaining that Lindsey couldn't recruit white players, and my sense is Smith probably is a lot better in a suburban living room discussing both her playing career while being able to get two engineering degrees. I'm real interested in seeing what Phillips brings to the table - I think she may get some 4 star type players, and maybe even some local 5 stars. And hunt down those transfers that can play well enough, but who have determined they do need the education because a long pro career isn't on the table.

The kind of program: yes, more cerebral, less emotional, more disciplined, probably more Furd looking, more bigs, more fundamentals (like shooting free throws well), perhaps relying on less athleticism, all sounds like where I could see this going under Smith. And I can see some top international talent. I don't think the program can continue in the same vain, but I'm not nearly as pessimistic as the OP. In fact, with the changes in women's (and men's) basketball, I think very few programs can continue business as normal.

Sedona Prince a 6'7" Mc Donalds AA and USA team member transferring from Texas, just committed to Oregon. The rich get richer.

willtalk said:

---

Sedona Prince a 6'7" Mc Donalds AA and USA team member transferring from Texas, just committed to Oregon. The rich get richer.

---

As you said, the rich get richer:

Lose Hebard and Ionescu but ..

Up to 8 ESPN five-star recruits on the 2020-21 team:
Boley (2016)
Sabally (2017)
Prince (2018)
Parrish (2020)
Watson (2020)
Scherr (2020)
Dugalic (2020)
Paopao (2020)

Though press reports say Sedona will redshirt next season, I'm still curious if she ends up eligible to play immediately for this current Oregon group that already looked like the national championship favorite maybe even before Minyon Moore joined.

Sedona struggled getting up and down the floor during one of her Team USA stints that I saw, and although that's fixable she wasn't able to practice last year at Texas b/c of injury. Still, she'd be a nice upgrade at Lydia Gioma's role if eligible. But I don't think she'll ever dominate like you'd expect her to, a 6'7" girl with good girth who can dunk easily and is comfortable shooting and handling the ball. She might be one of those "good at everything but not great" players.

As remarkable as this recruiting streak has been for Oregon, I don't quite know if any of the new commits are college All-American caliber players. The current team's really special with perhaps three college All-Americans, plus I think the most amazing 3-point shooter in WCBB since Kaleena Mosqueda-Lewis in Erin Boley.

Kelly Graves has exceeded my expectations with Oregon, but there are still missing pieces to fill if Oregon is going to nudge a Stanford, South Carolina, Baylor, or UConn out of their Final Four spot in the post-Sabrina era.

I am amazed that 6'6" Geomi is still with the team. She is a much better player than the playing time that Greaves has given her. Perhaps she stays one more year for the very probable chance to be part of a National Championship team. She would be eligible to play right away as a grad transfer during the 20-21 season, however. She would be the perfect transfer get for Cal. She is a very good defender but has never been valued by Greaves who is offense-oriented. She was the fastest player on Oregon's team for the last few years. She did take part in Oregon's 3x3 championship year. It always seemed to me that Greaves unjustly favored Oti Gildon as the first post off the bench. Gildon came in the same year as Greaves and went to Gonzaga Prep. Greaves left Gonzaga at the same time so undersized Gildon was probably his first recruit which would explain his bias.

The recruiting at Oregon, Stanford and OSU has gone off of the charts. All three are now drawing top recruits from throughout the country.

willtalk said:

---

I am amazed that 6'6" Geomi is still with the team. She is a much better player than the playing time that Greaves has given her. Perhaps she stays one more year for the very probable chance to be part of a National Championship team. She would be eligible to play right away as a grad transfer during the 20-21 season, however. She would be the perfect transfer get for Cal. She is a very good defender but has never been valued by Greaves who is offense-oriented. She was the fastest player on Oregon's team for the last few years. She did take part in Oregon's 3x3 championship year. It always seemed to me that Greaves unjustly favored Oti Gildon as the first post off the bench. Gildon came in the same year as Greaves and went to Gonzaga Prep. Greaves left Gonzaga at the same time so undersized Gildon was probably his first recruit which would explain his bias.

---

Would like to hear Clay's thought on Giomi but if she was not tied down during a wind storm she would blow away. She was often mis-matched against more athletic players not to mention those that had 40 pounds plus on her. I don't think she had a "beast mode" switch like some centers have, i.e. Grymek. Be patient and I see a center or two transferring out of Oregon State which has about four of them now.

ClayK said:

---

So women's basketball has changed, and is changing, and Cal now must compete in the arguably the toughest conference in the country. The question, then, in this new landscape, is what kind of program can Cal build that will be successful in the 2020s?

But first, I think it's important to set aside any notion that Cal's academic reputation is going to help recruit elite talent. In very rare cases, it might be that an elite basketball player has a focused interest in a particular academic area in which Cal can claim clear superiority, and thus tilt the scales, but for the most part, elite basketball players are expecting a career in women's basketball that begins with professional play in the WNBA and/or overseas, followed by coaching or athletic administration. Those plans, of course, are as likely to be fulfilled as the plans of any incoming freshman in any field, but the issue is what players are looking for at age 17, not the reality of the world at age 22.

That said, though, here's one path:

Create a program and system that is designed to attract a group of players who appreciate Cal's academic excellence and its location in Northern California. Reality suggests that those players are not going to be top-shelf athletes who can press, outrun and outjump opponents (the elite athletes referenced above) -- more likely, they will be suburban girls who are looking for a city experience and arrive on campus with more than a passing interest in their education.

If a program/system is put in place that can attract a group of complementary players, whose basketball IQ and academic IQ are both high, reasonable success is possible. And then, perhaps, a player like Kristine Anigwe can be recruited who will elevate the game of those around her.

So what kind of system would work with those kinds of players? The Princeton offense springs to mind, but regardless, it must rely on three-point shooting and patience (think Villanova in the old days) and strive to avoid getting into games where size and athleticism are the determining factors.

What kind of program? One that structures itself so that players can take care of their academic business without too much basketball interference and one, perhaps, that doesn't require a student with 3.0 to go to mandatory study hall (maybe they do that now). A program that is open to a diverse group of individuals, all of whom feel comfortable and welcomed. A program that is more cerebral than emotional, perhaps.

There are other paths, certainly, but I think it is clear that Cal cannot just be like every other P5 program in the way it operates. It must choose a path and follow it, creating a strong identity that can attract a certain kind of player to play in a certain kind of system, a system that must, given Cal's unique circumstances, be clearly different than its competitors.

---

You bring up interesting points, but I'm one who still thinks Caren Horstmeyer should be coaching Cal lol...and that brand of Cal WBB is looooong gone. So at this point, I kind of feel like hopefully there are more ways than one to skin a cat, and that Charmin's vision (whatever that may be) will be different than LG's and pan out well enough to see improvement and maybe she gets lucky and we see an even bigger improvement than hoped for.

I think Cal's academics is a tricky selling point. UCLA WBB also dubs itself "the top public university" and honestly I'm sure many see them as virtually tied. Stanford gets the top shelf students over Cal. And USC gets the kids who feel the private school environment offsets the lower but still solid academic rankings. Cal's specific academic reputation probably scares off many kids. I agree with the notion that Cal's academics could've been used to its advantage with certain Euro recruits, but overall I think others (including UCLA) prioritized and out-hustled Cal recruiting internationally.

I honestly think the LGBTQ-friendly atmosphere could be a successful recruiting angle. Perhaps one that would pay off more and more as we look further down the road. There was a recent NY Times article about the increasing visibility of LGBTQ and non-binary presenting WNBA players. A squad made up of the top five players sporting androgynous haircuts would probably be a heckuva team lol.


There are so many components to this conversation, but one last point I'll make is that I still think the bigger roster the better for Cal. For one, teammates are most likely to become a recruit's college friends or chosen family. The more the merrier. A recruit is more likely to like the other girls on the team if there are more personalities to choose from and click with. Furthermore, when you're a program that doesn't have the widest reach geographically, you can't always assemble a starting five of all McD's AA. But you can take on some projects that may or may pan out and you can take players that are more specialized and be better equipped for a variety of different matchups.

GOLDEN said:

---

willtalk said:

---

I am amazed that 6'6" Geomi is still with the team. She is a much better player than the playing time that Greaves has given her. Perhaps she stays one more year for the very probable chance to be part of a National Championship team. She would be eligible to play right away as a grad transfer during the 20-21 season, however. She would be the perfect transfer get for Cal. She is a very good defender but has never been valued by Greaves who is offense-oriented. She was the fastest player on Oregon's team for the last few years. She did take part in Oregon's 3x3 championship year. It always seemed to me that Greaves unjustly favored Oti Gildon as the first post off the bench. Gildon came in the same year as Greaves and went to Gonzaga Prep. Greaves left Gonzaga at the same time so undersized Gildon was probably his first recruit which would explain his bias.

---

Would like to hear Clay's thought on Giomi but if she was not tied down during a wind storm she would blow away. She was often mis-matched against more athletic players not to mention those that had 40 pounds plus on her. I don't think she had a "beast mode" switch like some centers have, i.e. Grymek. Be patient and I see a center or two transferring out of Oregon State which has about four of them now.

---

LOL

I agree. I knew Giomi had a lil fan section on the board here so when Oregon played I definitely made sure to look, but I just didn't see it. I think the offensive liability part is valid if you don't have the strength to finish bunnies. On defense I saw commendable effort trying to keep Ms.McCowan from getting too deep, but didn't see a shot blocker/alterer despite the 6'6" but more so 5 fouls to use in trying to contain her (which is a very valuable asset against a McCowan type, to be clear).

I don't have strong feelings about Giomi because she didn't really play enough to register ... but the player ahead of her in the rotation was a senior, Oti Gildon, and I have always been partial to seniors. They know the system, and a player like Gildon who is unlikely to have a pro career, plays with a sense of urgency because this is it for her.

So I looked at Giomi's game-by-game stats, and she scored more than five points four times last year, against Buffalo (6), UC Irvine (6), Air Force (8) and Portland State (7). These are not numbers that scream "I deserve to play more," and in fact tell the coach "We need to get better at this spot."

I disagree with downplaying the academic part of playing basketball at Cal. Do you think that Stanford downplays their academic reputation when recruiting top WBB players? Hell NO !!

Where Cal loses out in recruiting is in their facilities and training. Many of these top/elite programs have their OWN gym to practice in (often Cal practices in the Recreational Sports facility courts and not always the Haas center) so that players can get in extra time when they can. Many of these programs have their own sport specific trainer and not a shared trainer/strength coach among 3-4 teams. I have been on many PAC-12 campuses where they now have a student-athlete academic center (Oregon. Arizona, USC) specifically where student athletes meet their tutors daily and not just meet them somewhere in the library. May of these programs have a commissary (cafeteria) where athletes can get food in between school and practice hours rather then trying to squeeze in a meal while on the run across campus.

So, if you REALLY want to get in the game for recruiting elite players, you have to get IN the game and step up your facilities for ALL sports (not just Football and swimming).

I think that we have found that the only way to get into a financial arms race in a money-losing sport is to find some big donors.

I understand the new lounge in Haas when you first enter is a study room for athletes when Haas is not being used (so athletes don't have to meet and study with their academic support assurance in the library

However,it's really poorly furnished for a study room. More like a cocktail lounge. Perhaps it is changed into a study room on non-game days

Lone Star said:

---

I disagree with downplaying the academic part of playing basketball at Cal. Do you think that Stanford downplays their academic reputation when recruiting top WBB players? Hell NO !!

Where Cal loses out in recruiting is in their facilities and training. Many of these top/elite programs have their OWN gym to practice in (often Cal practices in the Recreational Sports facility courts and not always the Haas center) so that players can get in extra time when they can. Many of these programs have their own sport specific trainer and not a shared trainer/strength coach among 3-4 teams. I have been on many PAC-12 campuses where they now have a student-athlete academic center (Oregon. Arizona, USC) specifically where student athletes meet their tutors daily and not just meet them somewhere in the library. May of these programs have a commissary (cafeteria) where athletes can get food in between school and practice hours rather then trying to squeeze in a meal while on the run across campus.

So, if you REALLY want to get in the game for recruiting elite players, you have to get IN the game and step up your facilities for ALL sports (not just Football and swimming).

---

Per an interview with Sedona herself, she is fully pursuing a waiver for immediate eligibility. Though indeed she is still recovering from her bad leg injury and likely would still be at least out of shape at the beginning of next season, come March, she could really help Oregon deliver on those national championship expectations, although no one will have a front court like Baylor did last year when they ousted the Ducks anyway.

Lone Star said:

---

I disagree with downplaying the academic part of playing basketball at Cal. Do you think that Stanford downplays their academic reputation when recruiting top WBB players? Hell NO !!

Where Cal loses out in recruiting is in their facilities and training. Many of these top/elite programs have their OWN gym to practice in (often Cal practices in the Recreational Sports facility courts and not always the Haas center) so that players can get in extra time when they can. Many of these programs have their own sport specific trainer and not a shared trainer/strength coach among 3-4 teams. I have been on many PAC-12 campuses where they now have a student-athlete academic center (Oregon. Arizona, USC) specifically where student athletes meet their tutors daily and not just meet them somewhere in the library. May of these programs have a commissary (cafeteria) where athletes can get food in between school and practice hours rather then trying to squeeze in a meal while on the run across campus.

So, if you REALLY want to get in the game for recruiting elite players, you have to get IN the game and step up your facilities for ALL sports (not just Football and swimming).

---

if only Stanford had a dedicated practice facility they could recruit better (sarcasm intended).

annarborbear said:

---

I think that we have found that the only way to get into a financial arms race in a money-losing sport is to find some big donors.

---

I really don't think it is a money thing, Does not explain Oregon States success in WBB if that was the case. From what I have seen out there is recruits all really know one another or know of one another and follow where everyone is going. It almost feeds on itself.

Example Minyon Moore was a room mate with Sedona Prince at USA basketball. Does not hurt to build connections and friendships in the recruiting circles. Minyon is a very likeable player and her connection with Prince might have made all the difference in the world. Future star 2021? Azzi Fudd has ties with players at U-Conn. And having SI cannot hurt in recruiting either. Remember these are young high school basketball players, SI is one of the biggest names in the game right now and recruits know that.

GOLDEN said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

I think that we have found that the only way to get into a financial arms race in a money-losing sport is to find some big donors.

---

I really don't think it is a money thing, Does not explain Oregon States success in WBB if that was the case. From what I have seen out there is recruits all really know one another or know of one another and follow where everyone is going. It almost feeds on itself.

Example Minyon Moore was a room mate with Sedona Prince at USA basketball. Does not hurt to build connections and friendships in the recruiting circles. Minyon is a very likeable player and her connection with Prince might have made all the difference in the world. Future star 2021? Azzi Fudd has ties with players at U-Conn. And having SI cannot hurt in recruiting either. Remember these are young high school basketball players, SI is one of the biggest names in the game right now and recruits know that.

---

I was only responding to Lone Star's suggestion that we should spend a lot more money on facilities, trainers, training table etc. We can't do that without some additional funding, which is unlikely. Where programs are really successful, it almost always starts with an unusually good head coach, who initially wins with lesser players, and then attracts more talent over time.

annarborbear said:

---

GOLDEN said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

I think that we have found that the only way to get into a financial arms race in a money-losing sport is to find some big donors.

---

I really don't think it is a money thing, Does not explain Oregon States success in WBB if that was the case. From what I have seen out there is recruits all really know one another or know of one another and follow where everyone is going. It almost feeds on itself.

Example Minyon Moore was a room mate with Sedona Prince at USA basketball. Does not hurt to build connections and friendships in the recruiting circles. Minyon is a very likeable player and her connection with Prince might have made all the difference in the world. Future star 2021? Azzi Fudd has ties with players at U-Conn. And having SI cannot hurt in recruiting either. Remember these are young high school basketball players, SI is one of the biggest names in the game right now and recruits know that.

---

I was only responding to Lone Star's suggestion that we should spend a lot more money on facilities, trainers, training table etc. We can't do that without some additional funding, which is unlikely. Where programs are really successful, it almost always starts with an unusually good head coach, who initially wins with lesser players, and then attracts more talent over time.

---

Well, other programs start by having high net worth alumni donate large sums of cash to build those facilities. Some examples are T. Boone Pickens at Oklahoma State, Phil Knight with Oregon and recently Baylor had an anonymous single person $105-million dollar donation to build them a new basketball fieldhouse.

These schools, among many others, appeal to the millionaire/billionaire alumni by making them proud of their national exposure on TV. Yes, having a successful program makes donations flow easier but, it is tough having a successful program when you don't have the tools/facilities that other programs have.

Certainly Cal has many high net worth alumni they can reach out to and sell that vision.

Lone Star said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

GOLDEN said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

I think that we have found that the only way to get into a financial arms race in a money-losing sport is to find some big donors.

---

I really don't think it is a money thing, Does not explain Oregon States success in WBB if that was the case. From what I have seen out there is recruits all really know one another or know of one another and follow where everyone is going. It almost feeds on itself.

Example Minyon Moore was a room mate with Sedona Prince at USA basketball. Does not hurt to build connections and friendships in the recruiting circles. Minyon is a very likeable player and her connection with Prince might have made all the difference in the world. Future star 2021? Azzi Fudd has ties with players at U-Conn. And having SI cannot hurt in recruiting either. Remember these are young high school basketball players, SI is one of the biggest names in the game right now and recruits know that.

---

I was only responding to Lone Star's suggestion that we should spend a lot more money on facilities, trainers, training table etc. We can't do that without some additional funding, which is unlikely. Where programs are really successful, it almost always starts with an unusually good head coach, who initially wins with lesser players, and then attracts more talent over time.

---

Well, other programs start by having high net worth alumni donate large sums of cash to build those facilities. Some examples are T. Boone Pickens at Oklahoma State, Phil Knight with Oregon and recently Baylor had an anonymous single person $105-million dollar donation to build them a new basketball fieldhouse.

These schools, among many others, appeal to the millionaire/billionaire alumni by making them proud of their national exposure on TV. Yes, having a successful program makes donations flow easier but, it is tough having a successful program when you don't have the tools/facilities that other programs have.

Certainly Cal has many high net worth alumni they can reach out to and sell that vision.

---

We probably need a new generation of women alumnae who make it big in their careers and then decide to donate big to women's sports. But as others have pointed out, our current female students don't even show up in large numbers in the stands while they are in school to support our women's teams.

Cal is never going to be Oklahoma State, and Cal doesn't have enough real estate to build unnecessary alters to the wealth of alumni. If Cal gets good coaching, the players will come.

bearchamp said:

---

Cal is never going to be Oklahoma State, and Cal doesn't have enough real estate to build unnecessary alters to the wealth of alumni. If Cal gets good coaching, the players will come.

---

Don't kid yourself. When these young men and women tour campuses, they compare facilities. You may not have enough real estate but, you certainly can change some of the existing structures to entice better student-athletes to come.

It's not about getting good "coaching" (Gottlieb was obviously good enough to be called up into the NBA) it's about good recruiting and good recruiting starts with having the comparable facilities to start with.

If you are going to settle for "Cal is never going to....." then you should just accept that you will be at the middle or bottom of the conference every year. I believe for WBB we have great coaching, they just need some more support from the university to get on par with the other WBB programs in the PAC-12.

I respectfully disagree. The prime example is aquatics. In the 70s the men were NCAA champions with absolutely the worst facilities in the Pac, Aquatics has maintained high quality results despite all the "problems" alluded to about recruiting. Has rugby had showcase facilities for the decades that program has dominated? Good coaching means a good program and good athletes want to be at a good program. Some schools take pride in their outdated gyms and stadiums.

In 2018, Cal Women's Basketball had $171,000 in ticket revenues, $148,000 in donations, and $109,000 in endowment income. That was against $3.9 million in expenses. Not the best balance sheet against which to make further major financial investments.

annarborbear said:

---

In 2018, Cal Women's Basketball had $171,000 in ticket revenues, $148,000 in donations, and $109,000 in endowment income. That was against $3.9 million in expenses. Not the best balance sheet against which to make further major financial investments.

---

ALL WBB are non-profitable as are a majority of men's programs. Yes, even the UConns', Baylors', Tennessees' and Louisvilles' (I could go on down the list) of the world are in the red every year. So how do they get the top facilities in the country?

Answer: Donors (certainly UConn's football program is not a money maker to offset basketball costs).

So say what you want about the financial end of things, they ALL lose money. It's just that some schools are able to lean on thier alumni and other donors to build/improve facilities.

I hardly consider rugby and water polo as showcase sports for a college but none the less, they are a great oppurtunity for a scholarship for a young athlete.

Scott Rueck started off with walk-on try-outs in a dilapidated Gill Stadium. Oregon had plenty of Nike money before Kelly Graves showed up, but didn't do much until then. Clearly, you are making a facetious argument to provide some off-season entertainment. As has been said before, if you want to support Cal women's sports, buy a football season ticket. Football will continue to have to provide the financial subsidy for everything else.

annarborbear said:

---

Scott Rueck started off with walk-on try-outs in a dilapidated Gill Stadium. Oregon had plenty of Nike money before Kelly Graves showed up, but didn't do much until then. Clearly, you are making a facetious argument to provide some off-season entertainment. As has been said before, if you want to support Cal women's sports, buy a football season ticket. Football will continue to have to provide the financial subsidy for everything else.

---

LOL. Nothing "facetious" about this. It is straight up fact. If you can't handle the truth, too bad. The topic was "how can Cal WBB compete in the PAC-12". Other posters gave their opinion and I gave mine. Tell me what you want about past programs and how Rueck started with flat basketballs and no air pump to blow them up, the FACT is OSU made an investment in their facilities (Gill) PRIOR TO Rueck starting there and made additional renovations just a few years AFTER he started. And this was BEFORE the program started to take off in 2014.

They have the coach (Gottlieb, now Charmin), they just need to look at how they can improve facilities and staff if they want to compete with the other PAC-12 WBB programs. I am sure the coaches know that, it's just getting the university and others to agree to it.

Doesnt the contract with the Pac-12 Network bring in millions of dollars.....does this revenue count as WBBs contribution to the income the program provides to the budget.....

Hopefully, the CAL WBB program will improve with Charmin and April. Great coaching and recruiting will bring success to the program. The games are exciting, and there is a fun environment at Haas. I enjoy following players from their freshman year to their fourth year of playing for the Bears. I even get to talk with some of their parents. I attended the Open Practice and the festivities that followed at the beginning of the season last fall. I expect to see more determination from the coaching staff this season. Coaching can make a huge differience in the Win-Loss column. C.J. West and Jaelyn Brown will have the opportunity to take it to the basket!! I have a Senior Season Passand and attend every game. My son comes to the big games, like Conn. and Stanford. Cal played great in both of these exciting gamee this last season. Keep it coming......GO BEARS!!!

You can't really think Gottlieb was the quality of coach to establish a high quality program.

bearchamp said:

---

You can't really think Gottlieb was the quality of coach to establish a high quality program.

---

LOL. Funny how forum fans "love and support" their coaches when they are with the program but then spit venom about them when they leave (or are fired).

You certainly were loving her when she was here and recruiting the likes of Kristine Anigwe. And the fact that she has a .670 winning percentage at her time with Cal and made the NCAAs 7-out of-8 years she was coaching certainly qualifies her as a winner and developing a successful program in my eyes. Those winning percentage numbers, by the way, are the same as Scott Rueck at OSU with, one more NCAA appearance in 2 fewer years (Rueck has been there 6 times in 9 years).

So YES, I think Gottlieb is/was a high enough quality of a coach to establish a high quality program. I also think Charmin is a high quality coach to develop a high quality program and I will stick with that whenever she decides to leave or is let go.

Now, what are we going to do to support that?

Last year each Pac 12 school received $30M. Lets say WBB viewership accounted for 5% of all views. That's $1.5 million in revenue. What ever it is should be counted as revenue

However given The ticket sale income above that's $4 per ticket. There seems to be opportunity with ticket pricing