Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 74

Thread: Shocky is SO right on this one (well almost right)

  1. #31
    During CalSO in the early '80s, they used to have a segment called Something for Everyone. Various campus organizations would set up tables in a dining commons for recruitment.

    Cal Crew was always there and they diligently moved in on anyone who was tall and thin. Lightweight crew may have had a 6' height restriction since the coaches would frequently size up unsuspecting recruits by standing next to them and the other coaches would signal thumbs up or down based on estimated height. Most of the program were pure walk ons.

  2. #32
    Last i checked, men's basketball lost money last year. Not sure how they are funding the scholarships of any other athletes.

    uninformed a$$hat commentary. not surprised when the thread begins with "shocky is so right"

  3. #33
    If they don't offer scholarships and it is essentially a club sport first why do they need a "recruiting coordinator" on paid coaching staff and if all walk ones from the general student body with no admissions advantage just make it a club sport? Unless it isn't and the defenders actually are talking out of both sides of their mouths.

  4. #34
    Crew is in a funny position. It isn't a "club" sport, but it isn't NCAA either, because men's rowing has always been part of ICRA which has resisted joining the NCAA.

    The rowers don't have scholarships. The reason there are so many rowers (twice what the coaches want) is because donors have demanded that crew maintain its tradition that anyone who wants to be on the crew just show up. Now that Gary Rogers has passed, perhaps that will change.

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Eastern Oregon Bear View Post
    Out of the 61 on the roster I see 14 from prep schools and academies. 3 of those are from St. Ignatius in San Francisco, which wasn't all that upper crust back in my high school days. Not sure about it now. That doesn't seem excessive for a sport that has limited locations where it can be played. I suppose that is more than 1% but we really don't have any idea of the family income information for the crew students. I went to a prep school on scholarship while my mother was an unemployed single parent collecting food stamps. She did get hired as a librarian the year after I started there but it still wasn't anywhere near a 1%er income.

    On the other hand, I see 14 from the UK and Europe (one I'm guessing is German from the name - no HS given), 8 from Australia, 2 from Canada and 1 from Brazil. That's over 40% of the roster. I'm surprised crew draws so many foreign students. I'd guess it's a testament to the strength and tradition of the program.
    25 foreign student, 18 or so Californians on a roster of 60. I guess it's a testament that the tradition of the program endures..but in Europe. If they pay out of state tuition and don't get preferential admissions that's ok but it certainly seems anomalous.
    Last edited by GB54; 06-18-2017 at 05:48 PM.

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by BearDevil View Post
    During CalSO in the early '80s, they used to have a segment called Something for Everyone. Various campus organizations would set up tables in a dining commons for recruitment.

    Cal Crew was always there and they diligently moved in on anyone who was tall and thin. Lightweight crew may have had a 6' height restriction since the coaches would frequently size up unsuspecting recruits by standing next to them and the other coaches would signal thumbs up or down based on estimated height. Most of the program were pure walk ons.
    Yeah, I remember at my orientation mixer how my tall and lanky roommate was recruited by a couple of attractive young ladies.

  7. #37
    The whole rant seems but to be about rich kids getting preference. The understanding of the OP is unbelievably lacking. For instance, in HS and CC, there are crews in Marin County, San Francisco, Oakland, Lexington Resorvoir in Los Gatos, Orange Coast CC (which by the way up until recently was probably the third best college crew on the West Coast, and today not that bad), and I am not sure about Sacramento. But whoops, look at the areas I cited---where the rich kids live. Let's keep 'em out. OP filled boiling with hatred for a group, lacking in information about anything crew, from scholarships, to sources, etc.

  8. #38
    Loyal Bear barabbas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Puerto Plata, DR
    Posts
    3,752
    Quote Originally Posted by socaltownie View Post
    Shocky's shot guns at Rugby might be about 10 degrees off.

    There is NO WAY that Cal should be spending one cent "net" on Men's Crew.

    Here is the roster.

    http://www.calbears.com/roster.aspx?path=mcrew

    There is no way you can justify scholarships going to kids from these communities and these HS when they are financed by the young men on the football and basketball team. It is unconciousable.

    61 participants. The news report I saw that number did not break down how many scholarships they have.
    These scholarships are endowed. Crew is much much more competitive than rugby even though not recognized by NCAA. Rugby is a club sport that has zero scholarships and was only raised to varsity status by John Kasser in 1995 in order to raise money from the Wittter family for a Football practice/rugby field. Football always had first priority until very recently.

  9. #39
    plenty of basketball and football players with well off parents too. dont see anyone going after their scholarships even if their parents dont need them to support the kids through school.

  10. #40
    Last edited by BeggarEd; 06-20-2017 at 08:36 AM.

  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by socaltownie View Post
    If they don't offer scholarships and it is essentially a club sport first why do they need a "recruiting coordinator" on paid coaching staff and if all walk ones from the general student body with no admissions advantage just make it a club sport? Unless it isn't and the defenders actually are talking out of both sides of their mouths.
    SoCal:
    Am I on your ignore list? Or did I fail to see your reply to my prior question to you in this thread?

  12. #42
    This post by SCT, who I have found to normally be one of the more level-headed posters on the board, just shows the depth of the angst the financial situation is creating. We have a deficit. We can't cut sports, because there's a good chance that will make the short-term deficit worse, because benefactors of those sports will pull their contributions. We also won't be in compliance with Title IX if we cut sports, on the prong we're using. But we don't have the money to fund the sports we have now, because of the stadium payments. People think we should spend more on football and basketball, claiming that will result in more wins and put butts in seats, but that's a huge risk, and could make the short-term situation worse. I don't have a solution, but I have sympathy for the problem. The solution is probably to take some of the stadium-debt burden off IAD, since the portion of the construction that was seismic-related was basically ordered by the Regents. But I don't expect that to happen, because that money would no doubt come out of other campus support, driving the faculty nuts.

  13. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by OdontoBear66 View Post
    The whole rant seems but to be about rich kids getting preference. The understanding of the OP is unbelievably lacking. For instance, in HS and CC, there are crews in Marin County, San Francisco, Oakland, Lexington Resorvoir in Los Gatos, Orange Coast CC (which by the way up until recently was probably the third best college crew on the West Coast, and today not that bad), and I am not sure about Sacramento. But whoops, look at the areas I cited---where the rich kids live. Let's keep 'em out. OP filled boiling with hatred for a group, lacking in information about anything crew, from scholarships, to sources, etc.
    Again it is a taxpayer supported institution of higher learning whose land grant was directly tied to the notion of expanding higher educational opportunity. If crew is paying its whole weight (all overhead, all salaries, all title ix impacts) than ,y bad. To the extent it is not then it is the subsidization of rich kids by not rich kids and that is fundamnetly wrong. Ditto any relaxation of admission standards for rowers. And again, if just ordinary regular cal admits make it a club sport, especially if you save both direct money and reduce title in impacts. And yes, I don't care a hoot about 2 minutes every four years for the corrupt enterprise known as the oylmpics (a truly dispicAble transfer of wealth from those with power from those without)

  14. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by concordtom View Post
    I've been convinced to not read sources that angers me, and based upon what you've written here, I don't have a clue what your talking about. Could you kindly restate the issue and your posit?
    Thank you.
    It is that there is something fundamentally wrong when "non revenue sports" are subsidized by revenue sports - doubly so when the participants in those sports represent a transfer of wealth from those with less to those with more and triply so when the sport in question is almost exclusively the domain of affluent communities. When Compton high school is endowed by posters here so it can field a rowing program I will eat crow.

    Ps. Thank god we don't have a esquestrian team as my head would explode. Rowing is not far from that.

    Pps. This isn't a new position for me though the deficit highlights its import. I have long been frustrated with this reverse robinhood nature of a bunch of non revenue sports.
    Last edited by socaltownie; 06-20-2017 at 12:24 PM.

  15. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by socaltownie View Post
    Again it is a taxpayer supported institution of higher learning whose land grant was directly tied to the notion of expanding higher educational opportunity. If crew is paying its whole weight (all overhead, all salaries, all title ix impacts) than ,y bad. To the extent it is not then it is the subsidization of rich kids by not rich kids and that is fundamnetly wrong. Ditto any relaxation of admission standards for rowers. And again, if just ordinary regular cal admits make it a club sport, especially if you save both direct money and reduce title in impacts. And yes, I don't care a hoot about 2 minutes every four years for the corrupt enterprise known as the oylmpics (a truly dispicAble transfer of wealth from those with power from those without)
    why attack the admission standards? I dont get where that matters. I can see the argument for subsidizing their sport with football money, which I would argue that we shouldnt do but not for the same reasons that you have cited. I'm more concerned with Cal using football or basketball money for other sports and hamstringing their ability to compete and therefore hurting their ability to sustain itself.

    If the sport exists though such as crew and if they are paying for it with their own donated money then they should have the same admission standards that are applied to any other Cal athlete. 3.0 for 80%. I dont see any reason why they should have to adhere to the standard of normal admissions. Football doesnt have to, basketball doesnt have to. Meet the minimum and then its up to the sport to keep up their APR scores. Dont embarass us and i dont think i care.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •