The Future of Cal Athletics hangs in the balance

CALiforniALUM said:

---

PaulCali said:

---

@Banzai

We spent hundreds of millions on a stadium renovation, but we still have Port-a-Potties for the entire east side of stadium. Kind of hilarious. People shake their heads.

---

Cal fans are old and drink too much through their eyeballs. A few Port-a-Potties only help.

---

Que?

I agree. Ivy League sports are below DIv 2. And the facilities are terrible, reflecting minimal investment.

I'd argue the 1968 Harvard vs Yale game was not the play but it was damn close.

~ for the good times . . .

Thank you

You're one of 10. I suggest we might need a larger group of students and alums to make the switch worthwhile.

concordtom said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

Out Of The Past said:

---

aowatson said:

---

Best route is to stop pretending. Cal's predicament is a result of half-assed commitments to football and basketball, trying to do just enough to appear to belong in the big leagues. It's been a slow decline over maybe 50 years, save a few stars like Muncie, Rodgers. I think I'd rather see a bold move to emphasize academics. Stanford, as a private school, could probably talk its way into the Ivy League. Could Cal? Harvard's basketball and swim teams aren't bad.

---

This seems the most logical extension to me as well. We already recruit some athletes that are also considering Ivy schools. I don't see Cal spending anywhere near the amount that would be required to challenge the major football programs in the B10, or bending academic requirements any further to admit more talent at the B10 level. Our academic reputation is already solid in the Ivies. From what I hear anecdotally, Cal sends a significant number of undergrads to Ivy grad schools. Go with our strength. I have attended Ivy games, found them exciting and really enjoyable. Game strategies frequently involve improvisation. Outcomes are not ordained. Watch "Harvard beats Yale 29 - 29" sometime.

---

Ivy fb is terrible. Looks like glorified hs. Players are 2* and coaches are, too. I don't enjoy seeing a wr drop an easy one and hang his head as he trots back to the huddle while 2,000 fans groan. (Remember the AZ game? Hated to say it, but the truth is the truth).

---

Yo, that's a BS post!
My grandmother's brothers were all Americans at Ohio State in the 30's. They weighed a buck 80.
They had packed stadiums.

There's plenty of fun to be had watching 2* athletes compete.
The whole FOMO factor here is astonishing.

---

We're discussing the viability of a major college athletics program. That requires $$$ and the tv and in person fans who pay to see them. When you pay, you expect to get what you pay for. To old Ivy alums, that means barely watching, as you yuk it up in the stands or do business there. Most others expect a little more.

---

Like I said: FOMO.

I'm just pointing out that the arms race in college football is ABSURD, and everyone knows it!
At some point, it's okay to back away from the bar. Homey don't need to play that game.

If you want to create a different reality, someone needs to do so.

The Ivys did, and they seem to be having a lot of fun "yuking it up", as you say - while everyone else frets over being passed over.

Create your own damn reality!

---

I don't disagree (except for the stadium debt and I think honestly Cal should just dump that onto the system or threaten to take 60% foreign students until paid off).

1) It isn't clear the $$ is going to go to benefit the core university mission. Instead it is likely to get sucked up by ever escalating coaching salaries, more capital expenses, paying the salaries (that day is coming) of revenue athletes along with their disability insurance and possible pensions AND the coming payouts for your employees getting CTE.

2) I really would like to see (I am sure the advancement office has) a study of the importance of sports for alumni engagement. Lots of market segmentation there. Also important to think about major donors who give to both parts. But it isn't an immediate obvious statement that sports=alumni giving or at least the incremental delta.

3) Ditto enrollment/applications. There is a really good set of research that looks at the "Boise State/Penn State" effect of how college prowness yeilds increased applicaitons which, in turn, allows for greater selectivity and, in turn, better rankings that all create a virtuous cycle. But Cal is so far beyond that game it doesn't NEED to further juice the application pool. Indeed, probably politically it would be better to have the number of applicants DECREASE as there are problems it faces when you have in state students with 4.4s getting rejected at the current rate.

4) What Cal NEEDS is investments that yeild additional private and public sector research grants. That is, bluntly, were the big bucks are as that supports grad research and, thorugh the overhead tax, a big chunk of the university overhead. College sports do not do that - unless there is (see #2) a direct relationship between sports and alumni engagement that get additional endowed chairs and capital investments in reseach lab spaces.

I know we love Cal Sports. While my own PERSONAL love has declined because of the Jones/Fox debacle AND the futility of the NIL era that is emerging to allow Cal to field competitive teams I still do enjoy watching the blue and gold. But realistically I can absolutely see the argument to let the patient die rather than participate in a short term race that would leave true "student athletes" that play sports without professional upside flying 6 hours to do a gynamstics meet in Rutgers..

socaltownie said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

Out Of The Past said:

---

aowatson said:

---

Best route is to stop pretending. Cal's predicament is a result of half-assed commitments to football and basketball, trying to do just enough to appear to belong in the big leagues. It's been a slow decline over maybe 50 years, save a few stars like Muncie, Rodgers. I think I'd rather see a bold move to emphasize academics. Stanford, as a private school, could probably talk its way into the Ivy League. Could Cal? Harvard's basketball and swim teams aren't bad.

---

This seems the most logical extension to me as well. We already recruit some athletes that are also considering Ivy schools. I don't see Cal spending anywhere near the amount that would be required to challenge the major football programs in the B10, or bending academic requirements any further to admit more talent at the B10 level. Our academic reputation is already solid in the Ivies. From what I hear anecdotally, Cal sends a significant number of undergrads to Ivy grad schools. Go with our strength. I have attended Ivy games, found them exciting and really enjoyable. Game strategies frequently involve improvisation. Outcomes are not ordained. Watch "Harvard beats Yale 29 - 29" sometime.

---

Ivy fb is terrible. Looks like glorified hs. Players are 2* and coaches are, too. I don't enjoy seeing a wr drop an easy one and hang his head as he trots back to the huddle while 2,000 fans groan. (Remember the AZ game? Hated to say it, but the truth is the truth).

---

Yo, that's a BS post!
My grandmother's brothers were all Americans at Ohio State in the 30's. They weighed a buck 80.
They had packed stadiums.

There's plenty of fun to be had watching 2* athletes compete.
The whole FOMO factor here is astonishing.

---

We're discussing the viability of a major college athletics program. That requires $$$ and the tv and in person fans who pay to see them. When you pay, you expect to get what you pay for. To old Ivy alums, that means barely watching, as you yuk it up in the stands or do business there. Most others expect a little more.

---

Like I said: FOMO.

I'm just pointing out that the arms race in college football is ABSURD, and everyone knows it!
At some point, it's okay to back away from the bar. Homey don't need to play that game.

If you want to create a different reality, someone needs to do so.

The Ivys did, and they seem to be having a lot of fun "yuking it up", as you say - while everyone else frets over being passed over.

Create your own damn reality!

---

I don't disagree (except for the stadium debt and I think honestly Cal should just dump that onto the system or threaten to take 60% foreign students until paid off).

1) It isn't clear the $$ is going to go to benefit the core university mission. Instead it is likely to get sucked up by ever escalating coaching salaries, more capital expenses, paying the salaries (that day is coming) of revenue athletes along with their disability insurance and possible pensions AND the coming payouts for your employees getting CTE.

2) I really would like to see (I am sure the advancement office has) a study of the importance of sports for alumni engagement. Lots of market segmentation there. Also important to think about major donors who give to both parts. But it isn't an immediate obvious statement that sports=alumni giving or at least the incremental delta.

3) Ditto enrollment/applications. There is a really good set of research that looks at the "Boise State/Penn State" effect of how college prowness yeilds increased applicaitons which, in turn, allows for greater selectivity and, in turn, better rankings that all create a virtuous cycle. But Cal is so far beyond that game it doesn't NEED to further juice the application pool. Indeed, probably politically it would be better to have the number of applicants DECREASE as there are problems it faces when you have in state students with 4.4s getting rejected at the current rate.

4) What Cal NEEDS is investments that yeild additional private and public sector research grants. That is, bluntly, were the big bucks are as that supports grad research and, thorugh the overhead tax, a big chunk of the university overhead. College sports do not do that - unless there is (see #2) a direct relationship between sports and alumni engagement that get additional endowed chairs and capital investments in reseach lab spaces.

I know we love Cal Sports. While my own PERSONAL love has declined because of the Jones/Fox debacle AND the futility of the NIL era that is emerging to allow Cal to field competitive teams I still do enjoy watching the blue and gold. But realistically I can absolutely see the argument to let the patient die rather than participate in a short term race that would leave true "student athletes" that play sports without professional upside flying 6 hours to do a gynamstics meet in Rutgers..

---

1. Cal has failed to create a tradition of alumni giving, whereas so many others have done. This is critical where, as is our case, there is no golden goose (Uncle Phil, Hollywood stars, oil, etc.).

2. Cal failed to defend CRISPR or at least it looks that way. If you tout grants, etc., as a major source of univ support (not sure how that connects to athletics), you must maximize the results when they prove out. Cal just let that patent go, at least that's how it looks. In any event, we failed to maximize the asset

3. Because of the above (and other tendencies), we have had to resort to relying on public support or the promise of it, which sways with the wind. This is what happens when you put your future in the hands of others...whose interests don't necessarily coincide with yours..

Time for Cal to take a no holds barred assessment from the bottom up and consider reinventing the place. (Saw an ad today where Newsom is trying to recruit Floridians to move to CA. Ahahahaha).

Rushinbear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

Out Of The Past said:

---

aowatson said:

---

Best route is to stop pretending. Cal's predicament is a result of half-assed commitments to football and basketball, trying to do just enough to appear to belong in the big leagues. It's been a slow decline over maybe 50 years, save a few stars like Muncie, Rodgers. I think I'd rather see a bold move to emphasize academics. Stanford, as a private school, could probably talk its way into the Ivy League. Could Cal? Harvard's basketball and swim teams aren't bad.

---

This seems the most logical extension to me as well. We already recruit some athletes that are also considering Ivy schools. I don't see Cal spending anywhere near the amount that would be required to challenge the major football programs in the B10, or bending academic requirements any further to admit more talent at the B10 level. Our academic reputation is already solid in the Ivies. From what I hear anecdotally, Cal sends a significant number of undergrads to Ivy grad schools. Go with our strength. I have attended Ivy games, found them exciting and really enjoyable. Game strategies frequently involve improvisation. Outcomes are not ordained. Watch "Harvard beats Yale 29 - 29" sometime.

---

Ivy fb is terrible. Looks like glorified hs. Players are 2* and coaches are, too. I don't enjoy seeing a wr drop an easy one and hang his head as he trots back to the huddle while 2,000 fans groan. (Remember the AZ game? Hated to say it, but the truth is the truth).

---

Yo, that's a BS post!
My grandmother's brothers were all Americans at Ohio State in the 30's. They weighed a buck 80.
They had packed stadiums.

There's plenty of fun to be had watching 2* athletes compete.
The whole FOMO factor here is astonishing.

---

We're discussing the viability of a major college athletics program. That requires $$$ and the tv and in person fans who pay to see them. When you pay, you expect to get what you pay for. To old Ivy alums, that means barely watching, as you yuk it up in the stands or do business there. Most others expect a little more.

---

Like I said: FOMO.

I'm just pointing out that the arms race in college football is ABSURD, and everyone knows it!
At some point, it's okay to back away from the bar. Homey don't need to play that game.

If you want to create a different reality, someone needs to do so.

The Ivys did, and they seem to be having a lot of fun "yuking it up", as you say - while everyone else frets over being passed over.

Create your own damn reality!

---

I don't disagree (except for the stadium debt and I think honestly Cal should just dump that onto the system or threaten to take 60% foreign students until paid off).

1) It isn't clear the $$ is going to go to benefit the core university mission. Instead it is likely to get sucked up by ever escalating coaching salaries, more capital expenses, paying the salaries (that day is coming) of revenue athletes along with their disability insurance and possible pensions AND the coming payouts for your employees getting CTE.

2) I really would like to see (I am sure the advancement office has) a study of the importance of sports for alumni engagement. Lots of market segmentation there. Also important to think about major donors who give to both parts. But it isn't an immediate obvious statement that sports=alumni giving or at least the incremental delta.

3) Ditto enrollment/applications. There is a really good set of research that looks at the "Boise State/Penn State" effect of how college prowness yeilds increased applicaitons which, in turn, allows for greater selectivity and, in turn, better rankings that all create a virtuous cycle. But Cal is so far beyond that game it doesn't NEED to further juice the application pool. Indeed, probably politically it would be better to have the number of applicants DECREASE as there are problems it faces when you have in state students with 4.4s getting rejected at the current rate.

4) What Cal NEEDS is investments that yeild additional private and public sector research grants. That is, bluntly, were the big bucks are as that supports grad research and, thorugh the overhead tax, a big chunk of the university overhead. College sports do not do that - unless there is (see #2) a direct relationship between sports and alumni engagement that get additional endowed chairs and capital investments in reseach lab spaces.

I know we love Cal Sports. While my own PERSONAL love has declined because of the Jones/Fox debacle AND the futility of the NIL era that is emerging to allow Cal to field competitive teams I still do enjoy watching the blue and gold. But realistically I can absolutely see the argument to let the patient die rather than participate in a short term race that would leave true "student athletes" that play sports without professional upside flying 6 hours to do a gynamstics meet in Rutgers..

---

1. Cal has failed to create a tradition of alumni giving, whereas so many others have done. This is critical where, as is our case, there is no golden goose (Uncle Phil, Hollywood stars, oil, etc.).

2. Cal failed to defend CRISPR or at least it looks that way. If you tout grants, etc., as a major source of univ support (not sure how that connects to athletics), you must maximize the results when they prove out. Cal just let that patent go, at least that's how it looks. In any event, we failed to maximize the asset

3. Because of the above (and other tendencies), we have had to resort to relying on public support or the promise of it, which sways with the wind. This is what happens when you put your future in the hands of others...whose interests don't necessarily coincide with yours..

Time for Cal to take a no holds barred assessment from the bottom up and consider reinventing the place. (Saw an ad today where Newsom is trying to recruit Floridians to move to CA. Ahahahaha).

---

1. We do have donors with big pockets but they are not courted in the realm of athletics, save for the Haas family and a few others, do you think Masayoshi Son or the Woz would want to give hundreds of millions of dollars for football? We have not courted a donor to do that specifically.

2. Doudna has pointed out before that while CRISPR is promising, gene-editing technology development is so rapid that CRISPR could be eclipsed pretty quickly by another method, so the maximization of that patent may not be that massive.

3. Annual state support to the campus on a percentage basis has been in the single digits for quite a while now, so in terms of dollars, there is recognition that public support on the whole is not expected to materially impact university affairs, now or in the future.

In a worst-case scenario, if we fall out to a Mountain West or a similar situation, the reckoning will come when the athletic department sees season ticket sales have collapsed and that we also have no money to subsidize the other sports.

AirOski said:

---

You're one of 10. I suggest we might need a larger group of students and alums to make the switch worthwhile.

---

Sounds like you're projecting.

Strykur said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

Out Of The Past said:

---

aowatson said:

---

Best route is to stop pretending. Cal's predicament is a result of half-assed commitments to football and basketball, trying to do just enough to appear to belong in the big leagues. It's been a slow decline over maybe 50 years, save a few stars like Muncie, Rodgers. I think I'd rather see a bold move to emphasize academics. Stanford, as a private school, could probably talk its way into the Ivy League. Could Cal? Harvard's basketball and swim teams aren't bad.

---

This seems the most logical extension to me as well. We already recruit some athletes that are also considering Ivy schools. I don't see Cal spending anywhere near the amount that would be required to challenge the major football programs in the B10, or bending academic requirements any further to admit more talent at the B10 level. Our academic reputation is already solid in the Ivies. From what I hear anecdotally, Cal sends a significant number of undergrads to Ivy grad schools. Go with our strength. I have attended Ivy games, found them exciting and really enjoyable. Game strategies frequently involve improvisation. Outcomes are not ordained. Watch "Harvard beats Yale 29 - 29" sometime.

---

Ivy fb is terrible. Looks like glorified hs. Players are 2* and coaches are, too. I don't enjoy seeing a wr drop an easy one and hang his head as he trots back to the huddle while 2,000 fans groan. (Remember the AZ game? Hated to say it, but the truth is the truth).

---

Yo, that's a BS post!
My grandmother's brothers were all Americans at Ohio State in the 30's. They weighed a buck 80.
They had packed stadiums.

There's plenty of fun to be had watching 2* athletes compete.
The whole FOMO factor here is astonishing.

---

We're discussing the viability of a major college athletics program. That requires $$$ and the tv and in person fans who pay to see them. When you pay, you expect to get what you pay for. To old Ivy alums, that means barely watching, as you yuk it up in the stands or do business there. Most others expect a little more.

---

Like I said: FOMO.

I'm just pointing out that the arms race in college football is ABSURD, and everyone knows it!
At some point, it's okay to back away from the bar. Homey don't need to play that game.

If you want to create a different reality, someone needs to do so.

The Ivys did, and they seem to be having a lot of fun "yuking it up", as you say - while everyone else frets over being passed over.

Create your own damn reality!

---

I don't disagree (except for the stadium debt and I think honestly Cal should just dump that onto the system or threaten to take 60% foreign students until paid off).

1) It isn't clear the $$ is going to go to benefit the core university mission. Instead it is likely to get sucked up by ever escalating coaching salaries, more capital expenses, paying the salaries (that day is coming) of revenue athletes along with their disability insurance and possible pensions AND the coming payouts for your employees getting CTE.

2) I really would like to see (I am sure the advancement office has) a study of the importance of sports for alumni engagement. Lots of market segmentation there. Also important to think about major donors who give to both parts. But it isn't an immediate obvious statement that sports=alumni giving or at least the incremental delta.

3) Ditto enrollment/applications. There is a really good set of research that looks at the "Boise State/Penn State" effect of how college prowness yeilds increased applicaitons which, in turn, allows for greater selectivity and, in turn, better rankings that all create a virtuous cycle. But Cal is so far beyond that game it doesn't NEED to further juice the application pool. Indeed, probably politically it would be better to have the number of applicants DECREASE as there are problems it faces when you have in state students with 4.4s getting rejected at the current rate.

4) What Cal NEEDS is investments that yeild additional private and public sector research grants. That is, bluntly, were the big bucks are as that supports grad research and, thorugh the overhead tax, a big chunk of the university overhead. College sports do not do that - unless there is (see #2) a direct relationship between sports and alumni engagement that get additional endowed chairs and capital investments in reseach lab spaces.

I know we love Cal Sports. While my own PERSONAL love has declined because of the Jones/Fox debacle AND the futility of the NIL era that is emerging to allow Cal to field competitive teams I still do enjoy watching the blue and gold. But realistically I can absolutely see the argument to let the patient die rather than participate in a short term race that would leave true "student athletes" that play sports without professional upside flying 6 hours to do a gynamstics meet in Rutgers..

---

1. Cal has failed to create a tradition of alumni giving, whereas so many others have done. This is critical where, as is our case, there is no golden goose (Uncle Phil, Hollywood stars, oil, etc.).

2. Cal failed to defend CRISPR or at least it looks that way. If you tout grants, etc., as a major source of univ support (not sure how that connects to athletics), you must maximize the results when they prove out. Cal just let that patent go, at least that's how it looks. In any event, we failed to maximize the asset

3. Because of the above (and other tendencies), we have had to resort to relying on public support or the promise of it, which sways with the wind. This is what happens when you put your future in the hands of others...whose interests don't necessarily coincide with yours..

Time for Cal to take a no holds barred assessment from the bottom up and consider reinventing the place. (Saw an ad today where Newsom is trying to recruit Floridians to move to CA. Ahahahaha).

---

1. We do have donors with big pockets but they are not courted in the realm of athletics, save for the Haas family and a few others, do you think Masayoshi Son or the Woz would want to give hundreds of millions of dollars for football? We have not courted a donor to do that specifically.

2. Doudna has pointed out before that while CRISPR is promising, gene-editing technology development is so rapid that CRISPR could be eclipsed pretty quickly by another method, so the maximization of that patent may not be that massive.

3. Annual state support to the campus on a percentage basis has been in the single digits for quite a while now, so in terms of dollars, there is recognition that public support on the whole is not expected to materially impact university affairs, now or in the future.

In a worst-case scenario, if we fall out to a Mountain West or a similar situation, the reckoning will come when the athletic department sees season ticket sales have collapsed and that we also have no money to subsidize the other sports.

---

The reckoning is already here, today. Anyone can look up the public records to see what the Mountain West TV rights are/were. Even if we are generous on renewals, the amount that the Mountain West pulls in is only a fraction of what the Pac AD's were planning on. Mtn West = decimation of the athletic department and the defunding of several sports, starting with the men's (for T9). No way we can continue to field 30 teams.

Strykur said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

Out Of The Past said:

---

aowatson said:

---

Best route is to stop pretending. Cal's predicament is a result of half-assed commitments to football and basketball, trying to do just enough to appear to belong in the big leagues. It's been a slow decline over maybe 50 years, save a few stars like Muncie, Rodgers. I think I'd rather see a bold move to emphasize academics. Stanford, as a private school, could probably talk its way into the Ivy League. Could Cal? Harvard's basketball and swim teams aren't bad.

---

This seems the most logical extension to me as well. We already recruit some athletes that are also considering Ivy schools. I don't see Cal spending anywhere near the amount that would be required to challenge the major football programs in the B10, or bending academic requirements any further to admit more talent at the B10 level. Our academic reputation is already solid in the Ivies. From what I hear anecdotally, Cal sends a significant number of undergrads to Ivy grad schools. Go with our strength. I have attended Ivy games, found them exciting and really enjoyable. Game strategies frequently involve improvisation. Outcomes are not ordained. Watch "Harvard beats Yale 29 - 29" sometime.

---

Ivy fb is terrible. Looks like glorified hs. Players are 2* and coaches are, too. I don't enjoy seeing a wr drop an easy one and hang his head as he trots back to the huddle while 2,000 fans groan. (Remember the AZ game? Hated to say it, but the truth is the truth).

---

Yo, that's a BS post!
My grandmother's brothers were all Americans at Ohio State in the 30's. They weighed a buck 80.
They had packed stadiums.

There's plenty of fun to be had watching 2* athletes compete.
The whole FOMO factor here is astonishing.

---

We're discussing the viability of a major college athletics program. That requires $$$ and the tv and in person fans who pay to see them. When you pay, you expect to get what you pay for. To old Ivy alums, that means barely watching, as you yuk it up in the stands or do business there. Most others expect a little more.

---

Like I said: FOMO.

I'm just pointing out that the arms race in college football is ABSURD, and everyone knows it!
At some point, it's okay to back away from the bar. Homey don't need to play that game.

If you want to create a different reality, someone needs to do so.

The Ivys did, and they seem to be having a lot of fun "yuking it up", as you say - while everyone else frets over being passed over.

Create your own damn reality!

---

I don't disagree (except for the stadium debt and I think honestly Cal should just dump that onto the system or threaten to take 60% foreign students until paid off).

1) It isn't clear the $$ is going to go to benefit the core university mission. Instead it is likely to get sucked up by ever escalating coaching salaries, more capital expenses, paying the salaries (that day is coming) of revenue athletes along with their disability insurance and possible pensions AND the coming payouts for your employees getting CTE.

2) I really would like to see (I am sure the advancement office has) a study of the importance of sports for alumni engagement. Lots of market segmentation there. Also important to think about major donors who give to both parts. But it isn't an immediate obvious statement that sports=alumni giving or at least the incremental delta.

3) Ditto enrollment/applications. There is a really good set of research that looks at the "Boise State/Penn State" effect of how college prowness yeilds increased applicaitons which, in turn, allows for greater selectivity and, in turn, better rankings that all create a virtuous cycle. But Cal is so far beyond that game it doesn't NEED to further juice the application pool. Indeed, probably politically it would be better to have the number of applicants DECREASE as there are problems it faces when you have in state students with 4.4s getting rejected at the current rate.

4) What Cal NEEDS is investments that yeild additional private and public sector research grants. That is, bluntly, were the big bucks are as that supports grad research and, thorugh the overhead tax, a big chunk of the university overhead. College sports do not do that - unless there is (see #2) a direct relationship between sports and alumni engagement that get additional endowed chairs and capital investments in reseach lab spaces.

I know we love Cal Sports. While my own PERSONAL love has declined because of the Jones/Fox debacle AND the futility of the NIL era that is emerging to allow Cal to field competitive teams I still do enjoy watching the blue and gold. But realistically I can absolutely see the argument to let the patient die rather than participate in a short term race that would leave true "student athletes" that play sports without professional upside flying 6 hours to do a gynamstics meet in Rutgers..

---

1. Cal has failed to create a tradition of alumni giving, whereas so many others have done. This is critical where, as is our case, there is no golden goose (Uncle Phil, Hollywood stars, oil, etc.).

2. Cal failed to defend CRISPR or at least it looks that way. If you tout grants, etc., as a major source of univ support (not sure how that connects to athletics), you must maximize the results when they prove out. Cal just let that patent go, at least that's how it looks. In any event, we failed to maximize the asset

3. Because of the above (and other tendencies), we have had to resort to relying on public support or the promise of it, which sways with the wind. This is what happens when you put your future in the hands of others...whose interests don't necessarily coincide with yours..

Time for Cal to take a no holds barred assessment from the bottom up and consider reinventing the place. (Saw an ad today where Newsom is trying to recruit Floridians to move to CA. Ahahahaha).

---

1. We do have donors with big pockets but they are not courted in the realm of athletics, save for the Haas family and a few others, do you think Masayoshi Son or the Woz would want to give hundreds of millions of dollars for football? We have not courted a donor to do that specifically.

2. Doudna has pointed out before that while CRISPR is promising, gene-editing technology development is so rapid that CRISPR could be eclipsed pretty quickly by another method, so the maximization of that patent may not be that massive.

3. Annual state support to the campus on a percentage basis has been in the single digits for quite a while now, so in terms of dollars, there is recognition that public support on the whole is not expected to materially impact university affairs, now or in the future.

In a worst-case scenario, if we fall out to a Mountain West or a similar situation, the reckoning will come when the athletic department sees season ticket sales have collapsed and that we also have no money to subsidize the other sports.

---

1. My first college out of hs was an Ivy. The first day, at enrollment, I was ushered (as we all were) to the Univ Support table. Each of us was taken aside by an upper classman and an alum and told that we would be doing our part to support the univ, starting with graduation. They must have known that I was poor, because the guys who came from money were hit up right on the spot. It was explained that this would be a lifetime expectation and beyond. Even though I lasted only one year, I was hit up twice a year for another 30 years.My second college (before Cal) was the same, even though I was a transfer. Cal? You know the answer to that one.

2. Cal let a Harvard/MIT consortium get away with adopting CRISPR for specialized applications within a few years of releasing it. We let them get away with it right under our noses.

3. The extent of public support is immaterial to this. It is the mindset and expectation of Californians that Cal is thusly supported that counts. It's government money and, therefore, free that governs - the attitude.

We'll see. I'm sure there are admins that are doing their best.

Would love to see Cal cut all varsity sports. If that's the cost of losing FB, I wouldn't mind at all. Of course, it's not hard when the FB has sucked as long as it has.

Cutting varsity sports is not the solution to anything. However, backing away from "big time" sports makes sense. Go Ivyish and cut scholarships. Cut the outrageous coaches' salaries. Play the game because you want to, not as a business decision. Many can obtain great benefits from participation at the highest level. Such participation needn't be bought and sold.

bearchamp said:

---

Cutting varsity sports is not the solution to anything. However, backing away from "big time" sports makes sense. Go Ivyish and cut scholarships. Cut the outrageous coaches' salaries. Play the game because you want to, not as a business decision. Many can obtain great benefits from participation at the highest level. Such participation needn't be bought and sold.

---

And who is gonna pay for the coaching, the travel, the field upkeep? The Ivies have multi-billion dollar endowments* and they believe sponsoring athletics is part of their educational mission. If it comes down to paying faculty salaries to reduce class sizes, or bus travel to Seattle to compete at teh so-called "highest level", there is no question who wins that battle at Cal.

*And thousands of students who pay sticker price.

Some sports are already endowed at Cal. People (alumni and students) can vote with their wallets. Football may not travel much. So?

concordtom said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

Out Of The Past said:

---

aowatson said:

---

Best route is to stop pretending. Cal's predicament is a result of half-assed commitments to football and basketball, trying to do just enough to appear to belong in the big leagues. It's been a slow decline over maybe 50 years, save a few stars like Muncie, Rodgers. I think I'd rather see a bold move to emphasize academics. Stanford, as a private school, could probably talk its way into the Ivy League. Could Cal? Harvard's basketball and swim teams aren't bad.

---

This seems the most logical extension to me as well. We already recruit some athletes that are also considering Ivy schools. I don't see Cal spending anywhere near the amount that would be required to challenge the major football programs in the B10, or bending academic requirements any further to admit more talent at the B10 level. Our academic reputation is already solid in the Ivies. From what I hear anecdotally, Cal sends a significant number of undergrads to Ivy grad schools. Go with our strength. I have attended Ivy games, found them exciting and really enjoyable. Game strategies frequently involve improvisation. Outcomes are not ordained. Watch "Harvard beats Yale 29 - 29" sometime.

---

Ivy fb is terrible. Looks like glorified hs. Players are 2* and coaches are, too. I don't enjoy seeing a wr drop an easy one and hang his head as he trots back to the huddle while 2,000 fans groan. (Remember the AZ game? Hated to say it, but the truth is the truth).

---

Yo, that's a BS post!
My grandmother's brothers were all Americans at Ohio State in the 30's. They weighed a buck 80.
They had packed stadiums.

There's plenty of fun to be had watching 2* athletes compete.
The whole FOMO factor here is astonishing.

---

We're discussing the viability of a major college athletics program. That requires $$$ and the tv and in person fans who pay to see them. When you pay, you expect to get what you pay for. To old Ivy alums, that means barely watching, as you yuk it up in the stands or do business there. Most others expect a little more.

---

Like I said: FOMO.

I'm just pointing out that the arms race in college football is ABSURD, and everyone knows it!
At some point, it's okay to back away from the bar. Homey don't need to play that game.

If you want to create a different reality, someone needs to do so.

The Ivys did, and they seem to be having a lot of fun "yuking it up", as you say - while everyone else frets over being passed over.

Create your own damn reality!

---

But the Ivys did it collectively. As a group of peers. With long histories.

Who does Cal have to go create this different reality with? Harvard facing off against Yale and UPenn draws interest from students and alumni for obvious reasons that Cal facing off against Utah State and UNLV just doesn't for equally obvious reason. Cal's problem is that our peers within our geographic vicinity have decided to pursue the almighty dollar or long ago decided to pursue the University of Chicago route.