Story Poster
Photo by UC Berkeley
Cal Football

The future of Cal Athletics is in question

December 3, 2023
39,251

Cal holds a unique place in the world as an institution of higher learning, a catalyst for societal change, and a magnet for world-class students and teachers.   

There’s no doubt that the ethos of the University of California lies in its intellectual and academic brand.   And while that brand can be amplified and reinforced by success in athletics, such success has to occur in a manner consistent with that brand.

This article is not intended to evolve Cal into something it simply never has been or ever will be.   Instead, it’s a wake-up call that what the University wants and arguably needs from athletics is at existential risk. 

We start with the presumption that Cal, as the flagship of the UC system and the most renowned and respected public institution of learning in the world, sees value in offering students the ability to compete at the very highest levels of athletic competition.   And that through athletics, not only do those students who participate have their experience at Cal enriched but a sense of permanent community and connection is created with the broader student population.   And given that Cal increasingly relies on private donations to fund itself, the athletic teams that represent the University are essential to ongoing alumni and donor engagement.

With that belief in place, one has to admit the reality that all of Cal’s athletic programs exist and are enabled only through the revenue generated by the football program.  Men’s basketball can and usually does contribute a small amount of profit and other sports through endowments are somewhat self-sufficient, yet the Athletic Department as a whole exists because of football. 

Football contributes between $25 and $35M annually to the Athletic Department, after paying 100% of its own expenses.  If that money were to go away or be seriously mitigated, it’s not simply that sports would have to be cut, the infrastructure that supports any remaining programs would be seriously tested.   And far more importantly in the long term, Cal without football that matters would almost certainly lead to the loss of connection students and alumni have with the University, easily costing the school billions of dollars in future donations. 

Despite the above, Cal has never prioritized football much less seen the obvious ROI in investing in the program.  In fact, they have ignored the fiscal realities embraced by virtually every other major university over the last several decades and chosen to do just the opposite.   Starting roughly in 2007, Cal’s then Athletic Director Sandy Barbour made the decision to take all donations made to football above a certain dollar threshold and reallocate those dollars to balance the broader athletic department budget.  Let’s be very plain about this - donors were being intentionally misled and critical dollars needed for football to keep the team competitive, fill Memorial Stadium, and catalyze broader donations and giving to the University were being spent elsewhere.  At another institution, it's not hard to imagine that this kind of financial chicanery would have resulted in multiple people being fired once it came to light.   

That practice continued unabated until an exiting administrator shared these details with a group of donors which led to the creation of the Championship Caliber Fund, which places football donors in a separate auditable fund tracked by donors to ensure it is spent only on football and at the discretion of the head football coach.   A fund whose existence was fought against by the school until it was clear that donors would simply stop giving without it.   Decades of inadequate funding put the football program in a position where not only were its relative revenues declining but it was in the bottom quartile of Pac-12 programs with its operating budget, effectively eliminating it from being consistently competitive.    In addition, fan and donor support had slipped to the point that Cal came within a single vote from North Carolina State of not existing -  at least not in a form that would have any chance of continuing to support the University’s mission of athletic diversity and long-term alumni engagement. 

It’s now the end of 2023, Cal has been given a lifeline via admission into the ACC.   As a result of timely and effective fundraising and organizational administration catalyzed by donors and specifically the Bear Insider community, Cal created an NIL program that has allowed Cal football and men’s basketball to be competitive.   Yet the future of the NIL collective is uncertain as its momentum is stymied by a decade-plus of the school’s willful failure to make the institutional commitment and investment necessary for football.

If Cal truly does want to have a viable athletic program, the way forward is clear.   The leadership of the Chancellor, the Athletic Director, and the head football coach have to be committed to a consistently winning football program and they have to be capable of executing against that goal.   Further, Cal needs to either see a meaningful shift in the approach of its existing large donors to athletics or very quickly catalyze a new generation of athletic philanthropists.   

It starts with the Chancellor.  The search is underway to replace Carol Christ and the Regents have to decide whether they believe in and care to support the value of Cal having a strong athletic program.  If they do, the new Chancellor must have a background and understanding of today's college football landscape and be prepared to be a change agent, evaluating and as necessary evolving every aspect of the Athletic Department:  How it is led and run, and the critical importance of supporting and investing in the football program.   If you care about athletics at Cal, if you believe in the value that it provides the University, then you need to be laser-focused on the search for a new Chancellor.  One cannot overstate the importance of hiring the right person for this role for the future of Cal athletics. 

The history of Cal athletics and football as it has existed for 100 years is no longer relevant to the present or future.  Disappointment, regret, and hand-wringing on both how Cal has handled donor relations in the past as well as how college athletics at large have evolved with the large amounts of money now involved, doesn’t change the reality of where things sit today.   Cal cannot complain its way to success or even survival.  It needs to adapt to the facts on the ground as every other team competing at this level has done and is doing.  Once Cal accepts this reality it must solve the problem of how Cal, with its unique place in the universe of higher learning, finds a way to not only survive but to thrive given the new reality.   Instead of being a victim of the changed circumstance, Cal can be a leader to help resolve the difficult puzzle of reconciling conference realignment, student-athlete well-being, and how to blend the profit motive of the NCAA, TV networks, and the conferences into a more reasoned and practical foundation for the future. 

Once a Chancellor is in place who is awake to the current situation and equipped to tackle the inherent challenges, Cal’s most critical decision is to ensure that Cal has an Athletic Director who embraces and enables the prioritization of football with a near-term goal of ensuring Cal survives the next round of conference musical chairs.   

That Athletic Director has to be a big-picture thinker.  Someone who cares less about being a risk mitigator and more about investing against and solving for the opportunities and challenges that ensure Cal can have a vibrant and successful athletic program a decade from now.  They need to truly understand and create plans for fan and donor engagement, including making former student-athletes continue to feel like part of the Cal family.  They need to hire administrators who realize their job is to support and enable the football program rather than find ways to continuously block every innovation that could lead to success.  It is undeniable that Cal has institutionally empowered a group of mid-level bureaucrats who see their sole job to say “no” to whatever question is put in front of them.  They are continuously rewarded and promoted for doing so.  This cultural failure, as much as anything, lies at the root of many of Cal’s challenges in achieving success in its revenue sports.  And Cal desperately needs strong leaders at both the Chancellor and the Athletic Director level who can help to shift this paradigm.     

Balancing the budget, which has occupied the majority of the current administration’s focus for several years, is an insufficiency and becomes criminal when it requires under-investing in the program which the entirety of the department relies on for revenue.  Cal’s Athletic Director has to see their primary job as removing roadblocks from the Bears having a winning football program and hiring and then holding the head football coach accountable for success. 

Again, let’s be clear.  You can have academic integrity, enjoy the value of high-character student-athletes be part of Cal’s unique culture, and still win football games.   This is not a zero-sum game.   Stanford, Cal’s arch-rival, had a top 10 program nationally for nealry a decade in the very recent past.    

An expertise in football, a background in marketing, and the ability to think holistically about Cal amid a challenging and dynamic landscape are essential skills for the Athletic Director. 

It is not easy to be the head football coach at Cal.  Sonny Dykes success at TCU underscores that success comes not simply from the leader of the football program as much as the institutional support behind them.   That said, the head coach has to be a willing fundraiser, someone who can catalyze donor support.  They have to have an almost misguided level of confidence that they can win at Cal and a near ruthless resolve to make decisions using the simple lens of what will help this team win football games. 

They cannot be afraid of pushing back on the Athletic Director, the Chancellor, and the University.  Upsetting the apple cart and occasionally breaking glass has to be part of the job description.   Cal’s historical problem has often been that it has been too deeply rooted in the acceptance of mediocrity and solving for things other than how best to support football. 

Lastly, the donor base has to educate itself and wake up to the reality of today's college athletics landscape.  The transfer portal, NIL, conference re-alignment, etc.   If they truly want Cal to have a vibrant athletic program into the medium-term future, they need to not only step up with their wallets, they need to hold accountable the Chancellor, the AD, and the head football coach in a way that frankly has not historically felt comfortable for this group.  There has been, and continues to be, far too much focus from our donor community on either the grievances of the past or some idealized conceptualization of what college athletics “should” be.  The reality is that college athletes can now earn money, much as every other college student has always been able to do.  Decrying this phenomenon does not change the reality.  We either need to live with this or we need to abandon the pretense that we are competing at the highest level.  And candidly concerns over the soul of athletics by those who have stood by, and often facilitated, more and more money pouring into coaching staffs and facilities rings hollow. Money is part of athletics.  It always has been.   

The transfer portal opens tomorrow.  There’s a real chance that Cal’s most exciting and dynamic football talent over the past ten years will leave the Bears because another school has shown they care more about football and him than does Cal.   For the Cal Legends Collective to have anything close to the level of sufficient resources for the Bears to have a winning football program in 2024, at least one large cornerstone donor has to immediately be found.. 

The status quo is simply not tenable.  A 6-6 regular season and minor bowl isn’t going to lead to new season ticket sales and increased donations to football.  If resources aren’t found, more good players are going to leave and Cal will be unable to compete in the transfer portal to find competitive replacements.   

TIme is running out.

Discussion from...

The future of Cal Athletics is in question

33,300 Views | 124 Replies | Last: 11 mo ago by juarezbear
Cal84
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:



6. Once all the above measures are taken, each sport can be reviewed for elimination, with particular attention to the men's teams due to Title 9 concerns. Every men's team needs to find itself and the deficit on a women's team or face elimination. As much as possible, combine men's and women's teams into essentially a single co-ed team that competes separately as we have done in swimming.
This is basically what needs to be done. Ugly. Brutal. But that is the result of kicking the can down the road for 10+ years and not making the hard decisions earlier. And for that reason I do NOT want a new AD who is a big sports booster. Stop saving programs that need to be cut. Amputate, so that what is left can survive. If that had been done 10+ years ago, more programs would have been saved in the LR. If we don't do it now, all sports will be dead in another 10 years.
cal observer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Two questions:
1. What is the mandate/purpose of the University of California?
2. In what way does football advance that?

Having asked those questions, and as a taxpayer not wishing to be on the hook for the debt payments on the $500M stadium retrofit & high-end work out facility in 2031, I enjoy team victories leading to more butts in the seats.

Also, the HC seems to be a decent human, not always the case in the world of football coaches.
See: Dykes, "Sonny" for example.
BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

1. The ACC only requires 4 sports: football. Men's and women's basketball, and either women's soccer or women's volleyball. I'd go with women's soccer. ACC is a great women's soccer league and volleyball is good out West.

2. All other sports (including woman's volleyball should be in the Big West competing in California against other UC's. We can probably convince Stanford to do the same but can still compete with them (and a few ACC teams) anyways. This will greatly reduce non/revenue sports travel expenses.

3. The remaining Olympic sports, now played in the Big West, may have to go to an Ivy "no scholarship, only financial aid" model. Apart from scholarships created by donors. The key draw is the admission slot to Cal and the provision of facilities and coaching.

(1) and (2) This is unnecessary for most sports. It's only arguably helpful for team sports played solely on a one team vs. one team basis with large conference schedules, like football, basketball, soccer. So maybe this could be done for, say, baseball and softball (which, IIRC, are the two most expensive "non revenue" college sports). But there is no point to this idea for swimming, golf, track, and other sports that compete in "meets" rather than one team vs. one team contests. Those sports don't have to send teams cross-country ten times a year; many of them could send teams to the east coast only once a year, for ACC conference championship events.

(3) This isn't practical because of Title IX. The 85 football scholarships have to be offset by 85 full women's athletic scholarships. It's also not practical for reputational reasons. Any power conference athletic department in which only football and basketball players are on scholarship would be laughed at throughout college sports. The only practical solutions are to operate the sports as scholarship sports, or not offer them at all.

Finally:
--Some of the "non revenue" sports are already supported by donors who would stop donating if "their" sport was dropped.
-- And, as mentioned in other comments in this thread, because of Title IX, the university would probably have to drop multiple men's sports before dropping any women's sports, and there's no chance (because of donors and otherwise) that Cal would drop longtime successful men's sports such as water polo, swimming, and golf.
--The amount of money saved by dropping any one "non revenue" sport is not consequential. The actual savings for one sport would be around $1.5 million/year (somewhat more for baseball and softball). There's no significant budgetary benefit unless several sports are dropped.
--Can anyone offer a plan that identifies the specific sports to be cut and meets the practical and legal limitations including those mentioned above? I'll believe it when I see it. Might be a lot easier for athletic department development folks to work hard and persuade donors to donate more.
dmh65
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Which sports do you think can or will be cut? Some of our non-revenue sports seem untouchable. For example, both men and women's swim teams, men's water polo, women's gymnastics are all too successful to be cut, aren't they? Because of title IX, it's probably a situation where you have to cut men's sports rather than women's.

One question I have that's kinda off topic. If men's basketball is a revenue generator and women's basketball is not, I would think that the men's coaches would be paid a lot more, and that they would have a higher budget for recruiting etc. But I can also imagine that the athletics department would feel that it had to put equal resources into both, because it might otherwise be sued for gender discrimination. Is that true?

Here's an interesting article about D1 baseball cuts:
https://theathletic.com/2603577/2021/06/16/there-was-no-warning-d1-schools-are-dropping-baseball-what-does-that-mean-for-the-sport/

With the A's impending move, it would especially suck for baseball fans if Cal drops the sport. Personally, I haven't been to many Cal baseball games, but I thought they were great because of how close you could sit (compared to the cheap ass seats i'd get for A's games..).
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
When I used to help my direct reports set goals and evaluate performance, I would insist on spending time setting the right goals and making sure that the targets were clearly measurable and reflect stretch but achievable goals. There is tendency to set qualitative goals that allows people to delude themselves into thinking the performance was good when it wasn't.

Evaluation has to be objective and be trackable. And the goals have to be aligned with the mission and purpose of the program established from the start.

What are the goals and measurement for the AD and the coach at Cal? And what do they need to achieve those goals? While there should still be a modifier for exceptional circumstances, this soft way of measuring performance (we are a tough administration, our "unique" UC Berkeley culture, etc.) is used as a means of overpaying, over retaining, etc, underfunding, etc. As such, the administration can get away with boilerplate bull**** messaging without true accountability of performance against established goals while rewarding people who fail to align their performance that delivers significant positive impact for the program

For us, I have no idea what the measurable goals are for the AD and the coach and what good looks like.
philly1121
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The ACC has 7 teams in the top 20 for mens soccer. It has Clemson in the mens soccer final and FSU in the women's soccer final. The ACC is not going to drop mens soccer.
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I have not read the article yet but, hiring an AD who really emphasizes revenue sports and is a shrewd negotiator of coaching contracts for those sports would go a long way to changing things. Money for coaches helps, but we have been much better their of late. The problem is it gets wasted too often on the wrong personnel. We need to have less tolerance for failure and more willingness to make changes when necessary. This flagship is too weighed down and cannot manuever around icebergs. Less bureaucracy and more flexibility in the administration would help. We also need a chancellor/president who is willing to fire ADs for performance issues related to revenue sports and who also is a shrewd negotiator of contracts.

Lets start with these things and see where that gets us. It may be most of what we need. Long contracts for people that don't performance is killing us.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
philly1121 said:

The ACC has 7 teams in the top 20 for mens soccer. It has Clemson in the mens soccer final and FSU in the women's soccer final. The ACC is not going to drop mens soccer.



We will pummel those ACC teams in soccer just like we pummeled UCLA in football. :/
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
philly1121 said:

The ACC has 7 teams in the top 20 for mens soccer. It has Clemson in the mens soccer final and FSU in the women's soccer final. The ACC is not going to drop mens soccer.



Where did I say the ACC should drop anything? We are talking about how many teams Cal should send to the ACC. Only 4 are required.
philly1121
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Way you worded your sentence. So, Cal mens soccer doesn't go to the ACC? Interesting.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearSD said:


Quote:

1. The ACC only requires 4 sports: football. Men's and women's basketball, and either women's soccer or women's volleyball. I'd go with women's soccer. ACC is a great women's soccer league and volleyball is good out West.

2. All other sports (including woman's volleyball should be in the Big West competing in California against other UC's. We can probably convince Stanford to do the same but can still compete with them (and a few ACC teams) anyways. This will greatly reduce non/revenue sports travel expenses.

3. The remaining Olympic sports, now played in the Big West, may have to go to an Ivy "no scholarship, only financial aid" model. Apart from scholarships created by donors. The key draw is the admission slot to Cal and the provision of facilities and coaching.

(1) and (2) This is unnecessary for most sports. It's only arguably helpful for team sports played solely on a one team vs. one team basis with large conference schedules, like football, basketball, soccer. So maybe this could be done for, say, baseball and softball (which, IIRC, are the two most expensive "non revenue" college sports). But there is no point to this idea for swimming, golf, track, and other sports that compete in "meets" rather than one team vs. one team contests. Those sports don't have to send teams cross-country ten times a year; many of them could send teams to the east coast only once a year, for ACC conference championship events.

(3) This isn't practical because of Title IX. The 85 football scholarships have to be offset by 85 full women's athletic scholarships. It's also not practical for reputational reasons. Any power conference athletic department in which only football and basketball players are on scholarship would be laughed at throughout college sports. The only practical solutions are to operate the sports as scholarship sports, or not offer them at all.

Finally:
--Some of the "non revenue" sports are already supported by donors who would stop donating if "their" sport was dropped.
-- And, as mentioned in other comments in this thread, because of Title IX, the university would probably have to drop multiple men's sports before dropping any women's sports, and there's no chance (because of donors and otherwise) that Cal would drop longtime successful men's sports such as water polo, swimming, and golf.
--The amount of money saved by dropping any one "non revenue" sport is not consequential. The actual savings for one sport would be around $1.5 million/year (somewhat more for baseball and softball). There's no significant budgetary benefit unless several sports are dropped.
--Can anyone offer a plan that identifies the specific sports to be cut and meets the practical and legal limitations including those mentioned above? I'll believe it when I see it. Might be a lot easier for athletic department development folks to work hard and persuade donors to donate more.



1. Obviously Title IX must be complied with. Scholarships to match football start with Wonen's soccer then move on to Women's Volleyball, Softball,Gymnastics ….

2. The Ivies compete in the Olympic sports with no scholarships mostly on the value of an admissions slot. Cal admission, education and a diploma has similar value.

3. Donors can endow scholarships for any sport they want, but if endowing a men's scholarship they need to endow a women's also.

4. Sure, teams that do not require head to head competition can be in the ACC and have all their meets out West then one meet or tournament out east,

4. My above is just a starting point. If there is money to fund more scholarships, great. If teams don't need to travel east to be in the ACC, great. If "getting laughed at" for fielding a team of mostly California kids playing other California kids without scholarships is worse than dropping the sport, then drop the sport. If donors save a men's sport they love (plus fund corresponding woman's scholarships), great.

What I proposed was just the starting point. Whether we add back from that or whether that does not go far enough would be determined by the numbers. If donors can step up to maintain all the sports with the current level of scholarships and AD bureaucratic salary and other expense great, but they haven't to date and the deficit is about to increase dramatically. I believe that a radical rethinking of the role the (men's) non/revenue/Olympic sports play in university life is inevitable.
BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

Here's an interesting article about D1 baseball cuts:


This passage from that article supports my point that cutting only a few sports doesn't save much money.

Quote:

it's not entirely surprising that Iowa State dropped baseball in 2001. At the time, the school projected that the move, combined with cutting men's swimming, would save $370,000 a year. The Big 10, which has 14 schools because, again, nobody knows how to count, also has one abstainer in Wisconsin, which dropped baseball in 1991, also citing budget cuts. The university said that cutting five sports saved $660,000 per year.
https://theathletic.com/2603577/2021/06/16/there-was-no-warning-d1-schools-are-dropping-baseball-what-does-that-mean-for-the-sport/


movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doesn't Title IX work both directions?
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
philly1121 said:

Way you worded your sentence. So, Cal mens soccer doesn't go to the ACC? Interesting.


The starting point is the min 4 required. If there is money left over to send men's soccer (or any other team that makes sense) to the ACC then you can once the budget is balanced, but generally you are choosing for a men's non-revenue sport like soccer:

1. Full scholarships, travel to east coast play in the ACC (and cover an equivalent number of women's scholarships).
2. Full scholarship for California tuition portion only, play on the west coast regionally in another conference (and cover an equivalent number of women's scholarships).
3. No scholarship, admission slot only, play on West Coast.
4. Eliminate

I do think soccer has potential as a revenue sport which would push you up the above ladder.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

Doesn't Title IX work both directions?


Sure, in theory (men attending women's colleges as an example) but in practice at a school like Cal you have to make up for 85 football scholarships going to men. The challenge is funding enough women's teams to counter balls be that. It means having some women's teams with scholarships tgst do not have corresponding men's teams.
Cal84
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cal observer said:

Two questions:
1. What is the mandate/purpose of the University of California?
2. In what way does football advance that?
1) to provide long-term societal benefits through transmitting advanced knowledge, discovering new knowledge, and functioning as an active working repository of organized knowledge (from UC mission statement)

2) It doesn't. Therefore the main objective must be that football does not DETRACT from providing long-term societal benefits through...etc. Fortunately this is fairly easy to accomplish, as football by itself shouldn't be a money losing venture. The problem is that 1) the existence of football has been used to justify the existence of a slew of other sports that do lose money and thus detract from UC's mission statement and 2) bad decisions in the past have led to football contributing to hundreds of millions of dollars of debt that UC is responsible for.
Sebastabear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
UrsineMaximus said:

Question for BI: the recent $$ drive that was matched by the Riveras and others was > 1M. Ott's current NIL, per on3 is $332K. Can the BI opinion authors opine why a "big donor" is required immediately to retain this 10 year talent? Or are penny donors kept out of the loop?


A couple of answers to this.

First and most critically, you have to understand that we are raising NIL funds for an entire team. Jaydn Ott has no interest in being here no matter how many NIL opportunities we produce for him if we don't have a quality offensive line and quality wide receivers and a quality quarterback, etc. He needs to be able to show his stuff. He can't do that playing by himself no matter what his bank account looks like.

Second, you need to understand that the funds we raise are needed on an annual basis. So raising money for our current team was critical. But that's our current team. We are now worried about next year's team.


Last, while I appreciate On3 trying to create a platform for tracking all this, their numbers are basically estimates. They don't really have any idea of what players are getting or what they are worth. And candidly Jaydn is probably worth more to us than he would be to another fanbase, given the importance of keeping and maintaining generational talent. There is nothing more dispiriting than recruiting someone like this out of high school and then see them jump ship for their final year of eligibility. It blows a hole in the entire raison d'etre for the collective.

Hope that makes sense.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

movielover said:

Doesn't Title IX work both directions?


Sure, in theory (men attending women's colleges as an example) but in practice at a school like Cal you have to make up for 85 football scholarships going to men. The challenge is funding enough women's teams to counter balls be that. It means having some women's teams with scholarships tgst do not have corresponding men's teams.


They cut men's sports, they'll have to cut some women's sports.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Econ141 said:

Shocky1 said:


Quote:



update re: yesterday's zoom call between knowlton & the acc commish

the acc commish is encouraging cal to play more west coast teams in non conference play particularly mid majors during the middle of acc conference play

the commish fully understands (unlike the con artist) the importance of the sec football scheduling model of a-c-c-d games to ensure bowl eligibility

right now the bears for 2024 got an "a" game at auburn, a "b" game hosting san diego state & a "d" game hosting uc davis

it's absolutely critical that in cal's inaugural 2024 season in the acc that bowl eligibility is achieved from both a recruiting & fan base energy standpoint...there's gonna be another round of conference realignment in the future & if the bears aren't a perennial bowl team we're gonna be left behind, the mountain west is a death blow...reality is that cal is the acc because of the lobbying efforts of stanford's condeleezza rice & notre dame's jack swarbrick, it got nothing to do with jim or carol who wuz sitting on the sidelines with their hands in their pockets eating popcorn

so that's why not signing the oregon state and/or washington state future football game contracts that are sitting on knowlton's desk awaiting his signature should never be executed, the con artist is awaiting both schools dropping their lawsuits against the departing pac 12 schools

oregon state is a nationally ranked team that could mean cal is not bowl eligible in 2024, the bears got zero recruits from oregon in the current high school class & the fan base got zero interest in traveling to a drizzly azz truck stop town like corvallis anymore

the bears will be playing the irish in the future but not until the current notre dame/stanford series is done in 2025 & the nd tv deal with nbc is finalized...right now it's looking like 3 to 5 games during the next 12 years

the acc comish is working to replace the big 10 in the rose bowl, he's already got deals in place with the holiday bowl & the la bowl (which would be a huge boost for cal recruiting in so cal with usc & ucla games never happening again) for acc teams

not surprisingly at the end of the zoom, knowlton made a cheap shot comment about larry & george as pac 12 commishs which is ironically disingenuous coming from the worst/least qualified athletic director in the nation who plays dodgeball with every interview request

yeah the con artist is continuing his degradation of cal revenue sports, the 4th out of conference game for 2024 is absolutely critical with respects to the upward trajectory of the cal football program...he's made in clear he's not gonna cut any sports or reduce any of his massive infrastructure of worthless bureaucrats like himself & markeisha, financial comprehension/responsibility is not in his tool kit

only a dumb **** would schedule oregon state for 2024 (or extend mark fox's contract)

cap
cal's dumb as **** athletic director has signed the 2024 oregon state contract as 1st reported here, knowlton's clueless enablers will tell you the beavers are a beatable team but reality is that they've been a nationally ranked team the last 2 years & with martinez returning at rb they will be a 50/50 game for the bears next season

james arthur knowlton signed the oregon state contract despite the acc commish telling him to schedule a mid major mid season to ensure as many acc teams as possible are bowl eligible


More proof he is trying to tank the program. Great way to get on the good side of the ACC commish by ignoring his recommendation. I bet he signed up for an away game too, that moron.

What does it take to get fired at Berkeley?


Agreed. He is a parasite, just sucking the lifeblood out of his victim.

That said, Hawaii and Cal can still schedule a 13th game using the Hawaii Exception. It would give us a winnable game in a great recruiting territory and great trip for the fans. Though the current low airfares out of Oakland to Honolulu my be impacted by the announced audition of Hawaiian by Alaska.
Big Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

calumnus said:

movielover said:

Doesn't Title IX work both directions?


Sure, in theory (men attending women's colleges as an example) but in practice at a school like Cal you have to make up for 85 football scholarships going to men. The challenge is funding enough women's teams to counter balls be that. It means having some women's teams with scholarships tgst do not have corresponding men's teams.


They cut men's sports, they'll have to cut some women's sports.
once we cut any women's teams, we have to cut more men's teams as we move into a different prong for T9. (proportional representation based on student body, which is ~56% women)
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

calumnus said:

movielover said:

Doesn't Title IX work both directions?


Sure, in theory (men attending women's colleges as an example) but in practice at a school like Cal you have to make up for 85 football scholarships going to men. The challenge is funding enough women's teams to counter balls be that. It means having some women's teams with scholarships tgst do not have corresponding men's teams.


They cut men's sports, they'll have to cut some women's sports.


We would need to cut even more men's programs to be in compliance with Prong 1 (proportionate opportunity) but if we cut any women's sports we would not only make that situation worse, we would eliminate our current Prong 2 compliance (fulfilling the interests and abilities of the under-represented gender).

We can cut women's teams but we will then need to cut even MORE men's teams to achieve compliance under Prong 1.

Edit: I see Big Dog beat me to it.
SonomanA1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

calumnus said:

movielover said:

Doesn't Title IX work both directions?


Sure, in theory (men attending women's colleges as an example) but in practice at a school like Cal you have to make up for 85 football scholarships going to men. The challenge is funding enough women's teams to counter balls be that. It means having some women's teams with scholarships tgst do not have corresponding men's teams.


They cut men's sports, they'll have to cut some women's sports.
Title IX is based on the percentage of male and female students. If these percentages are correct: The full-time UC Berkeley undergraduate population is made up of 54% women and 46% men, then 54% of intercollegiate sports members need to women and 46% men. While Title IX has been good for women's sports, it has has a negative impact on men's sports. This is why so many smaller schools have dropped football.

If Cal had a ratio of 50/50 for male and female students, then the number of male and female students could be 50/50.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
They base it on attendance, not interest level. IMs aren't 50 / 50.
UrsineMaximus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sebastabear said:

UrsineMaximus said:

Question for BI: the recent $$ drive that was matched by the Riveras and others was > 1M. Ott's current NIL, per on3 is $332K. Can the BI opinion authors opine why a "big donor" is required immediately to retain this 10 year talent? Or are penny donors kept out of the loop?


A couple of answers to this.

First and most critically, you have to understand that we are raising NIL funds for an entire team. Jaydn Ott has no interest in being here no matter how many NIL opportunities we produce for him if we don't have a quality offensive line and quality wide receivers and a quality quarterback, etc. He needs to be able to show his stuff. He can't do that playing by himself no matter what his bank account looks like.

Second, you need to understand that the funds we raise are needed on an annual basis. So raising money for our current team was critical. But that's our current team. We are now worried about next year's team.


Last, while I appreciate On3 trying to create a platform for tracking all this, their numbers are basically estimates. They don't really have any idea of what players are getting or what they are worth. And candidly Jaydn is probably worth more to us than he would be to another fanbase, given the importance of keeping and maintaining generational talent. There is nothing more dispiriting than recruiting someone like this out of high school and then see them jump ship for their final year of eligibility. It blows a hole in the entire raison d'etre for the collective.

Hope that makes sense.
Thanks for the detailed response. Yes, this makes cents (and sense).
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

movielover said:

calumnus said:

movielover said:

Doesn't Title IX work both directions?


Sure, in theory (men attending women's colleges as an example) but in practice at a school like Cal you have to make up for 85 football scholarships going to men. The challenge is funding enough women's teams to counter balls be that. It means having some women's teams with scholarships tgst do not have corresponding men's teams.


They cut men's sports, they'll have to cut some women's sports.


We would need to cut even more men's programs to be in compliance with Prong 1 (proportionate opportunity) but if we cut any women's sports we would not only make that situation worse, we would eliminate our current Prong 2 compliance (fulfilling the interests and abilities of the under-represented gender).

We can cut women's teams but we will then need to cut even MORE men's teams to achieve compliance under Prong 1.

Edit: I see Big Dog beat me to it.

Correct.
Big Dog and you are spot on.

The University would have to come into strict compliance with the actual ratio of students enrolled at CAL.
This would happen as soon as you cut a woman's sport. Currently, they are simply in a "qualitative" prong of compliance . . . moving towards compliance as long as female undergrads continue to fill out surveys with answers that indicate that they are "happy" with the sports, facilities, and recreational opportunities offered by Cal.

This is why when Men's Rugby came under fire as a potential "cut" back when Sandy Barbour wanted to make cuts in the Fall of 2010, Jack Clark proposed establishing a women's club rugby team and one that would be funded by donors from the men's team.



"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

They base it on attendance, not interest level. IMs aren't 50 / 50.

Sadly, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Once a woman's sport is cut, Title IX compliance is based on the ratio of female undergrad students to male undergrad students.
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
PappysBoy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I would assume after our dance with relegation this summer that both Drake and our Chancellor would have taken stock of the quickly evolving and forever changed college athletics landscape we now find ourselves in, the very real spectre of relegation which may come for us again, and the near prospect of passing down a half billion in stadium debt to campus and/or the system if it does, might light a f-ing bulb! Otherwise, why are we even wasting money doing this?

My read on the Chancellor is that she knows the AD's days should/are numbered, but is unwilling to make that change herself. I'd much prefer to see Christ's successor pick the next AD as well, despite the timing issues. This program needs to realignment starting at the top-down. A new AD that is not purely a bean counter needs to clean his house starting with JSO.

As far as addressing our concerns about what we'd like to see in the next Chancellor, what are you suggesting we do--especially for those of us who are able to contribute to athletics only minimally? I've addressed my wishes in that form that is likely to end up nowhere. W/O the same access as some on this site have, what else could we be doing?
Econ141
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PappysBoy said:

I would assume after our dance with relegation this summer that both Drake and our Chancellor would have taken stock of the quickly evolving and forever changed college athletics landscape we now find ourselves in, the very real spectre of relegation which may come for us again, and the near prospect of passing down a half billion in stadium debt to campus and/or the system if it does, might light a f-ing bulb! Otherwise, why are we even wasting money doing this?

My read on the Chancellor is that she knows the AD's days should/are numbered, but is unwilling to make that change herself. I'd much prefer to see Christ's successor pick the next AD as well, despite the timing issues. This program needs to realignment starting at the top-down. A new AD that is not purely a bean counter needs to clean his house starting with JSO.

As far as addressing our concerns about what we'd like to see in the next Chancellor, what are you suggesting we do--especially for those of us who are able to contribute to athletics only minimally? I've addressed my wishes in that form that is likely to end up nowhere. W/O the same access as some on this site have, what else could we be doing?


Shocky's earlier post that Christ was unaware of what NIL figures look like for individuals on the football team and then angry that female figures were not in line indicates Carol has yet to take stock of anything, let alone understand the broader factors driving realignment. Sad all around.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Econ141 said:

PappysBoy said:

I would assume after our dance with relegation this summer that both Drake and our Chancellor would have taken stock of the quickly evolving and forever changed college athletics landscape we now find ourselves in, the very real spectre of relegation which may come for us again, and the near prospect of passing down a half billion in stadium debt to campus and/or the system if it does, might light a f-ing bulb! Otherwise, why are we even wasting money doing this?

My read on the Chancellor is that she knows the AD's days should/are numbered, but is unwilling to make that change herself. I'd much prefer to see Christ's successor pick the next AD as well, despite the timing issues. This program needs to realignment starting at the top-down. A new AD that is not purely a bean counter needs to clean his house starting with JSO.

As far as addressing our concerns about what we'd like to see in the next Chancellor, what are you suggesting we do--especially for those of us who are able to contribute to athletics only minimally? I've addressed my wishes in that form that is likely to end up nowhere. W/O the same access as some on this site have, what else could we be doing?


Shocky's earlier post that Christ was unaware of what NIL figures look like for individuals on the football team and then angry that female figures were not in line indicates Carol has yet to take stock of anything, let alone understand the broader factors driving realignment. Sad all around.
It's pretty clear we're just playing out the string here until we see what the new leadership looks like.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm having trouble accepting the rationality of engaging in (or, having already engaged in) an ever-increasing demand for economic resources in a consortium of partners/competitors where the end result is a zero sum game.

That is, the main thesis of this thread appears to be a call for devoting more resources, an arms war, where the result is always going to be a .500 W-L record?

In normal businesses, there is technological advancement:
Increased worker/input efficiency, increased output.

What are we (collectively) getting in this ncaa football arms race? Amusement? What is the societal value add? Do we not yet have enough outlets for R&R?

Sometimes a gambler is wise to just step away from the table.

How can we as a university or a society better devote our resources to reap higher returns on investments?

Anyone care to join my query, or show me how it's shortsighted?
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PS: at least the other pro sports have figured out the concept of revenue share, so that entrants are guaranteed a level of profits to keep going.

Many entrants here (think St Mary's) have simply folded. More will follow as the Power 2 conferences work to crowd out all others in their oligopoly ploy.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Econ141 said:

PappysBoy said:

I would assume after our dance with relegation this summer that both Drake and our Chancellor would have taken stock of the quickly evolving and forever changed college athletics landscape we now find ourselves in, the very real spectre of relegation which may come for us again, and the near prospect of passing down a half billion in stadium debt to campus and/or the system if it does, might light a f-ing bulb! Otherwise, why are we even wasting money doing this?

My read on the Chancellor is that she knows the AD's days should/are numbered, but is unwilling to make that change herself. I'd much prefer to see Christ's successor pick the next AD as well, despite the timing issues. This program needs to realignment starting at the top-down. A new AD that is not purely a bean counter needs to clean his house starting with JSO.

As far as addressing our concerns about what we'd like to see in the next Chancellor, what are you suggesting we do--especially for those of us who are able to contribute to athletics only minimally? I've addressed my wishes in that form that is likely to end up nowhere. W/O the same access as some on this site have, what else could we be doing?


Shocky's earlier post that Christ was unaware of what NIL figures look like for individuals on the football team and then angry that female figures were not in line indicates Carol has yet to take stock of anything, let alone understand the broader factors driving realignment. Sad all around.


Has anyone verified what Shocky said? While there may be some partial truth to it, I don't believe it in its entirety.
PappysBoy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
For sure. But I'd much prefer riding out the string to having the current Chancellor make another AD hire. Much like I'd prefer a new AD in place before we next come to a crossroads with head FB coach.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wilcox for joint HC / AD.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
June 2024 can't come soon enough.
"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.