Sandy Barbour & Kenwick Thompson Q&A: Cal Will Play Colorado In 2011
Last night, on February 8th, Bear Insider hosted their annual recruiting event presentation in Los Angeles, and I was on hand to make sure CGB was represented. The event was about hearing Sandy Barbour, LB Coach Kenwick Thompson, and Jim McGill (BI’s recruiting reporter) talk about the greatness that was this year’s recruiting class. This is Part I in a two part series of Q&A that I'll post.
I was all prepared to ask Sandy some tough questions before I realized it was going to cost me $30 (remember that next time you’re buying beers, Avi). Still, I made the trek to Mountaingate Country Club nonetheless. Ok, so the country club alone was pretty cool, its not every day I get to hang out at one of these….several double-breasted suits were running around, and a lot of Old Blues were in attendance.
As I talked to people before the session got started, I realized there are a LOT of lawyers among us! My first impression was, wow these people must be pretty important, and I tried to rub elbows as much as I could in between bites of gourmet sliders and cheeses (had to eat my $30 worth). It dawned on me that this is how recruits must feel when they’re courted by a school. Ah yes! That’s why I was here wasn’t it?
Ok, seriously I’m going to get to the point sooner or later. I tightened up the balls, and sat down for what would become 3 hours of awesomeness hearing about Cal recruiting.
I was feeling a little anxiety over whether I could take good notes. It’s been a while since I’ve been in a classroom, and at work I don’t participate in meetings; I sit there surfing CGB on my iPhone. So I made some extra scribbles and thought about how I would phrase some of the questions. Here are some of the highlights.
I’ll start with Sandy’s presentation, before focusing purely on football.
Sandy question #1: What's your most important goal for 2011?
Response: Building the Cal brand (you’ll hear a lot more of this theme), and reinforcing it in everything we do. We want to identify the Cal brand as character; making good decisions even when nobody is looking; focusing on the success of student athletes early on, pointing out the Aaron Rodgers’s of our community, the Natalie Coughlin’s. Its hard to imagine the pressure these kids have on them, as they’re 17-22 year olds trying to make good decisions 100% of the time, but this is the brand we are trying to build.
Sandy question #2: Is Colorado a done deal for our 2011 schedule? What about the other open slot in the schedule, would it go to an "A" level team like TCU?
Response: Colorado was just formally signed today (Tuesday, Feb 8th), so that’s official and they will not count as a conference game. We consider them the "A" team for the schedule, and we will absolutely NOT (she was very adamant about this point) schedule TCU. We will play Fresno at a NEUTRAL (again, emphasis) site in Candlestick Park, and consider them to be our "B" level opponent. We will schedule some lower division team as our "C" level opponent.
Sandy question #3: Any updates on building a Pac-12 television network like Texas just created?
Response: Texas built that, and is going to use that as leverage for whatever they decide to do about moving to another conference in the near future. The Pac-12 is working on a deal but we will honor our existing commitments to other networks while we work something out (she didn’t explicitly commit to it, but for all intents and purposes indicated we should look to having a Pac-12 network in place by the 2013 season).
Sandy question #4: What's going on with BCS contraction? Will we see fewer BCS conferences in the near future?
Response: This is on the minds of all AD’s right now, as we’re discussing the feasibility of contracting from 6 BCS conferences down to 4 within 4-5 years.
Sandy question #5: What influence do the Pac-12 AD's have on officiating and is this something you're currently involved with?
Response: The AD’s have a lot of influence on the officiating, and this week have been meeting with Pac-12 leadership to evaluate and diagnose the issues with officiating in both football and basketball. The current sentiment is that there is a deficiency in the quality of the officiating, and we’re developing a plan to address it. It’s one of the hottest issues being addressed at the moment.
Sandy question #6: With what level of certainty will we be playing games in Memorial in 2012?
Response: With 100% certainty we will play in Memorial Stadium in 2012. This doesn’t mean that the stadium will be finished, nor can we say with certainty that we will be ready to play the first game of the 2012 season in Memorial. What we can commit to is that we will be back in Memorial at some point in 2012, hopefully if all goes according to plan by the first game. As far as the degree of completion, if needed we will have the stadium in "playable condition" that will not pose inconveniences or any risks to fans or players.
After that part of the Q&A, it was onto the recruiting and football portion of the presentations, starting with the recruiting process, and then talking about the recruits themselves.
Recruiting process: Coach Thompson gave some solid insights into the recruiting process, the psychology of both the coaching staff and the recruits themselves, and what it means when kids "get it". Coach started off the night on a funny note when he handed the mic back to the MC and said "a linebacker coach shouldn’t need a mic when he speaks".
Recruiting question #1: What is the top characteristic that you look for in recruits?
Coach T said more than anything, the coaches look for guys who "get it". What is "it"? "It" is the Cal brand: the Bay Area being the #1 destination for both leisure and work across the country, the Haas School of Business, College of Engineering, English, History, and Chemistry being ranked in the top 3 of schools across the country. Kids for whom "it" resonates will be willing to come across the country to go to school here.
More about "the Cal brand": Coach T talked about the importance of selling the message that these kids will continue to be "Cal men" long after they stop being "Cal athletes", and pointed out a couple cool statistics: 50% of Cal athletes go on to get advanced degrees, and the median salary for Cal athletes in their careers is over $202,000! Cool stuff!
Recruiting question #2: Some guys play multiple positions in high school, how do you decide what side of the ball they'll play once they get here?
Coach T said simply: "You ask them what position they want to play. Because more than anything, you want them to be motivated to come in and play the role they see themselves most comfortable in, so that they in turn are motivated to be here and contribute."
Recruiting question #3: What is the impact of social networking sites?
Response: Social networking sites are really important, and all of the coaches have Facebook pages, post photos of their current and past players on their site so that kids see "the family". In this day and age, there are no secrets, and you can’t promise something to one kid that you can’t deliver on, because kids will post things on their pages too. Word spreads fast among recruits, and they’re all connected on each other’s Facebook pages, so you have to be very careful what you say both in public and privately.
Recruiting question #4: We didn't have any major surprises (positive or negative) in recruiting this year, why is that?
Coach T: This year more than ever, we focused on kids who "got it" (you guys see a pattern here?) early on in the process, so they were bought into what we want to accomplish. We targeted guys who fit better with the message and with the system, and guys who weren’t a fit went separate ways sooner in the cycle.
Recruiting question #5: As a follow up to the previous question, were there any recruits that you missed out on that you wish had chosen Cal?
With a smile and a wink, Coach T said: "Yes, but I’ve already forgotten his name". Nice.
Recruiting question #6: How much time do you guys devote to watching game film, and what about time spent actually seeing the kids play in person?
Surprisingly: We watch tape from 6pm-midnight nearly every day between June and January, and part of that is a result of all the DVDs and video that come in from recruits and recruiting services. In fact, each coach gets about 20 DVDs per day to review, and with varying qualities in video production, we have to study them carefully. More than anything, we don’t want to be the coach that overlooked "that kid" that went on to become a star (e.g. Aaron Rodgers). As for seeing kids play in person, we always want to see kids play live at least once, because you want to make sure that a guy who is listed as 6’2" and looks like he’s 6’2" on film isn’t actually 5’9" in person just because they play in a league with a bunch of short kids (not sure why, but I took offense to his comments about height, and I reminded him that I still have 4 years of eligibility remaining).
Recruiting question #7: How did last year's and this year's recruits feel about the turnover in coaching staff, and what impact did it have on recruiting?
Coach Thompson: We preach the message about becoming "Cal men" and we stress that we’re putting the right generals in command of the troops, the best generals to turn them into men that we can deploy to grow and mature them. We overcame the initial apprehension about the changes by focusing on the system as a whole. Most of these recruits, they build a relationship with their position coach, but it’s Coach Tedford who comes in and closes the deal. So if they resonate with him, and what he’s all about, then they’re going to buy into the system as a whole.
In Part II (coming next week), I delve into evaluations of each recruit, and who you might be seeing suit up early in AT&T Park in 2011.
The opinions expressed in a FanPost are, in every way, reflective of the opinions of every California Golden Blogs Marshawnthusiast. Moreover, they are reflective of every employee of SBNation, including Tyler "Blez" Bleszinski.
85 comments
|
9 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Nice writeup, looking forward to part 2!
no bear, no care
by EchoOfSilence on Feb 9, 2011 10:11 PM PST via mobile reply actions
Excellent stuff, thanks DBiL! The bit on AD influence on refs and the view that refs aren’t up to standards is pretty interesting. Do you have any idea if Sandy was talking about football, basketball, or both? I’m actually a bit contrarian in that I don’t think Pac-10 football refs are any better/worse than other refs nationwide.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
Refs certainly bother me way more in basketball, although part of that is because they have a way bigger impact in basketball games (interestingly, very much in Cal’s advantage this year). But I can’t really compare them to other conferences because I don’t watch nearly as much non Pac-10 basketball as I do non Pac-10 football.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
I watched part of a Big East game this weekend, and it was reffed like an NBA game. They allow a lot more contact. I think the insanely tight reffing in the Pac-10/12 hurts the game. I was at the Oregon game, and it doesn’t matter if the calls didn’t go against us, the calls at the start of the second half just ruined the flow of the game.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
A few people have commented that the reffing in the Pac-10/12 will hurt our teams in the tourney because we’re expecting to get calls and are used to the flow of the game stopping more frequently.
Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!
by dballisloose on Feb 10, 2011 10:11 AM PST up reply actions
Her immediate concern was basketball officiating, but this week’s Directors Meeting was intended to address officiating in both sports. I think its important to note that the concern is not isolated to one school or one AD, but something that all AD’s in the conference are eager to resolve.
Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!
by dballisloose on Feb 9, 2011 10:26 PM PST up reply actions
Pac 10 refs have been bad since I started watching as a kid, particularly in basketball. And if anything is to be said about the Stoops brother at Oklahoma—-he whined about what his brother in Arizona voices on the sidelines, and all Pac 10 coaches have been dealing with politely for years.
by Joe Bandsmen on Feb 10, 2011 3:35 PM PST up reply actions
Now that the Colorado game is set
Aside from the freakish circumstance of playing a conference opponent in a “nonconference” game, this game has an interesting dynamic with the coaching changes. Our new assistants Kiesau and Ambrose will be familiar with Colorado’s personnel; CU’s new O-line coach Marshall will be familiar with ours.
Yes, I am an Old Blue. Now get off my lawn.
Yeah Marshall will be familiar
With his O-line getting pasted by our D-line, just like in practice. Advantage Cal.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Feb 9, 2011 10:50 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
App State as our C-Team at AT&T Park!
Who else wants it?
"Today's weather, excessively violent with a chance of dismemberment. Tune in later for our 5-day forecast!"
~ Three Dog - Fallout 3
I would still say App State would be the B team and CO the C team.
She’s saying the “right” things, but I’d say Fresno is a better team than CO.
You're right about saying the right things
Even if Fresno is better than CU (and I don’t know that they are), she can’t call a fellow conference member something less than an “A” opponent.
Yes, I am an Old Blue. Now get off my lawn.
Asked a friend of mine who is an Appy State Alum...
Appy State already is set to play Va Tech to start the year, so Cal would be their 2nd FBS opponent. He went over to his fan boards and asked if this was something they wanted. I guess it stirred up a hornet’s nest. But as far as the date in question, this is his reply:
“Reading the tea leaves, 9/17 for us is a home date against a cushy cream puff in Savannah State. It definitely would be a game that I’m sure the administration wouldn’t think twice about buying out if the paydate at Cal was big enough. That may end up being a sticking point for us, it ain’t cheap to get out there and we don’t have any openings right now so a buyout would have to take place. Not to say it wouldn’t happen but the price would have to be right.’”
"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is
research."
Furthermore, getting App State would be more expensive for us. In addition to the extra cost for them to travel out to us, the opportunity cost to them is much larger than pretty much any other FCS school. They have a huge stadium and get huge crowds by FCS standards, so the opportunity cost of them not playing at home is higher than other FCS teams. Basically, we’d have to comp them extra for that extra opportunity cost.
by Missing Barry on Feb 10, 2011 2:26 PM PST up reply actions
My Appy State buddy on the cost of buying out...
…said essentially the same thing:
>>>By all unsaid signs we are going to jump to I-A once the moratorium is over this year. We need cash and lots of it. So it may come down to what is more profitable. SSU would be the 3rd game of the year but I’m not sure if it’s the home opener. If so that’s easily 29-30k fans more if the weather cooperates. In our world we are the top drawing team in I-AA so that’s a huge gate. I would guess Cal would need to fork over 500k or more for it to be even close to a financially responsible decision after costs are factored in.<<<
Perhaps once the jump to 1A takes place, Cal can look to book them in the future.
"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is
research."
first of all
I found this post because the local Boulder paper is sourcing you guys for announcing that the CU-Cal game is official, so thanks for that!
I also gotta stick up for my team a little. I know you guys have absolutely no reason to respect us after our performance against you last year, but if you think you’re gonna waltz out of Folsom Field with another blowout victory I think you’re sadly mistaken. CU was probably the worst road team in the country under that moron Hawkins but he’s gone, everyone is excited about our new staff, it’s gonna be our first home game of the year and I guarantee it’ll be a sellout. I’ve heard “rumors” that you guys aren’t exactly a great road team either, so I’m expecting a very good game. This makes our already brutal schedule even more so, but I’m glad we’ll get a chance at revenge against you, hope some of you can make it.
Anyway, I’m not trolling, you guys have a great blog here and I’m excited about our conference move. I think our universities and towns are very like minded and we should get along famously (except on game days of course).
I agree with all of this. Welcome to CGB, and feel free to drop in regularly!
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Feb 12, 2011 8:38 AM PST up reply actions
I hope you're joking
Colorado the “C” team? You might want to do some research beyond last year’s contest, with emphasis on Colorado prior to Hawkins.
If we're going to go FCS, I'd rather play Eastern Washington
They’re the reigning FCS champions. Or UC-Davis again.
That said, I’d rather we play a FBS opponent.
Yes, I am an Old Blue. Now get off my lawn.
Totally agree
I love the “keep the money in the system” argument that got us the UC Davis game last year, but having the FCS champions come down would be nice.
What other FBS opponents are available? Which ones would be a “C” team that would schedule a one-time home game for us, or a two-for-one home-and-away series?
Hector Sanchez: Underrated. Fighting body bias since the 2009 off season. I still love you, son, even if you're fat.
Cursory research
Don’t know the accuracy, but according to this website, the following possible FBS teams who MIGHT meet the “C” opponent profile have open dates on Sept. 17 (i.e., the date we need):
Idaho (WAC)
Utah State (WAC)
Buffalo (MAC)
Kent State (MAC)
Central Michigan (MAC)
Western Michigan (MAC)
(Note: Western Mich or Central Mich have been good every now and then. Not sure if either is a true “C”, but I include them here for discussion. Eastern Michigan is terrible, but they already have a game on 9/17.)
Louisiana-Monroe (Sun Belt)
Florida International (Sun Belt)
Florida Atlantic (Sun Belt)
(NOTE: Prolly not. FAU is at Florida on 9/3, at Michigan State on 9/10, and at Auburn on 9/17. Don’t think they’ll want a trip to SFO in the middle of all that.)
MIddle Tennessee (Sun Belt)
Rice (C-USA)
UTEP (C-USA; don’t really know how “C” worthy they are)
Tulane (C-USA) (Note: I think I read somewhere that Tulane was contemplating downgrade to FCS, but I don’t know when that would be. Too lazy to do that research here.)
Memphis (C-USA. Might be a little higher quality than a true “C”)
Yes, I am an Old Blue. Now get off my lawn.
How about San Diego State?
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2011 9:31 AM PST up reply actions
I know, they’re FBS, but they might be a decent opponent.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2011 9:32 AM PST up reply actions
I like the Davis match up cuz of the $ in the UC and Davis fans actually show up to the game. In fact, I’d speculate that they’d draw the highest attendance than any other FCS opponent.
Plus we don’t have to worry about an uber embarrassing loss.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Woooo!!!! (Except for the embarrassing loss part….)
by OaktownAggie on Feb 11, 2011 9:11 AM PST up reply actions
yeah I like the Davis matchup
I’m spazzy fuckin mcgee
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 14, 2011 12:31 PM PST up reply actions
Meh. Overrated. Why bring them all the way across the country instead of just finding a closer (or better) FCS school?
by Missing Barry on Feb 10, 2011 8:35 AM PST up reply actions
You clearly are a "Cal Man" who gets "it", Dball
Great job! Looking forward to Part II.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Feb 10, 2011 7:23 AM PST reply actions
I’m still a bit confused as to what sort of kid Coach Thompson is looking for …
I'm thinking of having a little party down in Newport.
Well there had to be a reason Tosh stopped playing Xbox with you, right?
"Remember the Maine! TO HELL WITH STANFORD!"
by CruzinBears on Feb 10, 2011 10:15 AM PST up reply actions
“it” is the Cal brand that Sandy talks about building and reinforcing, so they are looking at kids that buy into the value of being in the Bay Area, being at Berkeley (the academic institution), and growing in a system that places equal value on excellence on the field and excellence in the classroom.
Coach Thompson stressed several times how intelligence in the classroom translates into intelligence on the field, how guys who value the classroom go on to learn faster, make reads faster, play smarter.
So they’re going after kids who fit this mold.
Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!
by dballisloose on Feb 10, 2011 10:26 AM PST up reply actions
50% of Cal athletes go on to get advanced degrees? median salary for Cal athletes over $202,000?
Those numbers seem really high! I’m not sure if 50% of regular Cal students go on to get advanced degrees.
And $202k seems high as well, but maybe a little more plausible than the advanced degrees statistic because a few guys will inflate that average pretty highly. I’m basing this on no factual information at all, just my gut feeling.
Thoughts?
Well, if it is median salary then it does seem high. If it is average salary, thenthe DeSean’s and ARods of the world could totally skew it.
The internet's most successful troll!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
the median salary for Cal athletes in their careers is over $202,000!
If Dball’s quote is verbatim (don’t know if it is—although great job even if it’s not), the words “in their careers” suggests that this applies to Cal athletes that have settled in to a regular job. I imagine this would cut off the low end of all the advanced students, AmeriCorps volunteers, transitional job people, and those “meandering” through their 20s. I imagine that makes the Median number a lot more attainable. Nevertheless, that is extremely impressive.
As for the advanced degree number that is really high in general and also very impressive. Here’s a quote from the DailyCal in 2008 on advanced degrees:
Generally about 20 percent of UC Berkeley undergraduates go on directly to graduate school with the largest number of students coming from the colleges of engineering and chemistry, said UC Berkeley Career Center director Tom Devlin.
Still, other students go on to pursue advanced degrees after taking time off, but it is more difficult to determine how many people go on, said Suzanne Helbig, a career counselor and marketing coordinator at the Career Center.
So even with the added numbers from those seeking degrees later 50% is insanely high for any undergraduate institution. I think this one statistic underscores the MASSIVE value that athletics has for the students at Cal.
Say it like Ron Burgandy signing off: "Stay Classy, Bears!"
by PlayClassyBears on Feb 10, 2011 9:56 AM PST up reply actions
The statistic was presented in the video that’s shown to all of the recruits. I’m nearly certain that it was “median” and not “average”, and that it was meant to portray the post-athletic careers that student athletes go on to have after they stop playing sports for a living.
The takeaway is that Cal is a place to go to get a top tier education, with over 50%of the student athletes going on to get advanced degrees, have success in something other than sports, and PROFIT with huge median salaries.
Step 1: Come to Cal on an athletic scholarship
Step 2: Get advanced degree
Step 3: PROFITS!
Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!
by dballisloose on Feb 10, 2011 10:14 AM PST up reply actions
$202,000 throughout their career? Assuming it’s a 10 year career they are getting a medium yearly salary of $20,200. That’s low.
In other words, Go Bears!
Maybe you should give your diploma back. That’s annual salary.
Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!
by dballisloose on Feb 10, 2011 10:30 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Thanks!
Great, great write-up. Thanks for taking the time to attend and to take such detailed notes for all of us.
Old Toothwrangler
“I still have 4 years of eligibility remaining”
that’s the spirit! :-)
Interesting and entertaining. Thanks for living in SoCal and reporting back.
by kolwave on Feb 10, 2011 8:43 AM PST via mobile reply actions
Recruiting question I'd like to ask
When a top recruit decides they want to transfer after starting at a school (and this seems more prevalent in bball, a la Gary Franklin, etc.) does Cal ever contact them if they didn’t recruit them before? Michigan’s QB just decided to transfer to Miami; had we known he wanted to move, would we have given him an offer (assuming one’s available)?
Anyone know?
I'd like to smell the Roses before I die.
I’m sure we will try if there is a need.
As for Forcier, there was no way we would have taken on that head-case, especially with 6 QBs already on scholarship.
by DavidsonBear on Feb 10, 2011 11:00 AM PST up reply actions
We consider them the “A” team for the schedule, and we will absolutely NOT (she was very adamant about this point) schedule TCU
Why so adamant about not scheduling TCU? I don’t get it. If Tedford doesn’t want to, then that’s fine with me, but I don’t see why it’s not even worth considering.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
Without knowing the context, maybe there’s an explanation. We really want a home game on 9/17 and I don’t know if we’re in a position of promising a return. TCU is big time right now and doesn’t have to accept terms it doesn’t want.
Yes, I am an Old Blue. Now get off my lawn.
Sure, but if that were the case, Sandy could say, “we looked into it and we couldn’t come to an agreement”, or “TCU wanted a home-and-home, and we couldn’t make that work”, or something to that effect, rather than “ABSOLUTELY NOT, NO WAY we will play TCU”, which is how it sounded in the writeup. Maybe dball can explain a little more fully though.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2011 9:29 AM PST up reply actions
TCU just turned down a game with Wisconsin.
The internet's most successful troll!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
When she made the comment, I felt like an outsider listening to an inside joke, because most people in the room laughed and/or agreed with her. I tried to ask a follow up and then tried to catch her afterwards, but didn’t have access to her. All I can infer is that Barbour and Tedford would prefer to schedule a favorable (ie one that we can win) matchup rather than one that might be more lucrative (eg TCU).
Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!
by dballisloose on Feb 10, 2011 10:23 AM PST up reply actions
Ah, interesting. Thanks for explaining. BTW, did anyone ask about the Andy Smith bench? A lot of people seem to be worked up about that.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2011 10:59 AM PST up reply actions
Why so adamant about not scheduling TCU?
How do you know the reason Cal won’t schedule them is because TCU was adamant about not scheduling us?
Hector Sanchez: Underrated. Fighting body bias since the 2009 off season. I still love you, son, even if you're fat.
Sandy’s reaction was pretty strong, like the notion was absurd from her end of the table. Would really like to go back and ask for more detail, but what I infer is mentioned above, that they want a more favorable matchup especially coming off a losing season.
Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!
by dballisloose on Feb 10, 2011 4:47 PM PST up reply actions
Thanks, you can keep your diploma (see above).
Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!
by dballisloose on Feb 10, 2011 10:31 AM PST up reply actions
I know it is stupid, but
if the big push is to build a brand around “the Haas School of Business, College of Engineering, English, History, and Chemistry being ranked in the top 3 of schools across the country”, I’d suggest calling it the “Berkeley brand” rather than the “Cal brand.” The chem, history, engineering, etc. people say they are at Berkeley, not at Cal.
The law school is also branding itself as "Berkeley"
After being known as “Boalt Hall” forever, the law school has started to rebrand itself as “Berkeley Law”. See the banner and other labeling at http://www.law.berkeley.edu/ .
MJB
Great post. Thanks so much for the input.
I like that they’re focusing on the “Cal brand” and I hope it helps their marketing efforts.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
“Cal brand” with the athletes becoming “Cal men”
make that SONS OF CALIFORNIA!
by Joe Bandsmen on Feb 10, 2011 3:36 PM PST up reply actions
WOW
Response: This is on the minds of all AD’s right now, as we’re discussing the feasibility of contracting from 6 BCS conferences down to 4 within 4-5 years.
I think that’s the first time I’ve EVER heard an AQ AD let something like that slip. She’s talking about AQ contraction, not in terms of league numbers, but in terms of program numbers. That’s HUGE if it happens… total game-changer.
Consider the numbers: there are currently 67 AQ (or soon to be AQ programs): 12 each in SEC, ACC, P12, B10; 10 in B12; and 9 (maybe 10) in BE. Even if you think super-conferences, that’s 64, which means that you’re throwing at least three out of the club (maybe more if you add in ND and/or BYU as league members).
Bye bye Baylor, Iowa State, and uh, Vanderbilt?
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2011 5:42 PM PST up reply actions
not vandy
neither the SEC nor Big Ten have any incentive to screw with their brands by dropping bodies. Those are the only two leagues that really have brand value on top of the value of the individual schools. Plus both are pretty much drowning in cash, which doesn’t give them an incentive to cut. Realistically, I don’t think any leagues are going to directly throw anyone out, but any league which gets poached or collapses will almost certainly watch as at least one or two of their members lose AQ status. Since the SEC and Big Ten will be poachers rather than poached, that leaves the following programs are most vulnerable if their leagues blow up:
Big 12
Iowa St
Kansas St
Baylor
Big East
Cincy
Louisville
USF? (I’m less sure here; maybe the ACC would pick them up to replace FSU/Miami if they lost one to SEC?)
ACC
Wake (North Carolina’s version of Baylor, the weakest program in a state that has at least one AQ too many)
Pac-12
Utah (LIFO)
Oregon St
Washington St
And that’s just the MOST vulnerable programs. There are plenty of at least somewhat iffy ones out there, like OK St and NC St.
Yeah, it’s probably Wake.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2011 7:21 PM PST up reply actions
OTOH, if Texas goes independent, then that saves somebody’s spot potentially.
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Feb 10, 2011 7:21 PM PST up reply actions
Just drop the entire Big East and let Boise St, TCU and BYU in.
by Missing Barry on Feb 10, 2011 8:45 PM PST up reply actions
Wazzu?
(waits for backlash from ’thusiasts)
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Wazzu
is unlikely to be directly voted out of the league, partially b/c it’s tough to imagine votes to do so from Washington (legislature, and not wise to rock the state boat) or Oregon St (in just as much danger) or Utah (their AQ status is too new and too vulnerable to embrace going down that road), not to mention Wazzu themselves. Plus the league bylaws (link here) is pretty clear on what reasons are allowed for removal:
The Conference may place a member on probation or suspension, or terminate its membership, by vote of at least three-fourths of all the members of the CEO Group eligible to vote on the matter, for one or more of the following reasons: (6/10)
a. Materially violating the standards and requirements of the Conference, as set forth in this Constitution and Bylaws, or in the rules, regulations and policies adopted by the CEO Group; (6/10)
b. Violating rules and regulations of the NCAA, or becoming ineligible for active membership in Division I of the NCAA, by a written determination of the NCAA; or (6/10)
c. Withdrawing or attempting to withdraw from the Conference without complying with Section 3 above.
(6/10)
Such disciplinary action may also include the assessment of financial penalties. No vote for probation, suspension or termination shall occur unless the member subject to such action is notified, in writing, by the Commissioner of the alleged misconduct and is provided an opportunity to be heard at a meeting of the CEO Group. The CEO Group representative of the member charged with misconduct shall not be eligible to vote on any proposed disciplinary action The CEO Group shall adopt a Member Disciplinary Policy setting forth the procedures such action will follow. (6/10)
This means that there would need to be actual cause for removal, and “they’re too small” doesn’t count.
And that means that the only realistic way that Wazzu loses AQ status is for the league to blow up. Could that happen? Maybe. USC’s already publicly floated independence, and as a private university is very capable of trying to organize a league blowup if that’s what they think is in their best interests. Or the Big 12 could throw out a couple of their weak links and then make a strong play for some of the Pac-12 programs. IMO the league is about as stable as the ACC, unlikely to blow up, but still somewhat vulnerable to blowup and/or poaching.
I doubt that BYU or ND figure into any AQ Conference's numbers
Nor would BYU and ND necessarily be in or out of a reconfigured BCS.
I think it would be an easy assumption that the Big XII and the Big East are the most vulnerable conferences if we accept the notion that 2 AQ Conferences will be lost to 4 Mega Conferences of 16 schools each. In fact, It’s my guess that the membership of those conferences would either be absorbed into the remaining four AQ conferences or left to fend for themselves as independents or new members of “lesser” FBS conferences (the WAC, MWC, Sun Belt conference, Conference USA, and MAC).
Also, it’s somewhat less than certain that Texas would necessarily join a conference in a brave new BCS world. Although, it wouldn’t be difficult to imagine the remainder of the Big XII scrambling to find a BCS AQ conference to join. Geography and natural rivalries would present some strong forces in shaping new configurations of current conferences.
I could even imagine that it might be the ACC that might not survive such a massive realignment, but that the SEC and the Big East poach schools from the ACC while the Big XII schools scramble to find a home in either the Pac-12 or the Big Ten.
And the dance for musical chairs could end up far more complicated than that, even.
IIRC, a number of TV contracts come up for renewal in 2015 and 2016. This may be the reason for the window for massive realignment occurring in 4-5 years.
Just dump the Big East from AQ status.
It’s a shitty football conference. HORRIBLE.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.

by 

























































