Cal Athletics' Financial Priorities: Where Should They Lie?
by TwistNHook on Feb 6, 2012 3:00 AM PST
in California Golden Bears Football
Email
PrintAvinash: When the Pac-12 TV contracts were released, several teams in the conference immediately started pouring their resources into their football programs. The most noticeable names are probably Washington State (who managed to pool money together to land the Pirate), Arizona (who has one of the most dynamic spread coaches in the league in Rich Rod) and of course Washington. One of the top priorities (particularly in Washington's case) was to put a lot of money in their assistant coaches, which is how they got Lupoi and Kiesau to make the move up North.
It appears that Cal has decided to take another path to start out. Jon Wilner with more.
The bottom line: Cal has the money to ramp up its lagging salary pool for assistant coaches. How much? By my calculations, the Bears will have a net gain of $5-6 million in revenue thanks to the new Pac-12 TV deal — and that’s just for 2012-13. The windfall increases over time because of the 4% escalator in the TV deal and the elimination of one-time expenses (such as buying back media rights from IMG). But the school, for various reasons — many of them are admirable and high-minded — has chosen a different fiscal structure for its athletic department in general and football program in particular.
Although I'm not sure who Wilner's sources are, it tends to back up what we've all heard from this story. Otherwise it's hard to explain why we didn't have the money to pay Tosh and the rest of the coaching staff. There might be raises coming, but they weren't significant enough to placate Tosh (and maybe Kiesau, although he seems to be more of a vagabond).
Basically, it looks as if Cal wants to ensure the health of ALL their athletic programs while hoping football can handle its own. Cal has just received a huge renovation project that helped a lot of programs, but primarily it was for the benefit of the football team. So now everyone else believes it's their turn and wants their taste, probably to help upgrade everything else long-term.
Because of the number of sports on campus that need financial assistance, it drains the well for football. So if we were to give Tosh a raise and other coaches were to demand a raise, we probably wouldn't have been able to do it, and we might've been forced with a greater array of defections on our staff. We probably wouldn't have come out any better.
What do you guys think? Should Cal football be the #1 priority of the Athletic Department?
CBKWit: I think that, if we don't make football the #1 priority, then we will continue to be pretty mediocre at football. I think there are basically two routes to football success - recruiting better or coaching better than your opposition. Right now, Oregon is an example of the latter, and Stanford (specifically Andrew Luck) is an example of the former. Tedford has shown over the last half decade that he's not going to outcoach teams - we need to be more talented than our opponents to win consistently. Thus, Tosh's departure is going to hurt us far more than, say, Oregon would get hurt by losing their top recruiter (similarly, Oregon would be hurt much more by Chip Kelly leaving the program, which seems likely to happen in the next few years, than Cal would by Tedford leaving).
If we're not going to invest in football as much as other teams, we're probably not going to get the recruits we need to overcome our mediocre coaching. Then, the money we "saved" will be moot, because football attendance will fall. We need to be successful at football to generate enough revenue to cover our other sports, so we need to either invest more in the Tedford regime in the hopes of bringing in better players, or find a coach that produces better results with commensurate talent.
TwistNHook: The question here isn't really should football be the #1 priority. Football obviously IS the #1 priority. It is the engine of the athletics department.
If football does well, there will be more money for everything else based off results and increased fanbase/donors. It's much harder to do that with a sport with a more limited fanbase like Cal volleyball or baseball, sad to say.
LeonPowe: Not to echo everyone, but here football is really the rising tide that lifts all boats.
Atomsareenough: Exactly. If football pays for everything, then it behooves us to make sure that football is doing as well as it possibly can. Look, I'm all for having a wide variety of programs that provide athletic and academic opportunities to as broad a cross-section of students as possible. I'd hate to see ANY sport get cut, from gymnastics to cross-country to baseball. But if football is paying for most of them, then I think the answer is for them to reduce their dependence as much as they can and to make football as profitable as possible. For the most part, that means winning football games. That means going to and winning a Rose Bowl sometime. We're all diehards and we're going to follow Cal football no matter what, but we're not typical alums, and that doesn't change until we have a consistently successful program.
CBKWit: Thank you all for repeating what I said. It makes me feel "relevant"
Atomsareenough: It's called agreement! We can haz it!
Kodiak: From a pure business sense, it sounds good to call football an investment that pays for the other sports. You can't deny its place as king. For example, an article on our conference-leading basketball team beating our biggest rival got barely 600 page views. On the other hand, an open thread about a high school kid who may or may not ever produce at a Div I college level got over 6000.
369 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I recall fairly clearly from the less-than-clear financials thrown around last year that as FB’s expenses have increased over the past five or so years, their “profit margin” has decreased even in spite of higher revenues. It’s too hard to tell anything from the hit-and-miss documents and the not-clear bowl accounting systems but blithely assuming that there’s a bottom to the pit of possible football expenditures is pretty unwise.
In any case I think the discussion has to begin and end with: is general fund money used for athletics? Is a single student turned away or class cancelled because revenue is diverted to pay for a sport? If the answer to those questions is “no”, I can stand for an awful lot of football mediocrity.
The above comment is not affiliated with the San Francisco Giants, is not based on a secret source of team information, and may contain personal opinion.
"I'll never forget San Francisco and all those beautiful moments."- Andres Torres
by natteringnabob on Feb 6, 2012 6:33 AM PST reply actions 5 recs
I would like to see those less than clear financials...
Football revenue has exploded in the last ten years but has plateaued a bit in the last five years. In fact last year we were well off both previous years revenue #s and projections thanks to the incredibly short sighted and amateur efforts of marketing and sales. Since Tedford’s arrival both revenue and margins have exploded. Football (last year aside) is bringing in money like it has never done so before, not only in terms of ticket revenue and added television exposure, but also all the downstream revenue that goes along with that…
Some of you keep throwing a faulty premise regarding Tosh. We basically matched UW’s offer, but Tosh decided to go back and get more. And while that is his right, it isn’t the right thing to do. Time will tell how that plays out. I think what many of you are overlooking is we got a significant upgrade in coaching talent at the WR position.
Let’s be clear, the Washington episode did not expose Cal as being unable to pay salaries or being caught flat footed, it exposed Washington as being desperate and in full on panic mode. My experience is decisions made in full on panic mode rarely pan out.
They’re the ones the AD released when baseball was cancelled last year. If you have annotated AD financials with an audit, I’d love to see those.
I said nothing about “Tosh” so your faulty premise lies elsewhere.
The above comment is not affiliated with the San Francisco Giants, is not based on a secret source of team information, and may contain personal opinion.
"I'll never forget San Francisco and all those beautiful moments."- Andres Torres
by natteringnabob on Feb 6, 2012 8:36 AM PST up reply actions
I think the plateau or decrease in football profit has more to do with the lack of results on the field over that time
If Cal could manage to win a a PAC 12 title in the next few years you would see interest, donations, ticket sales, and profit rise like never before in Cal football history.
However, people are getting tired of the middle of the pack finishes by Cal and out of the Rose Bowl hunt by the end of Otcober and kind of tuning the team out.
Like AAE said, the hard core Cal fans and people on these boards will continue to follow Cal football but we are not the average fan.
And by and large, the people on these boards are self-admittedly not significant donors, so if those most passionate about the program can’t be bothered to donate, how can people expect others to step up?
While I obviously don’t speak for everyone, a lot of us here are younger and don’t have the money to make significant donations. Even if we may be the most rabid of Cal fans, we’re definitely not the richest of them.
You don’t have to be rich, and you don’t have to give $100K. But pretty much anyone could divert $20 or $40/month to Cal Athletics if they wanted to, yet when a $100 minimum donation was implemented to be able to buy football season tickets it was clear that people had not previously prioritized donating to the athletic department.
If we wait for only the very rich to fund everything, then we have to be content with what they choose to fund.
WSU made getting people to donate just $50 a year a big part of their fundraising campagin after they hired Leach.
I think it has worked out pretty well for them so far.
Once you get people donating small amounts, it becomes much easier to get them to donate more over time.
agree
Being a student a Cal I can’t afford to donate thousands but once I grad and finish law school I can’t see myself donating tons of money to a program that doesn’t go any where. But if we were a Oregon or USC I could see myself donating a lot to keep up us in top or near the top rather than just to tread water with middle of the PAC finishes
by jordangoldnbear on Feb 6, 2012 4:39 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
You realize that makes you the definition of a front runner, right?
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
Its just not a good investment so throw money at a problem that isn’t improving and a program not going anywhere who wants to waste money on a program that’s winning holiday bowls and Las Vegas insert sponsor bowls
by jordangoldnbear on Feb 6, 2012 4:59 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Sounds like your money would go a lot further at Cal, which could use the money, than at Oregon, who has a patron saint billionaire corporation that will fund anything it desires.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Feb 6, 2012 6:14 PM PST up reply actions
People who have a bond with Cal athletics beyond "football team win make happy"?
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
If the money I donate doesn’t go to directly improving Cal football but is spent on the rest of the athletic department, I don’t know how I’d feel. While I do wish for the health of the athletic department in general, I’m a firm believer that the improvement of our football team will directly lead to that.
Note: I do know that you can choose the program you wish to donate too. But as of now, it seems almost as if the school’s own financial commitments go elsewhere whenever they have a “surplus” of money instead of investing more into the Football Department.
Seeing that Cal isn’t willing to spend more money on the football program even when it has it so that it can invest in the other sports that will never be truly self-sufficient really starts to cause doubts in my mind. I don’t expect us to be a USC or Ohio State, but it shows that they’re happy with being perennial 7-8 win team with the occasional 9 or 10 win team when we have a recruiting class that really pans out. I want to see our money push us into the 8-9 win team that will occasionally reach a Rose Bowl. Right now, our “great” year will possibly get us into a non-BCS top tier bowl. We have yet to see how the school’s going to allocate the new funds from the revenue now that we’re paying off our debts.
I do currently throw in money when I have the extra cash, but I’m not going to lie — I’m basically living paycheck to paycheck right now. I’m sure I’m not the only one with an extremely tight budget with some credit card debt to pay off. Sure, I could afford to throw $40 a month fairly easily, but it would not be the smart financial decision for me as I could also be using that $40/month to not have to pay my bank interest in the (hopefully near) future. $40/month for 12 months is $480 bucks. You know what I could do with $480 extra bucks? Chump change for some, not for others. Everyone has different circumstances.
by mrjpark on Feb 6, 2012 5:25 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Cal isn’t willing to spend more money on the football program? I refer you to Since1997’s post below:
2011 Expenses: $17.4MM
2002 Expenses: $7.9MM
Expense Growth: 120.6%
Expense CAGR: 9.2% (faster than inflation)
Expenses peaked in 2009 at $19.1MM
Cal has more than doubled its funding of football in nine years. That’s pretty dramatic investment.
Right. We have now caught up with the rest of conference instead of no commitment whatsoever, like ten years ago. I’m happy that they’ve acknowledged and made that investment.
I think you misinterpreted my point, though. My point was this: Let’s say Cal donors on average donated $10 a year. Cal spends $50 a year on its athletic department, $25 of that goes to football. If one year, the donors ended up giving $15 instead of $10, with the extra $5 going to football, Cal wouldn’t necessarily spend $30 on football that given year. While the $5 would have to go to football, since that’s what they donated it to, Cal would most likely reallocate some other money in order to help out the entire department.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, as they are ensuring the health of the athletic department as a whole. But what it shows is that they’re more or less content with where they are in football right now. I want them to be completely dissatisfied with being a perennial Holiday/Emerald Bowl team and acknowledging that continued growth will lead to more money for the athletic department overall.
I also did note that things may change in the future once our debts are paid off and the new TV revenue can be allocated as we wish. I am perfectly fine with being fiscally responsible and getting out of the red before making some more investments in our coaching staff.
End of the day at work, so my thoughts may be unorganized.
Right now, our "great" year will possibly get us into a non-BCS top tier bowl.
Actually, since they expanded the BCS, our “great” year would almost assuredly get us into a BCS bowl. A year like 2004 or 2006 would certainly do it. Stanfurd got into the BCS the past two years without even winning the conference.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Feb 6, 2012 6:34 PM PST up reply actions
Yes, and while it pains me to admit it, their ceiling with Andrew Luck was much higher than anything we could dream of with Maynard or Riley (or any of the backups we’ve seen these last couple years).
Yet we have Zach Kline, who may turn out to be something special.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Feb 6, 2012 7:15 PM PST up reply actions
I think you need to define significant donor
I am sure a lot of people on these boards may donate to Cal Athletics but unfortunately I don’t believe anyone on here has the deep pockets to give very large donations.
Perhaps CGB can setup a Cal Athletic Telethon to help raise money.
Those looking for some numbers
Cal Athletics has the last 10 years worth of Statement of Revenues and Expenses reports available online.
thanks
Those are unaudited and not broken out by sport, and there’s no explanation of what a lot of the cryptic line items mean. I don’t know what “transfers to institution” at the bottom means, for example. Fees to NCAA? There’s no line item for TV revenues either, unless that’s the (for 2011) $5M of “sponsorship/royalties” listed under general program admin is for that (which doesn’t seem right).
The above comment is not affiliated with the San Francisco Giants, is not based on a secret source of team information, and may contain personal opinion.
"I'll never forget San Francisco and all those beautiful moments."- Andres Torres
by natteringnabob on Feb 6, 2012 2:28 PM PST up reply actions
Maybe the revenues are higher, but I suspect that it’s not a coincidence that the profit margin is down in the last few years. Look at the win-loss records, and I’m sure there’s a strong correlation.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Feb 6, 2012 9:45 AM PST up reply actions
I am sure the economy hasn’t helped the situation but I am sure the win/loss record has also contributed to a smaller profit margin.
As does the dramatic increases in tuition. For a sport like Football, paying for 85 schollies that have gone up $10K a piece has got to hurt.
a nit to pick
Can we please refrain from using the word “profit”?
I’m not naive, and I realize that the Athletic Department needs to make sound business decisions. This includes generating revenues via Football so as to, ideally, create a positive net income, which can then be used to help fund the other sports. But the goal is net income, not profit, as there are no investors/shareholders expecting a financial dividend.
This may seem like mere semantics, and to a large degree it is. But I’m just worried that discussions about Football’s financials, and an implicit “profit” motive, trump the larger educational mission of Cal sports (including football), which is first and foremost to serve its own student-athletes, and only secondarily to provide entertainment for alumni and the public at large.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Feb 6, 2012 10:04 AM PST up reply actions
that's why
I used the term in quotes in the first place. I agree with you.
The above comment is not affiliated with the San Francisco Giants, is not based on a secret source of team information, and may contain personal opinion.
"I'll never forget San Francisco and all those beautiful moments."- Andres Torres
by natteringnabob on Feb 6, 2012 10:18 AM PST up reply actions
“Net income” is slightly unwieldy, but yeah, that’s more accurate. Maybe we can at least stipulate that that’s what we mean when we say “profit”… :)
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Feb 6, 2012 10:24 AM PST up reply actions
At least he had the courtesy to start his post with “a nit to pick”!
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Feb 6, 2012 6:04 PM PST up reply actions
Instead of referring to it as increasing profit, we can replace it with:
1. Milkin’ the Gouda (v.)
2. Liquid cheese. (n.)
3. B Rolls (n. plural)
I gave us a verb in order to refer to the action of obtaining the revenue, and then a noun (and a plural form) in order to refer to the money itself once its in our hands.
Atoms this is a disconnect thought. If revenues are higher, our won loss record would have nothing to with margin.
Mmmm, I dunno. We could have had increased costs, raised ticket prices, sold fewer tickets, and made more revenue but still not as much as if the team had been better. Not saying that’s what happened, but my main point is that winning should help to increase margins.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Feb 6, 2012 6:06 PM PST up reply actions
I think this would be easier to explain in person and I don’t want to come across as patronizing… but winning has nothing to do with margins, other than the extra revenue it would hopefully bring in.
I’m exactly talking about the extra revenue it would bring in, though! I’d imagine, (coaching raises, etc… aside) that the amount it costs to run the football program increases fairly incrementally from year to year. Whereas revenues from a 10-2 team should be substantially higher than from a 5-7 team.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Feb 6, 2012 6:18 PM PST up reply actions
If you don’t know every single detail about it, then please don’t comment. You’re being very simplistic. Don’t mean to sound pretentious, though. Sorry.
KEEP CALM
AND
Z ON
I see thsi ending well
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
brb pulling numbers out of my butt!
The above comment is not affiliated with the San Francisco Giants, is not based on a secret source of team information, and may contain personal opinion.
"I'll never forget San Francisco and all those beautiful moments."- Andres Torres
by natteringnabob on Feb 7, 2012 7:00 AM PST up reply actions
atoms, i think you’re disagreeing with yourself a little bit
Maybe the revenues are higher, but I suspect that it’s not a coincidence that the profit margin is down in the last few years. Look at the win-loss records, and I’m sure there’s a strong correlation.
I don’t think I am. I think the costs are going up every year, and even if the revenues are increasing, it seems they haven’t been keeping pace lately. However, if we were winning, I bet they would more than keep pace.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Feb 6, 2012 6:48 PM PST up reply actions
Just because other Pac-12 schools may be doing some short sighted financial gambles to merely try to improve in football only doesn’t mean that Cal should follow suit. I’m definitely more for athletic department taking fiscal responsibility and use the money to smartly sustain the entire athletic department for the long haul.
Quite frankly, if Tosh is willing to resort to the borderline unethical practices that he did to lure Shaq and others with him to U-Dub, I’m not sure I really want him staying with the Bears knowing what we know now.
And as where this pertains to Washington, I have very good sources who tell me it is even more short sighted and more of gamble than you may realized, particularly in where they are getting money. It’s not from the TV contracts. I’ve heard from folks associated with UW that it’s actually coming from their stadium bond money, which is very dangerous.
Bond covenants
I question this. Bond financing for stadiums typically has legal restrictions/covenants that would be violated if used for coaches salaries.
It’s not “working the system”, it’s illegally spending funds. Not saying it doesn’t happen (SFUSD did this very thing a few years ago, then got voter approval for bonds to replace the misspent funds!).
The above comment is not affiliated with the San Francisco Giants, is not based on a secret source of team information, and may contain personal opinion.
"I'll never forget San Francisco and all those beautiful moments."- Andres Torres
by natteringnabob on Feb 7, 2012 7:01 AM PST up reply actions
SFUSD sounds like a combination of like three different universities.
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
kinda
but less organized. And worse graduation rate :(
The above comment is not affiliated with the San Francisco Giants, is not based on a secret source of team information, and may contain personal opinion.
"I'll never forget San Francisco and all those beautiful moments."- Andres Torres
by natteringnabob on Feb 7, 2012 10:15 AM PST up reply actions
/googles
//ohhh
///well I guess that’s not surprising.
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
Sorry, I thought you were just making a funny as opposed to asking a question. Anyway, yeah.
The above comment is not affiliated with the San Francisco Giants, is not based on a secret source of team information, and may contain personal opinion.
"I'll never forget San Francisco and all those beautiful moments."- Andres Torres
by natteringnabob on Feb 7, 2012 11:21 AM PST up reply actions
Can youe xplain to us idiots why using stadium bond money is dangerous?
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
To put it very simply, you’re taking part in debt financing. With stadium bonds, UW is apparently spending money they don’t have by selling “shares” of their stadium that must be repaid with interest over a longer period. They’re gambling that their investments now will leave them enough money to pay everything back later.
That would be why they wouldn't do it, which I doubt they are.
IIRC $50 million has already been raised through donations. The rest is from loans which I think they took from the university itself, which will be paid back with revenue from the new stadium. I could be wrong on that though.
I don’t think the UW AD would do anything very risky financially, any extra money they are spending is likely coming from increased donations, especially the coaching contracts.
Obviously nothing’s for sure, but they could very easily tell the public that these loans are actually donations. I’m guessing they would be selling these bonds in return for seats at home games. Kind of like how the Packers work, but the Packers aren’t running a debt and everyone who has tickets actually owns their seats. You could easily spin it to say “Oh, this guy made a ‘donation’ for this seat” and leave out the part where they have to pay him back for taking partial ownership for a predetermined period of time. But I know absolutely nothing about law and the repercussions of doing something like this.
I don't think the bonds were sold to the public, but instead to the university itself.
I don’t have time now but I know there are articles about this out there, I’ll take a look later.
Never mind, found a quick mention of it here.
http://www.kplu.org/post/uw-husky-stadium-remodel-private-effort-public-benefit
They got $50 million in donations, and are getting the othe $200 million in the form of a 30 year bond from the university.
you are not going to believe anything you don’t want to. So i am not going to try to convince you. I think posters on this board will attest to my veracity and that I do not throw out information if I am not certain.
I'm sure you won't take it personally that I never believe anyone with a "source" on a message board.
Me believing or not has nothing to do with what I do or do not want to believe, and everything to do with the information I’m presented with. As a rule, everyone with a “friend with connections to the UW”, get’s an “oh, that’s interesting, do you have anything at all to back it up?” from me.
When the things I hear don’t make sense (“Chip Kelly will leave right after signing day!”) when compared to the other information I have, I pay even less attention.
Don’t accuse me of being the ridiculous one who won’t believe what I don’t want to hear. If you want anyone to take your claims seriously you are going to need to provide something more than an anonymous source and your previous history which is impossible for me to verify. You could 100% be telling the truth and be in the know, but with what you’re giving me there’s no way that I would ever believe you.
Don’t accuse me of saying you’re ridiculous, when I don’t say you’re ridiculous (see how that works). I have no interest in proving myself to you. You are on OUR site, I am not on YOURS. capiche? Having said that, let me put it this way, the chancellor listens to the person from who i receieved this information.
Why are we fighting over who is ridiculous?
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
yet another T-shirt
CGB: We’re all ridiculous!
The above comment is not affiliated with the San Francisco Giants, is not based on a secret source of team information, and may contain personal opinion.
"I'll never forget San Francisco and all those beautiful moments."- Andres Torres
by natteringnabob on Feb 7, 2012 7:02 AM PST up reply actions
you are not going to believe anything you don’t want to.
Not believing something just because you don’t want to IS ridiculous, which is what you accused me of :) It is also apparent that you don’t care about convincing anyone, since you haven’t provided anything to back up your claims :)
you do realize that on a public forum i cannot cite who told me what, which is why i also said 99% of people on here will vouch for my veracity.
I can personally vouch that fiatlux should not be trusted!!!
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Yes I understand that.
All I’m saying is that without anything beyond your claim that you have a source I can’t possibly give it more than a passing thought. In the meantime I’m going to go with what the other evidence I have points too while keeping what you said in mind.
I think we are in agreement about this. I need more evidence. You can’t provide more evidence for various reasons. We are unfortunately stuck at an impasse. If UW ends up broke in 30 years I will keep in mind where I heard it first.
Not to like, come at you bro, but I'm inclined to agree with the Husky.
It’s not a slight against your personal credibility so much as it is something I wouldn’t accept from anyone without some supporting evidence. And believe me man, I want to believe anything that involves the possibility of UDub going over a cliff on rocket boosters Wile E. Coyote style, but this is just a bit much to swallow.
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
Italian spelling police
There is no “h” in capice. And unless you’re on Jersey Shore or The Sopranos, it isn’t pronounced “Ca-peesh”. (Although I suppose it’s possible that’s how it’s pronounced in Siciliano or Napolitano.)
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Feb 7, 2012 8:41 AM PST up reply actions
Mille grazie! And it’s not from Napoli AFAIK.
The above comment is not affiliated with the San Francisco Giants, is not based on a secret source of team information, and may contain personal opinion.
"I'll never forget San Francisco and all those beautiful moments."- Andres Torres
by natteringnabob on Feb 7, 2012 10:15 AM PST up reply actions
yes.
There’s also the question of the legality of doing this since it’s not why those bonds were issued.
Twist, in very very simple terms this is the concept of robbing from peter to pay paul. if it all works out, you’re o.k. If it doesn’t, things can get very very bad.
not so much robbing peter to pay paul
as using your home equity line to buy groceries and dine out.
The above comment is not affiliated with the San Francisco Giants, is not based on a secret source of team information, and may contain personal opinion.
"I'll never forget San Francisco and all those beautiful moments."- Andres Torres
by natteringnabob on Feb 7, 2012 7:03 AM PST up reply actions
The answer is somewhere in the middle
Football should get an increase in operating budget (say 1.5 mil more/year), 3 mil to the rest of the athletic department, and 1.5 mil invested/saved/rainy day.
I don’t want to be Ohio State. I like being Cal known for academics, great location, lots of championships outside of football, and olympic athletes like Alex Morgan and Natalie Coughlin.
We have tons of advantages over 99% of schools out there so I think we can avoid the arms race and still be highly competitive.
Love Tedford, but only a top tier coach can get us to the rose bowl and not better recruits/lesser students or more expensive assistants.
Lastly, I don’t think washington’s expenditure on Tosh and Kiesau will pay off long term.
Honestly, I think that the Athletic department saw the 2012 season as a unique opportunity for spending the new media money the way it did. The SAHPC is done and ramping up use, New Memorial will be done and EVERYONE will want to see it after being shooed away for more than a year, and they got handed a gift in pretty much guaranteeing that the UW game will sell out.
At least for this year, I think it was a wise decision to pay off our Athletic debt THIS YEAR with the new money, as it is easy to forecast successful attendance this season. Obviously though, they won’t be able to ride the wave for too long.
Does anyone know if the Athletic fund receives any money from the State?
no bear, no care
by EchoOfSilence on Feb 6, 2012 7:37 AM PST via mobile reply actions
Also, even though everyone’s increasing football budgets this year, we’ll have even more money to play with next year, should Cal Athletics choose to do something differently
no bear, no care
by EchoOfSilence on Feb 6, 2012 7:49 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Difficult....
…..obviously, the current academic year will be a complete washout because of football attendance. So not only does the dept have to pay back a bunch of money to the Chancellor (presumably the Discretionary Fund), they won’t be paying back any . Furthermore, if TV revenues are increasing only $5 to $6 million next year, that means that next year there should still be a $1 to $2 million deficit, and it will take probably a decade to truly get the department out of the hole.
When you look at the fact that Cal isn’t that bad at generating revenue, but runs deficits way beyond what almost all other public schools do, it’s clear that even with the basic TV revenue package, Cal can’t sustain all these sports. While all the other Pac-12 schools will only be competing against each other financially (and maybe some SEC schools), Cal will be behind the rest of our conference and competing with average revenue schools in other conferences.
All is not lost, however. If the Pac-12 network delivers as much money as it promises, Cal should have no trouble sustaining all its programs. So we should wait until we know.
It's apples, oranges, and those weird, prickly kiwano melons here
There’s one factor I didn’t read up there: the fact that Cal has more athletic programs than any other P12 conference school save furd.
That fact alone means the budget will be larger. So, let’s say we opt for the idea of pouring every cent into football, because the AD can then use any future revenue to pay for the other sports. Well, having so many, the football program has to generate proportionally more revenue at Cal than at, say, Uclol or Wazzu, in order to continue to not only pay for other programs, but also to remain financially competitive against the other schools.
It’s a game we simply can not win. Cal football will never be as “rich” as UW or Oregon or Zona simply because the entire athletic dept budget is always going to be larger.
Unless, of course, the athletic dept takes the view Kodiak mentioned, forcing the olympic and non-revenue sports to be self sufficient. But that really won’t ever happen.
So it seems to me that, unfortunately, the dynamics of the Cal sports landscape prevents the football program for ever being as rich as other schools. So it really doesn’t matter that much when the extra cash goes to the other sports, because we’re like the Red Queen here, running as fast as possible to basically stay in place, while other schools can just keep going further.
Being an Old Blue means embracing the "meh".
Disagree
Unless, of course, the athletic dept takes the view Kodiak mentioned, forcing the olympic and non-revenue sports to be self sufficient. But that really won’t ever happen.
Why won’t this happen? Rugby has proven this is very possible. Men’s gymnastics is now doing the same.
The reason this hasn’t happened to date is because we have lacked visionary leaders in their respective programs. I believe that is changing.
I do hope I’m wrong about the non-revs earning their own keep. But somehow I just can’t imagine Women’s Field Hockey generating enough cash to sustain itself.
But, like I said, I do hope I am wrong.
Being an Old Blue means embracing the "meh".
To be self-sufficient
a sports doesn’t need to generate revenue that year but rather just have enough money in a big enough endowment to reap the benefit from the endowment investment pay out each year
Sure, it does require quite a sum of money and you’re kind of screwed when stuff like Enron happened, but it’s definitely plausible.
On the other hand, the Olympics sports can also make the arguments that they want more scholarship, etc. A huge part of Furd’s dominance in the Olympics sports is due to the amount of full scholarships that they are able to give out. Cal often falls just a little short to Furd in these sports despite only have half the number of scholarships.
by LEastCoastBears on Feb 6, 2012 8:44 AM PST up reply actions
Cal
I got tired of waiting because I found out there's only a fine line between biding one's time and wasting one's time.
by DC Trojan on Feb 6, 2012 11:44 AM PST up reply actions 4 recs
Turn this green! DC Trojan is declaring his true love!
Costs STILL assessed against Twist
by CALumbus Bear on Feb 7, 2012 6:27 AM PST up reply actions
He says he's committing to Cal but he's really just committing to TwistNHook.
If TwistNHook gets hired away by BearInsider he’ll either follow him there or fall back on his earlier USC commit.
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
Cal is also cheaper
Stanford has to give full scholarships to compete against even partial scholarships for UC schools, just because of the tuition levels. USC has the same challenge… I think it’s mildly amusing that one of our most recent Olympians, Allyson Felix, didn’t even complete at the NCAA level because she already had gone pro.
I got tired of waiting because I found out there's only a fine line between biding one's time and wasting one's time.
Stanfurd Donor
My dad is furd grad and he donates a lot to the programs there and is a season ticket holder in basketball and football and they have a far less problem with donations. He doesn’t even go to a lot of games but likes to just give to his school. Yes im a golden bear (he hates that) and I see us have problems with donations all year! We need to change that! Plus going to both schools for years for games and being a student now it sickens me to a degree that most of the seats in the stadiums are filled with old old grads it looks like a old folks home some times and I hate that!! I want us to be like all the colleges you see on tv where the stands are filled with young college students!! We need more energy!! There is a place for the old grads but we CAN’T price out students from the games!!
by jordangoldnbear on Feb 6, 2012 4:51 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Stanfurd Donor
My dad is furd grad and he donates a lot to the programs there and is a season ticket holder in basketball and football and they have a far less problem with donations. He doesn’t even go to a lot of games but likes to just give to his school. Yes im a golden bear (he hates that) and I see us have problems with donations all year! We need to change that! Plus going to both schools for years for games and being a student now it sickens me to a degree that most of the seats in the stadiums are filled with old old grads it looks like a old folks home some times and I hate that!! I want us to be like all the colleges you see on tv where the stands are filled with young college students!! We need more energy!! There is a place for the old grads but we CAN’T price out students from the games!!
by jordangoldnbear on Feb 6, 2012 4:51 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Max schollies are, but in a number of our Olympic sports we do not grant the full number of scholarships we could by rule, due to lack of cashola.
interesting. Are there sports in particular? I know with water polo we max it out.
Fascinating stuff.
Again, interesting stuff that we can’t find reported. Or maybe they did back when holding up baseball/gym for money.
The above comment is not affiliated with the San Francisco Giants, is not based on a secret source of team information, and may contain personal opinion.
"I'll never forget San Francisco and all those beautiful moments."- Andres Torres
by natteringnabob on Feb 7, 2012 7:04 AM PST up reply actions
We absolutely need to cut some sports to stay competitive long term, football success or no.
KEEP CALM
AND
Z ON
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 6, 2012 9:16 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
this is the kind of comment
that I don’t think can be accurately evaluated from the information made available on a regular basis.
The above comment is not affiliated with the San Francisco Giants, is not based on a secret source of team information, and may contain personal opinion.
"I'll never forget San Francisco and all those beautiful moments."- Andres Torres
by natteringnabob on Feb 6, 2012 10:20 AM PST up reply actions
Agreed. I think it is difficult to make such an absolute, declarative statement with the available information. Spazzy could be correct, but I think we’d need more info to use terms like “absolutely”
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Serious question: really? Do we need Bain to explain this to us?
Of the 27 NCAA-sports we field, how many have a positive net income? How many have a negative net income? Are the revenues generated by the sports that make money enough to cover the sports that have a negative net income? What are the projections of the positive net income generators? Will they be enough to cover the sports that have a negative net income in subsequent years?
Related, what are the states of programs similar to ours, in terms of number of sports and revenue generation?
I think we have answers to every one of the above questions right now.
KEEP CALM
AND
Z ON
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 6, 2012 10:32 AM PST up reply actions
I do not know the answers to any of those questions.
All I know is that there might be other viable options to make the sports income producing (or at least break even-ing) as compared to just cutting them. There might be other revenue generation options we are not considering. Further, we have some Pac-12 channel money coming in over the next few years that is uncertain.
Might we need to cut sports to stay competitive? Definitely, maybe! But we should look at all available options before taking such a drastic step.
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Well, we have two sports which generate positive net income: mens bball and football. All the rest lose money, and football/bball must cover them. Our peers, namely large public schools, universally have a smaller field of sports. Football revenue is plateauing, and may or may not increase, likewise with basketball. Team operations, I believe I have read, have been stripped to a minimum. The AD loses money yearly, which I believe has to be filled in with the chancellor’s discretionary fund.
Therefore, imo the riskier proposition is to not cut sports—we are counting on future unspecified revenue to balance the budget (although ironically this is very representative of the State of California). I guess you are just a far more risk-averse person than I!
KEEP CALM
AND
Z ON
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 6, 2012 10:45 AM PST up reply actions
*I am a far more risk-averse person than you!
KEEP CALM
AND
Z ON
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 6, 2012 10:58 AM PST up reply actions
what about reducing football coach pay to cover the difference? Give Tedford the rope coach salary and make up our quidditch team with the 1.5 million saved!
Seriously though, the thought that athletic budgets are strained and that we need to cut sports makes me cringe. Especially when coaches are driving boats and lexuses while tenured professors are living in subsidized apartment housing (true!) since they can’t afford a house.
I’m not saying anything about academics versus athletics here, just saying that if the athletic department has to trim its compensation and maybe end up with less-than-recognizable names as coaches to get by, I wouldn’t complain.
Football revenue is plateauing, and may or may not increase, likewise with basketball.
That seems like an issue that we can take steps to address, isn’t it? Shouldn’t that avenue be explored first, before cutting sports?
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Feb 6, 2012 12:25 PM PST up reply actions
IMO, no, because this could eternally be used as an excuse. “There may be funding right around the corner…!”
KEEP CALM
AND
Z ON
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 6, 2012 12:38 PM PST up reply actions
This doesn’t even make sense. Football revenue may have plateaued the last few years but that does not mean that won’t change. To keep it simple, we averaged 58K in Memorial in 2010. Make that 62K in 2012 and we’ve just added about $1M to our revenue. That would cover several non olympic sports.
Further, if we are actually good again, we will see more national tv, which will also drive more revenue.
if we sustain success then we can increase ticket prices (reasonably).. let’s say in two years we increase average ticket price by just $5. That would result in an additional $2M.
Etc etc…
The bigger point is that all sports except for hoops and football should be building endowments so in part be self sustaining.
Well when you put it like it seems like Cal football should be just fine.
However just as Cal could add $1 million in 2012 if we average 62k fans we could very well have a very bad season when attendance us very low and the AD isn’t bringing in nearly as much football generated revenue to support its non Olympic sports. I suppose that scenario further supports your last statement that all non football and hoops should be building endowments.
Okay, then my question to you is: at what point is this cutoff made? How many years of the AD being in the red would it take? I’m not being sarcastic, serious question, what in your mind would truly necessitate the cutting of sports?
KEEP CALM
AND
Z ON
I am really not sure. Seriously, I don’t have an answer to that. That is why, I think the most important part of my post is that all these sports need to be self funding.
Yes, I do. It would take a committed and diligent effort. It would require people with vision to put in place the required programs to do so. We have some of those people in place now. We’re lacking quite a bit though.
Let’s use men’s gymnastics. Let’s say its requires $300K / year to support. That means it would need an endowment of about $5M. But, if we know we have a model where Basketball and Football on average return $8M, if half that money is set aside for rainy day fund, and the other half goes to the other sports, in this case Men’s gymnastics would only need an endowment of $2M or so.
I think this is all very possible.
to me, its not a number of years. Its a “can this sport become self-sufficient?” If there was NO way that it could help sustain itself and there were many years in the red, then I’d be more interested in it.
To me, I think that each sport can work towards raising money towards break even. So, lets look there first.
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Yes, it is a daunting task. But like Fiatlux, Im an optimist. You appear to be a pessmist. I think that is where we are coming from here with our differences
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
I’m not a pessimist, I’m a realist, and I think that’s an important distinction. All the believing and hoping in the world will not make many things come true, no matter how bad it feels to think the opposite.
KEEP CALM
AND
Z ON
Oddly, I feel the same way. I’m an optimist and, also, a realist.
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
It kind of annoys me, overall, that the idea of balancing a budget, now is such a controversial opinion, even if it means the end of some NCAA sports. In fact it annoys me so much I’m going to write a fanpost. Up later this week.
KEEP CALM
AND
Z ON
I look forward to that fanpost.
I also agree with should balance the budget. I’m all “let’s raise taxes!” and you are all “let’s cut costs!” The eternal battle continues!
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Ah, but they are trying to become self-sustaining, right? And Men’s golf already is?
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
Baseball’s going to be very interesting. A significant portion of their fundraising came from one player’s family, so the amount raised is kind of disproportionate to the support for them throughout the Cal community, but the community is going to have to pony up for the rest. I have no idea whether or not they will make it, long-term.
Arent they going to have to pony up the rest, tho, like 10 years from now?
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
depending
of course on what the Regents and Sacramento do in the meantime.
The above comment is not affiliated with the San Francisco Giants, is not based on a secret source of team information, and may contain personal opinion.
"I'll never forget San Francisco and all those beautiful moments."- Andres Torres
by natteringnabob on Feb 7, 2012 7:05 AM PST up reply actions
Crew?
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
I thought they had an angel investor or some such thing
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Not zero. The aquatic sports and men’s golf are fully funded in perpetuity. Men’s and women’s crew used to be and probably will be again soon. Rugby appears headed there, dragging women’s lacrosse and gymnastics along with it due to Title IX considerations.
Both gymnasdtics or just women’s?
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
no
but audited financials of the AD would be a start. And it’s not a phenomenon unique to the athletic department, large institutions like universities have an interest in obfuscation of sources and uses of funds.
And the larger point is that while obviously there’s an amount of revenue small enough to ensure the program can’t win, there’s no amount large enough to ensure that they can. Some small sports (supposedly golf, maybe baseball now) have their own little “endowments”. So, maybe you’ve seen a nice well-integrated disclosure of that, but I haven’t, and I tried to find them a couple of years ago.
The above comment is not affiliated with the San Francisco Giants, is not based on a secret source of team information, and may contain personal opinion.
"I'll never forget San Francisco and all those beautiful moments."- Andres Torres
by natteringnabob on Feb 6, 2012 11:21 AM PST up reply actions
My question then is, what exactly would this financial information tell you beyond what is already known, and more importantly why, within reason might it convince you that sports need to be cut beyond what is already known?
The only argument I’ve heard counter to cutting sports is that there may be more available revenue in the future, which seems incredibly risky to me. So what would you need to see in the next, say, three years which would convince you one way or another?
KEEP CALM
AND
Z ON
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 6, 2012 11:38 AM PST up reply actions
What sports do you advocate cutting, and how much will they save?
The above comment is not affiliated with the San Francisco Giants, is not based on a secret source of team information, and may contain personal opinion.
"I'll never forget San Francisco and all those beautiful moments."- Andres Torres
by natteringnabob on Feb 7, 2012 7:06 AM PST up reply actions
I would advocate
1) setting a firm deadline for a team to come up with an endowment that can fund them in perpetuity
2) upon failure of reaching that goal, cutting enough non-endowed teams to run a slight surplus based on realistic revenue predictions, starting with the smallest team (ie least number of people affected)
KEEP CALM
AND
Z ON
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 7, 2012 10:18 AM PST up reply actions
So, how much will the smaller sports need for endowments? And on what shall we base the revenue predictions?
The above comment is not affiliated with the San Francisco Giants, is not based on a secret source of team information, and may contain personal opinion.
"I'll never forget San Francisco and all those beautiful moments."- Andres Torres
by natteringnabob on Feb 7, 2012 10:36 AM PST up reply actions
To answer your first question, enough money such that they can operate on a yearly basis on their own. To answer the second, a prudent figure that takes into account reasonable football and basketball revenue predictions.
KEEP CALM
AND
Z ON
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 7, 2012 11:01 AM PST up reply actions
Good thing there’s a math department, so they can solve for X, y, and z in your hypothetical!
The above comment is not affiliated with the San Francisco Giants, is not based on a secret source of team information, and may contain personal opinion.
"I'll never forget San Francisco and all those beautiful moments."- Andres Torres
by natteringnabob on Feb 7, 2012 11:22 AM PST up reply actions
The Athletics Department currently runs a slight surplus. A few hundred thousands in the black.
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
you’re welcome (and be sure to thank the others). and thank you for reminding me why it’s so rare for me to engage you in any of your posts. you require handling with kid gloves and i rarely have the patience for that.
by fiatlux on Feb 6, 2012 6:26 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I do not pretentiously shit on your arguments or opinions out of thin air, Ken, though there are many, many times that I could. I withhold such nastiness because I understand that no one is perfect. You don’t do this.
So despite you being god knows how many years older than me, I invite you to grow up and treat everyone’s opinion with respect. I can’t believe this is so hard to ask of anyone, but then again….I guess I’m not surprised, at this point.
KEEP CALM
AND
Z ON
Yes you do. I usually ignore you, as I should have this time.
This little soliloquy demonstrates it. You post a simplistic statement and then get annoyed when someone calls it simplistic.
As I said, you require kid gloves treatment. Some day when you grow up a little and have a little self confidence you won’t find it necessary to react in the petulant manner as you just did. You might even have the self confidence to have the courage of your convictions. Until then though, we do have some general community guidelines. Why everyone knows who I am, I do not use my actual name on these forums. And if I do that is my choice, not yours. So unless you want to identify yourself publicly (or privately to me) I suggest you respect those group standards. Thank you.
Please
Guys, stop the personal attacks – you want to attack the arguments – have at it. Beat them about the head and shoulders, but PLEASE stop making this personal, it doesn’t have to be like this.
Understood? Good.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
No, I do not take potshots on your arguments and then run away and hide behind excuses of “avoidance” and “kid gloves,” Ken, and if you think so that is your complete misinterpretation, something you do often and frequently. The only reason you are upset with me is because I dared point out, long ago, how wrong you were to use 2004-2007 as a baseline average for attendance comparison, you got extremely pissy in response, I called you out on your nasty bullying, and the mods chastened you.
Some day when you grow up a little and have a little self confidence you won’t find it necessary to react in the petulant manner as you just did.
Let me get this straight. You avoid “engaging me,” but then manage to throw in a potshot from afar, (unless I’m misreading “ridiculously simplistic,”) and expect me not to defend myself, while you hide behind the excuse of having to use “kid gloves”? And by defending myself, I am being immature? That is some impressive logic.
Ken, you are nothing more than a bully, who gets his opinion across by bullying. I won’t be bullied by you.
KEEP CALM
AND
Z ON
Stop it – what argument are you advancing? All you are doing is talk about the person who is making (some obscure) argument. What the hell are you guys even disagreeing about? Who has the thinnest skin?
Chill both you, this is unseemly for graduates of a university steeped in a tradition of intellectual discourse.
Seriously, last warning.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
Cugel, I’m sorry, but i have just enough immaturity that i need to respond.
In that subthread, which was as ridiculous as they come, you decided to post a bunch of incomprehensible garbage… it was silly. When I completely discredited your facts, you then pivoted from the facts and said some rude things to me. and then Spazzy, YOU got called out by the mods… you accused me of being mean to you when all i had done was use back your exact words to you. Frankly it was embarrassing for you.
As usual, you’ve mis-characterized this thread. I said it’s rare for me to engage you and you’ve just proven why. You are in immature person, who thinks he knows more about things than he does. When called on it, you obfuscate and pull the victim card, as you just did. I’m such a bully to you… no. I just hold you accountable for what you say.
As I said, this little soliloquy demonstrates both your immaturity and lack of substance. For some reason it upsets you I know considerably more than you do about things including those pertaining to Cal. Not sure why that is. Scootie knows a lot more than me about banking systems. Cugel knows a lot more than me about real estate. Twist, Cal81, Ohio et al know a lot more about me than law. I don’t get upset at that or threatened by that. A little self reflection would do you well.
And, we can now add in petulance. I’ve just asked you not to use my real name in your posts. Unless you want to use yours, or actually have the courage of your convictions and send me a message identifying yourself (which I am sure you won’t do), you’ve again demonstrated your petulance and immaturity. You’re being a degenerate.
No, you probably know more about law than I do!
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Like I said, I will not be bullied by you, Ken.
KEEP CALM
AND
Z ON
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 7, 2012 10:20 AM PST up reply actions
You guys realize more than any two posters you are the old married couple of CGB, right?
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
“GEORGE LIKES HIS JELLO WITH BANANAS!”
KEEP CALM
AND
Z ON
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 7, 2012 11:01 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Spazzy, you know better than to use real names. Please never do it again.
Costs STILL assessed against Twist
by CALumbus Bear on Feb 7, 2012 11:57 AM PST up reply actions
….He has gone public with his real name hundreds of times, I’m not sure I’m seeing the issue here?
KEEP CALM
AND
Z ON
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 7, 2012 12:00 PM PST up reply actions
When it comes to real names, people can their own as much as they want. If they ask anyone else to not use it, you need to abide by that.
Costs STILL assessed against Twist
by CALumbus Bear on Feb 7, 2012 12:05 PM PST up reply actions
I thank you for your consistent application of brand new rules and guidelines, CB.
KEEP CALM
AND
Z ON
You are welcome. Did you need a reminder about the other rule, which has been previously told to you and consistently applied many times in the past, about questioning or critiquing specific moderator actions in a thread instead of writing to cgbmods@gmail.com?
Costs STILL assessed against Twist
by CALumbus Bear on Feb 7, 2012 1:20 PM PST up reply actions
I don't want to be Ohio State either
DGriffin, but that isn’t our only option. Just because they haven’t been good recently doesn’t mean you can’t want to be Michigan.
What needs to be thought about here is not just “how much money should go into football continuing operations”. Instead, it is opportunity costs. If we start from the premise that a rising tide raises all boats, then we need to think about how to make sure the tide always rises, for generations.
We don’t have enough of a fanbase for the size of our University. This has to change, and this could be an opportunity for change. Now, I know that the Bay Area is a tough place to keep a fan’s attention. This isn’t Nebraska, and it will never be. But we belong to a very large university in a very large metro area. We are able to support two professional football teams. For godsakes, the junior college in Palo Alto with a student body less than 10,000 has a thriving football program.
First, we need to get the students more interested in the team. This isn’t easy, but it would go a long way to building a permanent fan base. We have these scholar athletes we are so proud of, why not show them off? Why not have them interact with the general student body more? These guys are nothing to be ashamed of, the average student should know that these guys are diligent students just like they are, plus they spend a ton of time being awesome for the University. The team needs the support of the students, because there shouldn’t be a separation. They are one and the same.
Second, the University of California needs to be not just for Alumni. In the SEC everyone loves their local SEC team, and yet most people didn’t go there for school. The University is something that all Californians should be proud of, and especially all people in the Bay Area. Cal has its fingers in practically everything that happens in the Bay, and everyone’s state taxes go toward funding it! It is insane that neutrals in the bay would affiliate themselves with the furd- furdians want nothing to do with them. We are the school for all of the people, and we need to act like it.
Right now we have a new conference, a new opportunity to change our position in the football landscape. We need to take advantage of that now, to become a great football school that generates real, lasting interest. If we don’t, the opportunity may pass us by. We don’t do that by becoming Ohio State- we do that by taking advantage of the things that we already are. We are California, and we need to finally act like it.
IMO, winning will help accomplish two of your points
It will get a lot more students interested in the team and will help attract non-Cal students and alums as fans.
Agree that it helps
My 3 years at Cal resulted in two 10-win seasons, constant hype around all stars players, and dominance in Memorial Stadium (sans OSU/U$C).
I’m pretty much hooked for life.
6 1st round draft picks, 2 Super Bowl Champions and counting
by Another Successful Tedford QB on Feb 6, 2012 11:02 AM PST up reply actions
The solution is simple
You need to re-enroll
by FromCtoShining(Blue)C on Feb 6, 2012 11:43 AM PST via Android app up reply actions
No, winning does not cure all ills...
just look at our basketball team. despite being in first place with an incredibly attractive team (Jorge et al) we have sold out one game this year and did not come close to selling out UofA
Winning absolutely helps, but winning alone doesn’t do it. There are fundamental changes that cal must make.
by fiatlux on Feb 6, 2012 4:39 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I don't believe I said winning cures all
I agree with you that winning will help, especially in the short term.
I would be interested in hearing what you think some of those fundamental changes are that Cal must make.
Cutting other sports? Doing a better job with branding and marketing?
you sort of said that when you said winning will help accomplish…
and i agree winning WILL help that ;-) Just wanted to warn against the common misconception that is “if we would just start winning…”
Well if we would start winning it would help short term but it probably won't sustain casual fans
For the long term and keep them going to Cal when we experience a dip in wins and have a losing season.
I agree with you that Cal needs to do a better job in marketing ALL Cal sports and reaching out to the local community to get their buy in. Cal has to get all local east bay residents to buy in that Cal sports doesn’t just belong to students and alum but everyone! Cal should be the team that all locals who didn’t go to college or went to a college without a D1 football team root and cheer for.
I agree with you that it's important to get non-grads interested in their local teams.
But I also think it is ironic that you want more non-alumni fans when I hear every year come Apple Cup time that “Most UW fans didn’t even go there, losers!”
Well I think a lot of those Apple Cup comments are just good ol' rival hate
Plus UW is near Seattle and more likely to capture casual fans or fans who don’t have a CFB team. I imagine WSU and its small town location has a lot less casual fans to draw from than UW does.
I think all fans of a team are important whether they attended the school or not and they all play a role of varying degrees in a programs success.
Oh, I 100% agree.
I was just pointing out that having non-alum fans is most often used as an insult, when in reality it is quite the compliment that people with no association to the university enjoy following its teams.
Of course not all school’s have the same access to those fans and such, UW isn’t better than WSU because we have more people in the vicinity of our campus who root for us,
It’s not just winning one-off here and there. It’s a tradition of winning, it’s sustained success. I mean, we don’t have to be UCLA basketball necessarily, because you can’t count on replicating a dynasty like that, but Arizona for example has a long tradition of winning and I’d imagine that it translates into great support for its basketball program.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Feb 6, 2012 5:55 PM PST up reply actions
Same with Stanfurd women’s basketball for that matter. Don’t they sell a ton of tickets?
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Feb 6, 2012 5:58 PM PST up reply actions
I'd agree, sustained winning can get you through some dark times.
I think Oregon is a good example of this. Their marketing department could do nothing but mail out season ticket forms and they would sell out Autzen.
they lead the conference in attendance, by a wide margin.
our women’s attendance is abysmal and is a perfect example of where we leave far too much money on the table.
Yeah, but that’s what I’m getting at a little about “sustained success”. I mean, Stanfurd WBB is probably on even another level than what’s realistic for Cal FB and BB, but if they can pack ‘em in for women’s basketball (and I don’t mean that as a denigration, because I enjoy WBB, but let’s face it, it’s not a super well-attended sport in comparison), then that really goes to show what having that type of program can do. And of course the marketing on top of that. I think with Coach G and some of the recruits we’ve got, we have a great platform to start competing with Stanfurd year in and year out.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Feb 6, 2012 6:31 PM PST up reply actions
Stanfurd has had success for 20+ years. Tara is legendary. There were years when I believe they outdrew the men. I absolutely believe we can create that culture in the East Bay.
I agree. But I think the audience for men’s basketball is even more ready-made and accessible than women’s basketball, so to get Cal Men’s Basketball to draw that well wouldn’t take the kind of domination that the Stanfurd women have achieved, it would just take consistent solid conference seasons, occasional upsets of top national teams, and regular NCAA tournaments appearances with an occasional (every 2-3 years) run to at least a Sweet 16 or hopefully better.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Feb 6, 2012 7:02 PM PST up reply actions
Agree.
But, we are soooo bad in women’s attendance we have incredible upside. If we could just get to 3000 a game in average attendance, that would make a huge impact.
I wonder how close WBB is to breaking even or even being revenue-positive. Is 3000 tickets/game the breakeven number, I wonder?
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Feb 6, 2012 7:16 PM PST up reply actions
yikes
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Feb 6, 2012 7:31 PM PST up reply actions
It is stats like these which make me deeply doubtful that all of our NCAA sports can be self-sufficient, and makes me question whether any potential donation I give will be spent prudently.
KEEP CALM
AND
Z ON
I think WBB is a special situation, but I do agree it is a BAD situation.
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
additionally it’s a conference sacred cow. We are required to field a women’s hoops team to be in the conference.
Also, VBall
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
I think our womens team is the most money losing team we have
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
You seem knowledgeable about this. Do you have a public source for your info that we could review?
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
here.
unfortunately it only specifically breaks out hoos (m and w) and football. but it’s still interesting.
re: Baseball, it looks like theya re being aggressive in raising funds. Dinner on Friday. Looks $$$. All sold out.
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Rather than competing, could they have possibly coordinated? After the game: Come support gymnastics!
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Feb 6, 2012 10:57 PM PST up reply actions
of course they could have. but this is the same overall org that decided to schedule the bonfire rally and women’s volleyball match at the same time… (tear running down my cheek)
I am curious how that conflict could have been avoided. Obviously the bonfire rally had to be on the Friday night before Big Game. And isn’t the date of the volleyball game set by the conference? And does the opponent have any say as to what time it starts? Because if it’s moved earlier in the day, their travel plans have to be changed and, potentially, their students miss an entire extra day of class. And if it were moved to a Thursday night, then they would miss two days of class and have an extra day of hotel expenses. Also, if the game is moved earlier in the day, wouldn’t attendance have been equally affected by it being in conflict with fans being at work or in class on a weekday? I remember when you made this point back in November, and I meant to ask you then how this conflict could have been avoided without these other complications.
CGB: The Strangest Blog
Is the volleyball schedule made before, after, or concurrently with the football schedule? Once you know when the Big Game is, you know when the bonfire rally is supposed to be, and you can schedule other things accordingly.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Feb 7, 2012 4:19 PM PST up reply actions
But how? Cal doesn’t set the schedule, the Pac-12 does. And last season all conference volleyball games were scheduled for Friday-Saturday (e.g., teams would come to the Bay Area and play Cal on a Friday and Stanford on a Saturday, and we would go to Oregon and play in Eugene on Friday and Corvallis on Saturday). Presumably this was done to save on an extra day of missing class and on expenses for hotel and meals. So I don’t think Cal had any say in the fact that there was going to be a home volleyball game on that Friday. The only thing we could have done was ask the Pac-12 to schedule us on the road that weekend, but that would require a re-do of the entire conference schedule. I doubt the conference would do that for our bonfire rally, because then every other school could ask for changes to accommodate its events. Maybe I’m missing something about how this scheduling works, and if so, I would be interested in hearing about it. But it seems to me that with 27 sports, and related events, some conflicts are going to be unavoidable.
CGB: The Strangest Blog
Volleyball matches are what, 90 minutes long? They couldn’t push it up an hour or something? That’s all I was saying.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Feb 7, 2012 4:45 PM PST up reply actions
How long a match lasts depends on how many sets it goes. A five set match will go over two hours. Pushing it back to a 5:00 p.m start, or even a 6:00 p.m. start on a week night is going to depress attendance because people can’t get there through rush hour traffic after work, and with no chance for dinner. And while many Cal students could easily make it to a game at 5:00 or 6:00, from my experience attending Cal volleyball games, most people who attend are not Cal students.
CGB: The Strangest Blog
How long a match lasts depends on how many sets it goes.
Yeah okay, thanks, I meant a typical match. No sport has an exact set period of time. Even basketball and football games, which have a game clock, are pretty variable depending on officiating and overtime.
Anyway, to your point, if volleyball crowds are significantly different than bonfire crowds, then I guess there isn’t much of a problem with overlap, then? Though, it still seems a shame to make people have to choose between the two.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Feb 7, 2012 5:27 PM PST up reply actions
I’m sorry that my pointing out that a five set volleyball match can go over two hours appears to have offended you.
And my point wasn’t that volleyball crowds are significantly different from bonfire crowds, although they are. My point is that by pushing volleyball back to an early start time on a week night, you would be depressing attendance at the volleyball game. My further point is that there is not always an ideal solution to every conflict.
CGB: The Strangest Blog
I’m not really offended, but yes, obviously more sets = more time. I could figure that part out :)
5 sets usually means ~ 2 hours was helpful though. And yes, I agree that there isn’t always an ideal solution. My whole point was that instead of rescheduling things wholesale for different days or trying to schedule road trips or whatever, a less drastic solution (move game time up a little, move bonfire back a little) might ameliorate the problem, to the extent that there even is one.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Feb 7, 2012 5:46 PM PST up reply actions
Some answers
I’ll address your and atoms’ conversation in this one post.
The Volleyball / Bonfire conflict is to me exactly what is wrong with the thinking within Cal athletics. It shows a total lack of proactive and / or out-of-the box thinking.
As we all know the schedule is set for the fall sports at least four or so months in advance. And yes, the league sets the dates. With all sports there is clearly wiggle room depending on things like TV etc. With no other external factors, the home team is in fact the arbiter of starting time, sets the time as long as it is not unreasonable and as long as they clearance by the conference.
We could have easily pushed the match back and the rally up a bit (in fact I know the football team would prefer this). With that in mind…
We could have started the bonfire rally at 6:30 PM and the women’s volleyball game at 8PM. Nothing extreme about that (for instance we just had our men’s basketball game against Arizona start at 8PM). We could them implore / incentivize people to head down to the volleyball match after the rally. Maybe with the support of an extra two thousand people in Haas the team would have pulled off the win!
To further show what i believe was the impact of this laziness and perfunctory action by the athletic department. That night’s volleyball match was by far our lowest attended pac 12 match of the season. In fact it had fewer fans than the next night’s match which was competing with the big game.
’81, this “thinking” (sic) gets repeated over and over and over. It is so aggravating to me. Bain has identified Cal Athletics as being passive and, according to one person I spoke to there “A wall of no.”
The above shows just how easy it is to optimize our efforts to maximize our results. We just need the right people in place to do that.
The time of the women’s basketball game (8:00 p.m.) was determined by it being on TV, so that could not be changed. Gymnastics would have had to have an early bird special dinner to coordinate with the basketball game.
CGB: The Strangest Blog
Regardless who is HC for Cal football, Cal needs to increase salary for the coaching staff
IMO, no coach could win with a staff comprised of Marshal, Daft, and Ludwig. If Cal doesn’t increase the amount of money they spend on assistants, Tedford and all coaches after him will be stuck with a lower qualified or less accomplished coaching candidates to fill out their staff.
competitive and broad
I’m not sure I agree with the premise here: that we have to sacrifice competitiveness to accommodate a broad range of sports. We have been, and remain, competitive in football in the Pac-12. We are not currently dominant, but neither are we floormats. I don’t like the kind of arms race that says we need to keep shelling out cash until we win several national championships. We don’t have that kind of money, and I don’t like that kind of football-must-win-at-all-costs culture. It leads to abuses, recruiting violations, ethical misconduct, spiraling coach compensation, etc. All I’m asking from my alma mater is that it field a team that is competitive, that wins SOME games, not all of them or else.
Remember, with the new Pac-12 network comes increased visibility for a range of sports. What if baseball and softball get more coverage? What if gymnastics starts to gain a following? Maybe volleyball starts to get more butts in seats? Football may be king now, but college sports in general have been getting more interest with increased media—I don’t think we want fewer of them.
by slaphancock on Feb 6, 2012 10:19 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
I don't think people are saying we need to win several national championships
At this point most Cal fans would be happy with a single Pac12 title.
I don’t really care how Cal competes on a national level with the likes of the SEC, what I want to see is that Cal will be able to continue to continually compete in the Pac12.
Cal finally caught up with the other teams in the conference in regards to facilities but now it seems as though we may be falling behind in terms of coaching staff salary.
Maybe our assistant coaches could get paid a bit more. But we can’t let the terrorists win. If UW forces us to compensate our assistant coaches with astronomical amounts of spacebucks, then we’ve already lost.
by slaphancock on Feb 6, 2012 10:39 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Success and financial success
Many of us are assuming that success on the field breeds financial success. That is true up to a point, but to expand the fan base, we have to think about what will draw in people less fanatic than we are. Montgomery’s Pac-10 championship has not resulted in a sold-out Haas. If championship-level success for the first time in decades can’t put people in the seats, then some other tactic is needed to make the game-day experience attractive to a wider audience. At Cal, plowing more money into football coaching or recruiting in hopes of improving the team’s record by 1-2 games a year is probably going to be less financially successful than investing the same money into better marketing and improving the game-day experience in football and other sports. An example is professional baseball, where lots of fans don’t expect the team to win every day, but they still love going to games regardless.
One just needs to look at Furd to see how their success in recent years in football has not translated to selling out the football games. Surely, Furd is a different situation than most school but it’s yet another example of how on field success does not translate to financial success.
On a related note, it’s clear that Furd sells their gears to many people based on their academic success. Cal suffers in that regard with our branding problem of being “Cal” for athletics but “UC Berkeley” for academics. While this may actually cause some people (particularly alums) to purchase two items with the two names, it does kind of hurt our potential financial success from merchandizing sell, imho.
by LEastCoastBears on Feb 6, 2012 10:33 AM PST up reply actions
Agreed.
Look, I loved watching the Arizona basketball game on Thursday, even though we lost. I imagine that a lot of people in the gym did as well. Sports are exciting competition in and of themselves, we watch the game unfold, not just the final score.
So I agree. Building a fan base can be achieved in ways other than winning all the time. Maybe more of the money should go into the marketing wing of the athletics department. They have to find a way to connect with smart students and faculty who really care about academics, and they shouldn’t adopt the same rah-rah win-win approach that may work for SC and Oregon.
I think marketing is also important. It takes both 1) a good product; 2) marketing that good product successfully.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Feb 6, 2012 12:38 PM PST up reply actions
nice try… but i won’t take that bait…
OK, I will…
Let’s look at men’s basketball this year. Terrible marketing. One great example. NBA goes on strike. There is no pro basketball against whom to compete AND you have people who like basketball (warrior season ticket holders) whose preferred option has been taken from them.
An intelligent, progressive and proactive marketing organization would have immediately implemented some sort of special for warrior season ticket holders to come to CAL games… But ours did nothing of the sort.
Further, games over the break. This seems to take marketing by surprise every year… that games over the break are a tougher sell and that students won’t be here. Every year. Same thing.
And of course we all know the debacle that was ATT this year in football…
GAMES OVER BREAK ARE A TOUGHER SELL!?!?!/ WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN!?!?
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
BOOM! :)
.jpg)
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Feb 6, 2012 5:49 PM PST up reply actions
You know what grinds my gears?
Apparently some Cal programs had students going to the Warriors game on the night of the Cal-UA game last week at Haas. Really? REALLY?
I didn't see it discussed above
but Title IX needs to be considered. For every dollar you put into football, another dollars needs to go to a women’s sport program.
The Golden Bear is ever watching
2011 Giants Adoptee: Orlando Cabrera (because everyone needs to be loved)
San Francisco Giants Won the 2010 World Series: Not a Typo
That's relavent pretty much only in regards to number of scholarships handed out.
Facilities and coaching salaries are not regulated by Title IX.
I don't think that's true
Title IX is about equal resources and opportunity for women. Resources and coaches are part of that mix:
The most recent piece of Title IX legislation is the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act of 1994. The Act, sponsored by Illinois congresswoman, Cardiss Collins, requires federally-assisted higher education institutions to disclose information on roster sizes for men’s and women’s teams, as well as budgets for recruiting, scholarships, coaches’ salaries, and other expenses, annually.
(wiki)
The Golden Bear is ever watching
2011 Giants Adoptee: Orlando Cabrera (because everyone needs to be loved)
San Francisco Giants Won the 2010 World Series: Not a Typo
Well, there's no way the overall budget for men's and women's coaches is even remotely close.
I doubt all of UW’s women’s coaches combined make as much as Sark does, and I’m guessing the same is true at Cal.
I’m not an expert on Title IX, but it seems obvious to me that there is currently a discrepancy of resources in terms of coaching salaries (and other expenses) which isn’t in violation of the current law.
No
but you have to spend in total the same. You would have sponsor more women’s sports in general and cut other men’s sports.
Until now, Cal had been fulfilling Title IX requirements by asserting that it met the "interests and abilities" of its female students, one of three so-called prongs that institutions can choose to comply with the law. When a university cuts even one women’s team, it can no longer rely on that claim, nor can it argue that it has a history of expanding opportunities for women, which is another option for compliance. Now, Cal has effectively backed itself into a corner and is left with only the third option — proving that female participation in athletics is proportionate to female undergraduate enrollment in the university.
By that measure, Cal falls considerably short. Just 40 percent of the 965 participants on the university’s varsity teams were women in the 2009-10 academic year; its overall student enrollment was 53 percent female. To comply with Title IX, officials have said they plan to trim male rosters while expanding the size of female teams, a practice known in college athletics as roster management.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/09/sports/09titleix.html?pagewanted=all
The Golden Bear is ever watching
2011 Giants Adoptee: Orlando Cabrera (because everyone needs to be loved)
San Francisco Giants Won the 2010 World Series: Not a Typo
Correction
spend in proportion.
http://www.cwlc.org/files/docs/Title_Nine_School_Compliance.pdf
The Golden Bear is ever watching
2011 Giants Adoptee: Orlando Cabrera (because everyone needs to be loved)
San Francisco Giants Won the 2010 World Series: Not a Typo
None of that has to do with spending the same amount of money on women's and men's coaches, recruiting visits, or facilities.
It is all about the number of scholarships. You do have to have about the same number of male and female athletes, you don’t have to spend the same amount on coaches, equipment, travel, facilities, or anything else which would constitue an increased investment in football. If Cal were to give Tedford a raise, they wouldn’t need to then give some women’s coaches a raise as well.
Not. Even. Close. Sorry, this is silly, no school does this.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
by Cugel on Feb 6, 2012 8:04 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
What about Mills?
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Interesting articles regarding the success for the 2009 recruiting classes
Alabama and LSU did as expected but a lot of the classes were not highly ranked
Furd at 20 (re-ranked as 3)
West Virginia 27 (re-ranked at 8)
Clemson 37 (re-ranked at 9)
Wisconsin 43 (re-ranked at 10)
The Golden Bear is ever watching
2011 Giants Adoptee: Orlando Cabrera (because everyone needs to be loved)
San Francisco Giants Won the 2010 World Series: Not a Typo
Money, money, money
As long as we’re competitive in our P-12 salaries, that is enough money. Paying above and beyond that probably does not correlate to more wins (at least within the P-12). If it does, it’s like to be be logarithmic in terms of money invested to wins gained.
What’s a bigger factor to winning is the coach himself.
In general, I disagree with the notion that JT needs superior talent in order to win. This is a long argument but I think comparisons out there are invalid. You can’t compare him to Carroll because $C is rife with talent every year. It’s hard to compare him to Harbaugh or Kelly because they didn’t stay long enough in their programs like JT has at Cal. Time has a way of modulating success. Even looking at Mack Brown (which is closer to $C in terms of raw talent level) had a down year.
Facts, Numbers, and Perspective
Hey y’all. Took the link above and parsed a few numbers. Football only. Leghooo.
2011 Revenues: $24.3million (heretofore referred to as “MM”)
2002 Revenues: $7.8MM
Operating Margin: 28.5%
Revenue Growth: 210.9%
CAGR: 13.4%
*Peak revenue at 2008 with $27.9MM. Steady decline over last three years.
*Signficant improvement in margins since 02.
*~30% operating margins in last SIX years, except for 2008, saw 45% margin (WOW!)
2011 Expenses: $17.4MM
2002 Expenses: $7.9MM
Expense Growth: 120.6%
Expense CAGR: 9.2% (faster than inflation)
Expenses peaked in 2009 at $19.1MM but margins held at 31%.
2011 Coaching Salaries: $4.7MM
2002 Coaching Salaries: $1.8MM
Coaching Salary Growth: 156.4%
Salary CAGR: 11.0%
*We are paying our coaches $3MM more than we have in past. We likely didn’t double our staff so that means all/most coaches got significant bumps since 2002.
Fire Starkey. You... complete me.
by since1997 on Feb 6, 2012 2:39 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
In Tedford's Tenure...
*Revenues tripled
*Ticket sales quadrupled
*The ticket clusterfuck that was Cal ATO/AT&T this year did not result in significant erosion in our revenue base. Toital Revenues held steady. Ticket sales increased by ~$2MM.
*Coaching salaries went way up
*Operating margins significanlty improved, going from -0.8% to averaging ~30%.
Fire Starkey. You... complete me.
I was really just curious about how our success then mediocrity played out in the numbers.
Our best year: 2004 revenues: $17.2MM
The real impact occurred in 2007, when revenues increased by 41%.
The recent mediocrity has shown an 11% decrease in revenues from the highs. So really not as large an impact as I thought.
I’m okay with a mediocre team that is churning out 30% margins consistently.
Xx.
Fire Starkey. You... complete me.
Wait a second...
I’m okay with a mediocre team that is churning out 30% margins consistently.
This makes it seem like you’re ok with the football team consistently finishing in 3rd or 4th in the north division, as long as it adequetly funds all of the other Cal sports. Is that really the case?
I’m just saying that our mediocrity isn’t so egregious that it is significantly eroding our ability to sell tickets. In fact, we crapped the bed in 2010 and still managed to sell hella tickets in 2011. By virtue of its location, new facilities, academic reputation, family atmoshphere, its AD and HC, Cal won’t be the bottom feeder of the conference in the forseeable future. We’ll at least be mediocre. And if we can still make 30% margin off of that and support the 9000 other sports at Cal, that’s awesome!
With top 25 recruiting classes coming of age in the next couple years, we’ll be pushing for 2nd in our div, or even dark-horse favorite. That’s just gravy. And done without having to stoop to boat-pandering.
Fire Starkey. You... complete me.
by since1997 on Feb 6, 2012 3:14 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Different views of things I guess.
We’ll at least be mediocre. And if we can still make 30% margin off of that and support the 9000 other sports at Cal, that’s awesome!
If I were to post this on a UW forum I would get ripped to shreds. At UW I think most people believe that a winning football team is going to be the best thing possible for our non-revenue sports so it is worthwhile to invest in it. Part of the reason we had to cut swimming was because of the attendance drop over our decade of suckitude.
I don’t consider top finishes in the conference in football and basketball to be gravy, they are more like the center of a tootsie pop. If it isn’t there after a bunch of mediocre licks I’m going to be pretty dissapointed.
We did not sell hella tickets in 2011. In fact, 2011 is the perfect example of how bad marketing can absolutely kill things. It really should be the classic Business School case study on how not to market.
I’m not arguing with you, Fiatlux. Look at the numbers yo.
My firm spent $30,000 on tickets in 2011. Couldn’t have done that at Memorial. Maybe that only got 120 people to that games (it was a suite), but Cal got A LOT of money for the premium seats.
Fire Starkey. You... complete me.
Will your firm give me money?
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
We could have sold “far less” tickets in 2010 than other years, but still made a decent chunk of change since the prices were so much higher
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Well that’s obviously not the goal. The goal = Rose Bowl. It seems to me that being able to fund the other sports programs should be the minimum baseline though.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Feb 6, 2012 3:43 PM PST up reply actions
That's how I'd put things.
Football has to be able to fund however many other sports the AD is going to support to some minimum level. I wouldn’t be content with just that and mediocrity though.
You say mediocrity as a result like its a bad thing. It isn’t that we’re trying to be mediocre, but that the outcome may be in the middle of the pack. We are (I am) content with the outcome and trust that we will continue to aspire to win all the games we play.
If every athletics department took the attitude of “mediocrity will not be tolerated” then some pretty ugly things start to happen. If everybody HAS to win, which cannot, of course, happen, then the bar is set too high. Recruiting violations occur. Sandusky gets away with it. The whole idea of competitive sport is undermined.
by slaphancock on Feb 6, 2012 4:29 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Thnanks for bringi n some numbers!
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
At this point I would like to remind everyone that Ohio State fields the largest number of varsity sports of any university in the country
including the Furd. So if we can please stop using the worst possible example of putting the football team first as our go-to example of athletic departments that put the football team first, that’d be great.
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
Echo chamber comes up... wrong
1. They conclude Stanford succeeded because of recruiting, not coaching. Hell, if anybody should, Cal fans ought to know that recruiting well doesn’t guarantee success. Harbaugh did improve the quality of athletes on the team, but the key was something else. He was superb at getting teams ready to play throughout the season and maintaining a high level of focus during games. Or, if you want a more blunt message. Compare what the 49ers did under Harbaugh with practically no significant change in personnel. It was coaching, much different from offense scheme expertise.
2.. The panel acted as if Pac-12 TV money were a set-aside that belonged to and should be “invested” to benefit the football team with scraps left over for the rest of the athletic program. The problem is that right now Cal overall runs its program on fantasy-based economics. The taxpayers of California subsidize Cal athletics approx. $10 million per year. That amount will continue to diminish as reality-based economics force hard choices. And the financials for the renovation of Memorial are a sucking chest wound that will drain more for years to come. Cal will have to divert the money that this blog wants “invested” in financing the football team when reality will force that money into other programs or force them to be discontinued. Not a lot of enviable choices.
Hell, if anybody should, Cal fans ought to know that recruiting well doesn’t guarantee success. Harbaugh did improve the quality of athletes on the team, but the key was something else. He was superb at getting teams ready to play throughout the season and maintaining a high level of focus during games. Or, if you want a more blunt message. Compare what the 49ers did under Harbaugh with practically no significant change in personnel. It was coaching, much different from offense scheme expertise.
This. Tedford himself proved this winning 7 games his first year with the same players that lost 10 games under Holmoe the year before. Something happened at the OSU game in 2007, JT hasn’t been the same since he threw his clipboard down…
Fuck.
Is it broken? Is that why our offense has been stalling, has nobody checked to see the status of his clipboard? Maybe we should buy him a new clipboard?
And the financials for the renovation of Memorial are a sucking chest wound that will drain more for years to come
Really? Where are you getting your information on this? It seems like a lot of speculation on your part.
Yeah it certainly seems that way
I don’t even know why I responded to a guy who just opened an account today and this was his first post.
A stanfurd troll, judging by the screen name! Those are rare beasts indeed.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Feb 6, 2012 5:53 PM PST up reply actions
Well, if by "troll" you mean...
Someone who takes the time to read points of view outside his own self-reinforcing sports bulletin board world and also comments from time to time.
And, yes, I did just sign up today after someone showed the link to the topic. I actually thought the blog and panel answers were interesting. The main author clearly whiffed on a main strength of Harbaugh and I pointed it out.
On finances, the funny thing to outsiders is how Cal can field an army of potential Cal fans, sending out almost 4X the number of Stanford grads on a yearly basis, yet that overwhelming numeric advantage doesn’t translate into more giving. Don’t see that issue discussed much even though it could change the financial picture fairly easily.
The problem is that right now Cal overall runs its program on fantasy-based economics.
This seems about right. You know what would definitely help? More sports to fund!
What? We have no money and lose money every year? Don’t be simplistic, there are thousands of complicated ways we may get funded in the future! One of our top 120 donors might chip in 6k instead of 5!
KEEP CALM
AND
Z ON
fixed
They conclude Stanford succeeded because of recruiting, not coaching. Hell, if anybody should, Cal fans ought to know that recruiting well doesn’t guarantee success. Harbaugh did improve the quality of athletes on the team, but the key wassomething elsea once in a generation qb
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Tedford
I hate to say it but we are going no where with Tedford. We tread water with him but never over the top. Sure we had 04 and 06 but since? Nothing I dont know why this guy has such a long leash but we need to make splash with our new stadium and training centre. He is not going to get us a Rose Bowl its crazy to think he will. Getting a few NFL calibre talent a year doesn’t make a good team.
by jordangoldnbear on Feb 6, 2012 4:34 PM PST via mobile reply actions
Because this is very much a relevant topic to be discussed in this thread!
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
true...
But you hear stories all year long how they motivated themselves and won dispute his coaching style I don’t want to take away from what he did being jets fan I know ever well he is great coach but a lot of what they did is on Eli and the D. I think that another discipline style coach would have won it too…. Besides Tedford hasn’t shown me anything that says he is cloase or near the top of the PAC Oregon is better USC better and Washington could pass us up soon. How long to tread water with the highest paid California public official
by jordangoldnbear on Feb 6, 2012 4:56 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Perhaps his argument is silly but I do think a conversation on this subject is warranted sometime soon
This obviously is not the thread for that but how long should a coach be given to win a conference championship?
He did, you are correct. However we lost the important head to head to SC and didn’t go to the Rose Bowl.
Desean Jackson’s shoe vs. Arizona.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Feb 6, 2012 6:07 PM PST up reply actions
Or we could have just beaten SC and won the pac10 title outright
The only reason why Arizona was relevant was because SC lost to ucla the last week of the season. Beat SC and Arizona or even another pac10 loss doesn’t even matter.
So? SC DID lose to UCLA that week, and we would have indeed won the Pac-10 title outright if we’d beaten Arizona. Beat Arizona and the loss to SC doesn’t matter. And we go to the Rose Bowl.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Feb 6, 2012 7:17 PM PST up reply actions
I said all along going into the UofA game that THAT game was the key one… because then it really wouldn’t have mattered what we did against SC… but our fans were OBSESSED with the SC game and were looking pass the UofA game. I would not be surprised if guys on our team were doing the same.
Having said all of that, if not for a simply egregious pass interference call on Damion Hughes it wouldn’t have mattered about Jackson’s toe, or the three yard line tripping Hawkins… or a Lynch TD getting called back by a questionable illegal blocking penalty that had nothing to do with the play… I am not still bitter about that at all.
Right, because it should have been easy to beat SC at SC… Shame on Cal for not doing that. Pathetic.
I think this shows really what is at the crux at your (and I think many others) frustration. That we don’t beat SC.
Right. We could go 11-1 and if that one loss was to SC there is a definite segment of the fan base that would be upset with the season.
Unfortunately for me I am in that segment. I think it has to do with me growing up and living in southern California. I see and hear SC fans all the time, it drives me crazy.
by SDBear on Feb 6, 2012 7:53 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Why is it any myopic than those who only care about beating stanfurd or ucla? SC is just as much of a rival for Cal.
Well everyone has their issues, this is mine. I am not asking to beat SC every year or every other year. I would simply like to beat them once every four years.
Definitional. Because the season includes 12 games. It is not a one game season. So to be disappointed in a season where we only had one loss, would qualify as that.
We all want to beat them. But USC does not break or make our season. Except for you as you just stated above. I think you’re cheating yourself of enjoying CAL football.
Perhaps I was being a bit dramatic
If Cal went 11-1 with only one loss to SC I would still be very excited and consider the season a success.. I was caught up in my emotions and wine when I typed that.
I also consider our 06 season and 10-3 record a very successful season despite the SC loss.
splash
Imagine the increase in season tickets and donations and the amount of high school kids we would have kept and then some if we had got Urban Meyer not saying I want him or we had a chance but sometimes a change is needed to bring new life into a program I know I dont speak for just myself when I say that the Cal program is feeling stale same old same old every year plus you can’t deny that every big game he has been in he failed…. There shouldn’t have been a vote in for the rose bowl over Texas if Tedford had done his job we wouldn’t complain about what Mack did we would have been in no problem
by jordangoldnbear on Feb 6, 2012 5:21 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
You do realize we had no shot at reaching the Rose Bowl that year? Coaches literally took a top 10 (and potential top 5) team off the ballot, ruining our BCS ranking. Had Tedford done his job? I think he did his job just fine that year, with the utmost class. Can’t say the same for some others.
He was never ran the table like Chip or USC he never had a crazy talented team like the sec teams you see. Even Oregon under Chip has brought in more talent.
I’ll never ever take away what he has done for our program which is a ton but I just dont see the players and especially and more importantly the fans and donors responding to him. He isn’t igniting the base and getting a up roar of buzz around Cal even when our stadium is about to re open….
by jordangoldnbear on Feb 6, 2012 6:00 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
That year, our only loss (minus the bowl game) was to the eventual national championship USC team. Even in that game, we were on the verge of a last second victory and an undefeated regular season. Damn, you’re hard to satisfy.
The better our football the more buzz around the school and its other sports. You’ll see band wagon fans at basketball games baseball maybe even volleyball and soccer if we had a team always in the news and winning all the time no cares about a what if team or a almost team. But a rose bowl champ or BCS team… Look at all the band wagon fans and furd gear around these days its because of the BCS teams… If our bears could do that it would improve everything. I just want ESPN and the whole country talking cal football!!
by jordangoldnbear on Feb 6, 2012 6:08 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
We should have gone to the Rose Bowl that year with the job Tedford actually did do.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Feb 6, 2012 6:08 PM PST up reply actions
But we didn’t and maybe a change in tone and a spark from a new coach is exactly what donors want! Someone to light a fire under us and get us to donate and support rather than just the hard core fans showing up no matter what…
by jordangoldnbear on Feb 6, 2012 6:10 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
a spark from a new coach is exactly what donors want!
How do you know this? Are you a donor? Are you willing to fund the millions of dollars it would take to buy out Tedford’s remaining contract?
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Feb 6, 2012 6:13 PM PST up reply actions
no but my gramps is donor and he and his Cal buddies are sick of Tedford. My dad a Furd grad is a donor and when Jim came in he donated more because he liked his fire!
by jordangoldnbear on Feb 6, 2012 6:17 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Well, show your gramps the new stadium and the SAHPC and tell him about some of the great student-athletes we recruited, and maybe he’ll get excited about this coming season.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Feb 6, 2012 6:28 PM PST up reply actions
You may do a fanpost on any relevant subject whenever you want. The beauty of SBN!
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Because Tedford's long term viability as a coach is such seldom-trodden ground.
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
by AERose on Feb 6, 2012 5:36 PM PST via Android app up reply actions
Not so much Tedford but any coach
How much time is considered fair? How long should a program stick with a coach who has had success but has never won a title.
He didn’t win an outright title or go to the Rose Bowl.
I really hate split titles and am glad this will no longer be an issue in the PAC 12.
To me winning the Pac10 equals going to the Rose Bowl
WSU went to the Rose that year so they won the Pac10.
well to you isn’t the way it works. it’s always odd to me that when someone is so bitter about Tedford and him not beating SC they actually discount our accomplishments.
I would argue most Pac 10 fans would agree that the PAC 10 Rose Bowl is considered the Pac10 champion.
except of course USC who claimed the championship in 2002 though not going to the Rose Bowl. Times have changed.
That is just SC fans that do that. Most knowledgeable football fans and LSU fans would not agree with that.
I'm thinking those football fans don't actually realize that USC lost the tiebreaker to Wazzu.
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
Right, and I'm guessing that
football fans who think that USC won the title in 2002 don’t realize that.
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
2002 SC went to the Vegas Bowl right?
Who thinks they won a championship in 02?
Pete and SC had an average season his first year and in 03 they went to the Orange.
Carrol's first year was 2001, when USC went to the Vegas Bowl and finished 6-6.
Then he split the Pac-10 title (losing the tiebreaker to Wazzu) in 2002, and won the title outright in 2003.
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
And then there was Yossarian with the question that had no answer:
“Where are the Tedfords of yesteryear?”
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
If we were in the ACC, we would have gone to 8 straight BCS bowls.
The college football lanscape is so ridiculously uneven and unfair, its almost foolish to focus on things lkike BCS bowls and whatnot.
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
That is an interesting and novel comment. I don’t think anyone has ever expressed that thought before :)
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Feb 6, 2012 6:00 PM PST up reply actions
Tedford
My whole point with the Tedford comment is that maybe we can get more money into the program with a new coach making a splash and getting the grads to donate with the buzz of a new coach. I think Tedford’s stay is Getting stale and the donors and the base is just going through the motions. If a urban Meyer type walked in then we’d see donors lining up and season tickets go up and HS kids stay. Maybe a change at the top will bring more energy and money?
by jordangoldnbear on Feb 6, 2012 6:15 PM PST via mobile reply actions
Tedford is owed like $8-10 MILLION dollars. Plus you’d have to pay an “Urban Meyer type” (or Chris Petersen, though he doesn’t seem to want to leave Boise, or Manny Diaz, or whoever you’re thinking of) probably another $3-5 million per year on top of that to get them to come to Berkeley. This whole post is about how the Cal Athletic department has serious questions to consider when it comes to funding the programs we DO have. Where are we going to get that kind of money?
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Feb 6, 2012 6:27 PM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
GoldenBlogs' FAQ and Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
I recorded the entire last out as Cal clinches the first ever PAC12 Softball Title! It was also a...
Pac-12 On SBN
Pacific Takes (Pac-12) NORTH AddictedToQuack: (Oregon)
UW Dawg Pound: (Washington)
CougCenter: (Washington State)
BuildingTheDam: (Oregon State)
Rule Of Tree: (Stanford)
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: (Cal)
SOUTH
BruinsNation: (UCLA)
ConquestChronicles: (USC)
HouseOfSparky: (ASU)
Arizona Desert Swarm: (Arizona)
TheRalphieReport: (Colorado)
Block U: (Utah)
Golden Bears Football Schedule
| Fresno St. | Sat 09/03 | W 36 - 21 |
@
Colorado
|
Sat 09/10 | W 36 - 33 |
| Presbyterian | Sat 09/17 | W 63 - 12 |
|
@
Washington
|
Sat 09/24 | L 23 - 31 |
|
@
Oregon
|
Thu 10/06 | L 15 - 43 |
|
USC
|
Thu 10/13 | L 9 - 30 |
|
Utah
|
Sat 10/22 | W 34 - 10 |
|
@
UCLA
|
Sat 10/29 | L 14 - 31 |
|
Washington St.
|
Sat 11/05 | W 30 - 7 |
|
Oregon St.
|
Sat 11/12 | W 23 - 6 |
|
@
Stanford
|
Sat 11/19 | L 28 - 31 |
|
@
Arizona St.
|
Fri 11/25 | W 47 - 38 |
|
@
Texas
|
Wed 12/28 | L 10 - 21 |
