A Continued Discussion On The Financial Priorities Of Cal Athletics

by TwistNHook on Feb 7, 2012 10:30 AM PST in California Golden Bears Football

TwistNHook: Last time we discussed the increasing "arms race" of college football, including increasing assistant coaches' salaries. We pick up today with Ragnarok being sad.

Ragnarok: It saddens me, too. It's the "arms race" aspect of this that bothers me most. Everyone would like to have a athletic program like Texas, where football generates a huge amount of revenue that can be poured into other sports, or even back into the University itself. However, the zero-sum nature of competitive sports means that, for every winner, there is a loser, and when it takes so much winning to be profitable, that means there is only room for so many of these programs in Division I-A. In theory, Cal could spend its way to the top of the Pac-12, and in doing so, create a massive revenue stream that more than makes up for the dollars invested. In practice, the rest of the Pac-12 would be spurred to do the same, diminishing the returns on Cal's investment, both in terms of dollars and wins. Coaches across the west coast get richer, but there remains just 54 conference wins to be spread among 12 schools.

Football is the driver here -- I don't think anyone would dispute that. But since Cal does not have a Phil Knight or a T. Boone Pickens to drop unlimited funds into the athletic department, Cal must be smart with the budget it has. If football is to help subsidize all of the non-revenue sports, it must not only bring in lots of revenue, it has to be profitable. The athletic department can't be cheap -- that approach has proven not to work -- but it can't afford to throw money at every talented coach and assistant it would like either. They have to pick their spots, get talented people at reasonable value, and try and find people who want to be at Cal, rather than just mercenaries willing to work anywhere for the highest dollar amount.

Of course, even if Cal gets football right, the other 26 sports are not off the hook. They need to be focused on competing at a high level within a reasonable budget as well. Among Pac-12 schools, only Stanford sponsors more Division I teams, and those costs add up. Every sport is going to have to focus on being self-sustaining from a financial perspective, and that's just reality. In California's current fiscal climate, the Berkeley campus won't support anything else.

Finally, I think the athletic department needs a more professional approach to marketing. A lot of opportunity was lost last year in the awkward move to AT&T Park, and anyone who has been attending basketball games recently (and that's not enough of you) knows that the quality of the product on the court far outstrips the support in the stands (with last Sunday's game vs. Stanford being a notable exception). Compared to other, similar businesses, Cal does not come close to maximizing its revenue streams. I'm not sure why this is, other than I'm not sure that the Athletic Department operates enough like a business.

TwistNHook: But the thing is that we aren't comparing like things here.

The choices aren't "spend less on football" or "spend more on football." The choices are "spend more on football" or "spend ASTRONOMICALLY more on football." This whole discussion stems from Cal being either unable to unwilling to pony up the additional $200,000-unknown millions necessary to keep two key coaches (and keep the salary structure reasonable so a DLine coach isn't making more than a Defensive Coordinator etc etc etc).

So, the question is do you spend a SHITLOAD more money on football to maintain essentially the status quo or do you let other schools do that and then hope to get some pretty good coaches at more reasonable prices.

Spending the ASTRONOMICALLY more to keep the current coaches (or lure other big name coaches) does not necessary mean that Cal is going to do better. Yes, this year, it had a direct and negative impact on recruiting and the team. No denying that. But I think it is a once in a generation situation that we just encountered. Hopefully!

So, I don't find it unreasonable to try to find hungry and effective coaches willing to coach at reasonable rates and then use the $200,000-unknown millions for other purposes.

Like paying off our massive SAHPC debt.

NorCalNick: I'm someone who loooooves our non-revenue sports. I write about women's basketball and baseball, and I'm very much looking forward to writing about soccer and track and field and goodness knows what else the Pac-12 network will air. Hell, I've attended a rowing championship!!!

So this is an important topic. On the one hand, the sports I care about are dependant on the success of football. Cal's lack of historical football success has arguably negatively impacted sports like baseball because Cal hasn't been able to afford to support the program in a way that would allow them to consistently compete on a national level. So I want to see football get everything it would reasonably need to succeed.

But like Kodiak mentions, I'm wary of the attitude that we need to immediately throw as much money as possible at the football program. As far as I'm concerned, Cal is already spending close to the ideal amount on football as is. They've rebuilt the stadium, built entirely new facilities, and proven that they are willing to pay handsomely for a head coach. And reportedly they were very willing to offer a major pay raise to a very young assistant coach.

I find myself conflicted from a moral perspective. Cal's success on the football field is important enough that I'm willing to consider accepting certain actions that I'm not entirely comfortable with. Could you imagine if Cal dropped half a million dollars to appease an assistant coach that many Cal fans are now convinced doesn't do things the right way? What measures are acceptable because the ends justify the means, and what measures compromise the values we as alums believe in?

Atomsareenough: Well, what's "ASTRONIMICAL"? Is it spending another million+ dollars a year on finding/retaining top quality coaches? Maybe (and it seems like the answer is yes to you, Twist) that is astronomical, with whatever form of capitalization you prefer. I think that you have to put it in context, though. Do those millions translate into additional wins? What's the value of a marginal win? I suspect that each marginal win during a season is increasingly more valuable. That is, the 11th win is more valuable than the 10th win which is more valuable than the 9th win, etc... The more wins you have, so many more people pay attention to you, buy tickets, buy merchandise, elite recruits want to play for you, viewers will tune in... you get the idea. So, I think the questions we should ask ourselves in terms of the budget is, are these investments in staff or whatever else likely to translate into wins, likely translate into extra revenues, and will it be enough pay for themselves or better in the long run?

The point about the SAHPC debt is a good one, but another way to think of it is, we've already invested hundreds of millions of dollars into those facilities, so is it worth spending a little bit more to make sure we can reap the full dividends of those new facilities?

Look, I share a lot of the concerns here about the value system and the arms race, but I think we also need to take a little bit of a quantitative approach and figure out whether we are maximizing the program's potential. Nick seems to think we're spending "close to the ideal amount" on football, and you know, maybe he's right... but I'd like to see that validated by an actual business strategy that pencils out, rather than simply what feels right. I also want to give a hearty second to ragnarok and his point about how our marketing could be so much better.

HydroTech: If somebody could demonstrate and guarantee to me that if we put more money into Cal Football that it would in turn produce more money, then I would be all for this idea of making Cal Football the #1 priority of athletics. However, I think a lot of people have suggested concerns that more money may not necessarily mean more wins or enough wins to justify the money. The ROI on this sort of investment seems fairly speculative. And as Ragnarok pointed out, there are so many games to be won between all these Pac-12 teams. If everyone pours more money into football, then all our efforts will seemingly negate each other rather than give one team a guaranteed win. Cal may be forced to pour more money into football not necessarily because it's the #1 priority, but because failing to do so might put Cal dead last in this new college football arms race.

TwistNHook: Obviously none of us can ever crunch those numbers. I wonder if bean counters at athletics have done those analyses. It would be interesting to know the answer here.

CBKWit: I think we're all basically in agreement that we need a big ROI from football in order to sustain our other sports. If football is not bringing in a ton of cash, we're not going to have the money to pay for the other sports. I agree with Ragnarok and NorCalNick that the arm's race aspect is, at best, morally ambiguous, and I share their discomfort in the increasingly ignominious world of college football and recruiting in particular. However, if we want to see any significant value from our football program, it has to be successful.

I mentioned at the top that I think there are basically two ways to field a successful football program - you can out-recruit other programs and beat them by fielding a more talented team, or you can outsmart or out-coach them. I think it's painfully clear that Tedford's program is not going outsmart many of our opponents, and lacking a decided talent advantage, I highly, highly doubt we will see results beyond what we've had for the last 5 years - 7 to 9 win seasons and mid level bowl appearances. If Tedford is going to reach a BCS game, he's going to need a very talented team, and as we just witnessed, it's going to be difficult to out-recruit the rest of the conference without shelling out more money. If we want to spend less to get more, we would need a different coach.

HydroTech: Since CBKWit suggests that Cal's problem is Tedford's ability to out-coach the other teams, then I pose these questions: How is Tedford failing to out-coach the other teams? And what can Tedford do differently to out-coach other teams?

Tweet Comment 127 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

JT deserves more love here

Any football coach who fields a team that doesn’t have all top-level talent/depth consistently will have low periods. Even the top-talented teams hit low periods (eg. Texas).

There is a question of whether JT could get us to a BCS/Rose bowl every X years. What frequency do people expect this to happen? 1 in 10 years? 1 in 5? Well, minus Mack Knee-pads Brown, I would count that almost-rose bowl in the realm of 1/10 years. It was so close we missed by a hair.

7 out of the last 11 years we’ve had 8+ win seasons. Pretty damn good if you ask me.

I’m not convinced that if we break the bank we will suddenly be contenting for the P-12 championships every year. Breaking the bank won’t starve $C for talent and it won’t make Chip Kelly go away.

by freshfunk on Feb 7, 2012 10:53 AM PST reply actions 1 recs

Further, Chip Kelly was not a break the bank hire. Nor was Harbaugh.

by fiatlux on Feb 7, 2012 7:17 PM PST up reply actions

This to me is why each year I like college sports less and less

I’m a HUGE NFL and NBA fan (even though my favorite teams always suck), but I know the system in place allows every team to compete. I don’t believe the college system can argue the same.

I hate this idea of money money money driving everything. It is very difficult to be a top-flight academic institution and have a highly competitive sports program. Only a few schools even come close (Furd, Cal, UCLA, UNC, Michigan, maybe Virginia/Duke/Texas). But to be honest, I’d much rather our fan base/alum prioritize academics (like I believe they already do).

This is an arms race that we simply can’t win. Other schools donors prioritize sports above all else, because to he honest, that is what they have to brag about (see Oregon, SEC teams, Oklahoma, etc.). Now I’m not as passionate as fiatlux, but our marketing could do a better job. Our fanbase could do a better job of showing up. Our teams could do a better job of winning. We just gotta keep on keepin’ on and not sell our souls…

6 1st round draft picks, 2 Super Bowl Champions and counting

by Another Successful Tedford QB on Feb 7, 2012 10:53 AM PST reply actions

I know you hate baseball, but that phenomenon is exactly what got me interested in college baseball. No big money, no drama, small crowds, no TV time outs. Unfortunately last year showed it can’t exist in a vacuum, even at our school.

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 11:19 AM PST up reply actions

Growing up a Royals fan damaged me early, I’ll admit. But Cal’s baseball run was very fun last year and I did enjoy watching. I will definitely make an effort this Spring to catch more games

6 1st round draft picks, 2 Super Bowl Champions and counting

by Another Successful Tedford QB on Feb 7, 2012 12:20 PM PST up reply actions

Wait. what?

I’m a HUGE NFL and NBA fan (even though my favorite teams always suck), but I know the system in place allows every team to compete. I don’t believe the college system can argue the same.

In the NFL, 6 teams have won the last 10 national championships, 11 have won the last 20.

In the NBA, 3 teams have won the last 10 national championships, 8 have won the last 20

In college football, 7 teams have won the last 10 national championships, 14 have won the last 20

In college basketball, 7 teams have won the last 10 national championships, 12 have won the last 20

The appearance of competitiveness is not necessarily competitiveness. And just because any team has an equal opportunity to win a game does not make each team equally likely to do so.

"Pacific 12 Conference: Every conference's games count, but only we can count."

by slims on Feb 7, 2012 11:30 AM PST up reply actions

Whoops, my NBA numbers are wrong.

6 teams have won the last 10 national championships, 8 have won the last 20. Point still stands.

"Pacific 12 Conference: Every conference's games count, but only we can count."

by slims on Feb 7, 2012 11:33 AM PST up reply actions

What about MLB?

In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It

by TwistNHook on Feb 7, 2012 11:51 AM PST up reply actions

8 teams have won the last 10 championships, 12 have won the last 20.

"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded

by atomsareenough on Feb 7, 2012 11:55 AM PST up reply actions

So, oddly, baseball has the MOST parity. What insane world do we live in? BUD SELIG FOR EVER!

In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It

by TwistNHook on Feb 7, 2012 11:57 AM PST up reply actions

There’ll be many more paritys too after the playoffs are expanded 8 or 10 more times!

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 11:58 AM PST up reply actions

MLB

Many of those teams won for either the 1st time, or broke Cal-like droughts, too.

by Lynch's Golf Cart on Feb 7, 2012 11:57 AM PST up reply actions

Interestingly enough, college baseball numbers are the same though

8 teams have won the last 10 championships, 12 have won the last 20.

Maybe there’s just something about the sport that allows for more parity.

"Pacific 12 Conference: Every conference's games count, but only we can count."

by slims on Feb 7, 2012 11:59 AM PST up reply actions

Maybe it’s this “appearance of competitiveness” that is attractive to me. For example, my KC Chiefs sucked ass for three years in a row. But with our three in a row top 5 picks, we got Glen Dorsey, Tyson Jackson, and Eric Berry which immediately turned around our defense.

In college, it “appears” that simply the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Winning teams get better recruits and raise more money for better facilities which leads to more winning which leads to even better recruits and even better facilities, etc.

Also, your argument is tough because there are way more teams competing in college as opposed to the pros.

Finally, I don’t tend to judge everything by championships. I’m talking about competition where one two teams play, Vegas doesn’t give one squad a 50 point spread.

6 1st round draft picks, 2 Super Bowl Champions and counting

by Another Successful Tedford QB on Feb 7, 2012 12:17 PM PST up reply actions

Seen another way

NFL has 32 teams. 6/32 is roughly 20%. So 20% of the teams have been nat champ winners in the last 10 years.

NCAA Div-1 football has 120 teams. 7/120 is ~6%. So 6% of teams have been nat champ winner in the last 10 years.

Even the NBA with 3 teams represents 10% (30 teams total).

by freshfunk on Feb 7, 2012 12:19 PM PST up reply actions

Thanks for the numbers!

6 1st round draft picks, 2 Super Bowl Champions and counting

by Another Successful Tedford QB on Feb 7, 2012 12:21 PM PST up reply actions

That's hardly a fair comparison though.

There can only be one champion a year. The only way to increase parity in your example is to eliminate 75% of college football teams.

"Pacific 12 Conference: Every conference's games count, but only we can count."

by slims on Feb 7, 2012 12:22 PM PST up reply actions

So do you think college football has a good competitive balance?

6 1st round draft picks, 2 Super Bowl Champions and counting

by Another Successful Tedford QB on Feb 7, 2012 12:26 PM PST up reply actions

I'm not sure what point you're making

But I wanted to point out that using absolute numbers (instead of percentages) when talking about parity/competition is misleading.

by freshfunk on Feb 7, 2012 12:31 PM PST up reply actions

As stated below, the % metric is highly misleading

the absolute number is not a highly parsimonious stat but it at least starts a conversation.

Judging “parity” is kind of a rough job anyway. Working off of the premise “anyone can win any year”, you start by how many different people have actually won.

But any real analysis would discuss playoff teams, frequency of winning streaks, etc.

"Pacific 12 Conference: Every conference's games count, but only we can count."

by slims on Feb 7, 2012 1:04 PM PST up reply actions

A basic discussion on fair representation

Should at least start with the total number of teams that have the potential of entering a championship/bowl.

This just really stands out considering the high number of CFB Div-1 teams compared to the NFL.

But statistics aside, I think the structures behind it creates a clearer picture. Professional sports organizations have the concepts of salary caps and drafting. Colleges don’t. Choice is arbitrary and there are no mechanisms which strive to make competition for players fair.

by freshfunk on Feb 7, 2012 1:16 PM PST up reply actions

Interesting

I don’t know how to assess the number teams that have the potential of winning the championship. Are we talking eligible teams? Likely teams? Favored teams?

Strictly speaking, only two teams from any sport – the two teams playing in the championship game – are eligible to win the championship.

I agree that professional sports organizations have many structures in place to increase competitiveness (or rather, decrease program advantages that are non-athletically derived) – salary caps are one. NCAA does too – in the form of conference media revenue sharing, academic standards, practice time restrictions, roster limits, and so forth.

Ultimately, it seems to me that parity/competitiveness is alive and well in college football. Yes, some powerhouses get perpetual media darling treatment and receive a perception of strength but that does not always equate to on field success (see: FSU, Notre Dame). The sheer number of teams coupled with the high rate of player turnover means each season of college football is going to show more variability than a professional counterpart.

"Pacific 12 Conference: Every conference's games count, but only we can count."

by slims on Feb 7, 2012 1:24 PM PST up reply actions

NCAA Div-1 football has 120 teams. 7/120 is ~6%. So 6% of teams have been nat champ winner in the last 10 years.

Yeah, but that’s kind of meaningless without context, because the mathematical MAX in any 10-year period is 8.3%

"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded

by atomsareenough on Feb 7, 2012 12:24 PM PST up reply actions

Yup. :)

by freshfunk on Feb 7, 2012 12:32 PM PST up reply actions

Those stats are so flawed in comparison on multiple levels…where is the academia down there you keep breaking about lol

by kittmurry on Feb 7, 2012 9:57 PM PST via Android app up reply actions

Please play nicely with that troll, I hope you get it

by kittmurry on Feb 7, 2012 9:58 PM PST via Android app up reply actions

football performance as it relates to attendance, revenue

Just thought this would be interesting to toss out there. Here’s a list of our average game attendance per year, going back to the 2003 season (as far back as the website goes). I have no idea what percentage of the athletic department’s revenues come from football ticket sales, but my hunch is it’s not insubstantial. 2003 of course was the beginning of the big turnaround. Imagine what it was like prior to 2002, and how low attendance reflects as well on low ticket prices…

Source: http://www.calbears.com/sports/m-footbl/stats/2011-2012/teamcume.html

Average attendance per game:
2011 – 37657
2010 – 57873
2009 – 59472
2008 – 61634
2007 – 63136
2006 – 64318
2005 – 57474
2004 – 64019
2003 – 38693

by srhgobears on Feb 7, 2012 10:56 AM PST reply actions 1 recs

That really drives home the point of how difficult of a situation Cal was in last season having to play the whole year away from Memorial. While attendance was going to be down regardless of where we played last season, I think it would have been a bit better had Cal played at Oakland.

by SDBear on Feb 7, 2012 11:16 AM PST up reply actions

Good point. I mean what’s the average ticket price? $50? So losing 20,000 tickets per game means a million bucks lost per game. Startling. Granted prices were more expensive at ATT to help make up for it, but I wonder what the total loss was.

by srhgobears on Feb 7, 2012 11:28 AM PST up reply actions

No loss. Ticket sales went up by $2MM.

Fire Starkey. You... complete me.

by since1997 on Feb 7, 2012 4:18 PM PST up reply actions

hi sincey

Is that because they made that much more off boxes? That’s sort of amazing since there are so many fewer seats in AT&T. And I wonder how they count the Candlestick game as I recall some sort of odd deal with that promoter.

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 4:36 PM PST up reply actions

Still had more people at the games than when I was a freshman/sophomore

by Oski4Heisman on Feb 7, 2012 12:50 PM PST up reply actions

When were your fresh/soph years at Cal? Mine were 2000/2001

So yes last years numbers are probably better than mine as well.

by SDBear on Feb 7, 2012 1:27 PM PST up reply actions

'01/'02

Your freshman year had 46,100 on average

by Oski4Heisman on Feb 7, 2012 1:29 PM PST up reply actions

Never mine, I didn't see your post below

So last years numbers are better than my sophomore year but below my freshman year.

by SDBear on Feb 7, 2012 1:29 PM PST up reply actions

What was this, but as a percentage of the capacity of the venue

I know the general size of Memorial, but to see the actual percentages in for this attendance as well as for AT&T would be nice, and a better representation.

"Our hearts shall sing and our voices ring for the dear old Blue and Gold!"
"For victry's in the sight of California's might, So FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT 'em California!

by Joe Bandsmen on Feb 7, 2012 12:02 PM PST up reply actions

Earlier attendance numbers

2002 – 37103
2001 – 33442
2000 – 46100
1999 – 42940

The drop from 2000 to 2001 (along with the huge jump from ’03 to ’04) really shows how much performance can impact attendance/revenue.

source: http://www.calbears.com/sports/m-footbl/archive/cal-m-footbl-archive.html

And just for fun, there were 75,662 people in attendance at the ’82 Big Game.

by Oski4Heisman on Feb 7, 2012 12:50 PM PST up reply actions

And another 50,000 who claim that they were there, too!

In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It

by TwistNHook on Feb 7, 2012 12:57 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs

Dude, I have my ticket stub to prove it.

CGB: The Strangest Blog

by CalBear81 on Feb 7, 2012 4:18 PM PST up reply actions

I knew I shouldn't have bought mine print-at-home!

by Oski4Heisman on Feb 7, 2012 5:45 PM PST up reply actions

lol

"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded

by atomsareenough on Feb 7, 2012 5:48 PM PST up reply actions

And cuz I'm bored, a graph!

by Oski4Heisman on Feb 7, 2012 1:05 PM PST up reply actions

Footnotes

1. I used 65,000 as the capacity for Memorial for all years. I used 40,800 for AT&T Park’s capacity (which I got from the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl’s wikipedia page).

2. I counted the ’99 season as a 4-7 season, though the 4 wins were later vacated

3. I counted winning percentage for all games, including road games, non-conference games and bowl games

by Oski4Heisman on Feb 7, 2012 1:07 PM PST up reply actions

Wasn’t Memorial’s capacity about 72,500 or so until the renovation?

"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded

by atomsareenough on Feb 7, 2012 1:12 PM PST up reply actions

With regard to Cal Memorial's seating capacity

Here is the official seating capacity for each year from 1997 to 2010 (as provided by calbears.com):

1997 – 74,909
1998 – 74,909
1999 – 74,909
2000 – 74,909
2001 – 72,981
2002 – 72,981
2003 – 72,981
2004 – 72,981
2005 – 72,981
2006 – 72,516
2007 – 72,516
2008 – 72,516
2009 – 71,799
2010 – 71,799

At no time was seating capacity any smaller than the 2009-2010 seating capacity of 71,799.

You may wonder why the big drop in seating capacity from 2000 to 2001. In between those two seasons, the old Press Box was demolished and replaced with the Temporary Press Box. Many seats that were located directly beneath the old Press Box and yet still accessible were eliminated by the construction of the temporary Press Box.

"We do not seek men who will bravely lie down to die, but men who will fight valiantly to live."
"Winning is not everything. It is far better to play the game squarely and lose than to win at the sacrifice of an ideal."

-- Andrew Latham Smith

by FiatSlug on Feb 7, 2012 1:23 PM PST up reply actions

You may wonder why the big drop in seating capacity from 2000 to 2001. In between those two seasons, the old Press Box was demolished and replaced with the Temporary Press Box. Many seats that were located directly beneath the old Press Box and yet still accessible were eliminated by the construction of the temporary Press Box.

This makes me feel better, I just figured the drop in seating capacity was a result of American obesity and people getting bigger and taking up more room.

by SDBear on Feb 7, 2012 1:33 PM PST up reply actions

...and eating their seats on the way out

by Oski4Heisman on Feb 7, 2012 1:35 PM PST up reply actions

Thanks!

Revised accordingly. Hooray data!

For some reason, wikipedia says our capacity is “63-65,000”

by Oski4Heisman on Feb 7, 2012 1:34 PM PST up reply actions

It will be once the renovations are done.

"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded

by atomsareenough on Feb 7, 2012 1:35 PM PST up reply actions

Right. I'm an idiot.

by Oski4Heisman on Feb 7, 2012 1:36 PM PST up reply actions

Thanks for the graphs! One more note: The capacity for football at AT&T Park was 45000 according to Cal’s press release.

The closest we got was 44043 vs. USC. The final 1000 seats were probably partially obstructed view seats along the 3rd base line.

by minesweeper on Feb 7, 2012 1:37 PM PST up reply actions

You're lucky my work is slow

by Oski4Heisman on Feb 7, 2012 2:04 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

Interesting graph

What this tells me is measuring the return on attendance from W/L % can’t be compared year-to-year in isolation. Winning has a last impact on attendance for several years (perhaps the logic being that fans that experience 1 great year are fans for some time after and continue to attend games despite a fall in performance).

This also tells me that the marginal different between say 8 and 10 wins would probably not make a huge difference in attendance (%). Also, our attendance % is in the 80-90% since ’04 with a slight drop-off the last few years.

by freshfunk on Feb 7, 2012 2:18 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs

More graphs (game-by-game from 2004-2009)

This is from a post I did a while back. Gold bars are sellouts and blue are non-sellouts. I haven’t read this whole comment thread, but I figure it might be of interest.

Go here for a full size version that isn’t cut off.

"Some people watch adult videos on their computer - I go to YouTube and watch Jahvid Best highlight clips. That’s what gets me going."- Jim Schwartz, Detroit Lions head coach
California Golden Blogs

by Berkelium97 on Feb 7, 2012 3:17 PM PST up reply actions

Well, I think a where a 10+ win season really helps is in shifting the baseline up. An 8 win season won’t kill attendance on its own, but you can see the downward trend. Another 10+ win season would bring us back up toward 90%, which buys time up in that echelon for a while.

"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded

by atomsareenough on Feb 7, 2012 5:50 PM PST up reply actions

Home wins

I am guessing that in the long run, people are more likely to attend home games when it is likely that Cal will win. It matters less what the team’s overall (that is, including road) record is, except to fair-weather fans. So if Cal averages 7-9 wins per year with a great home record, then attendance probably will be stable, absent any major exogenous economic shocks like the housing meltdown.

by Bean on Feb 7, 2012 6:16 PM PST up reply actions

I don't know if I buy this

Attendance is higher at marquise matchups – not games where we are heavily favored. I think for casual fans it’s more of “Cal’s good this year, let’s go see them play against other good teams.” I think the people who care more about home/road splits are showing up either way.

by Oski4Heisman on Feb 8, 2012 1:50 PM PST up reply actions

Wikipedia is anticipating the post-renovation capacity

To be fair to Wikipedia, there isn’t a really solid number forthcoming from the AD or the University. I’m not sure why that is.

But I have seen both numbers cited by the Athletic Department and the University.

-- Andrew Latham Smith

by FiatSlug on Feb 7, 2012 1:37 PM PST up reply actions

It is going to be 62,717

Link

I haven’t gotten around to changing all of the Cal pages on Wikipedia yet . . . I have working to try and make all of Cal’s pages not so embarrassing. Haha.

www.LosAngelesRams.org

CALIFORNIA ANGELS . . . ANAHEIM DUCKS . . . CALIFORNIA GOLDEN BEARS
1920 • 1921 • 1922 • 1923 • 1937 • 1947 • 1951 • 1957 • 1959 • 2002 • 2007

by AndyHogan14 on Feb 7, 2012 2:32 PM PST up reply actions

God’s work!

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 4:37 PM PST up reply actions

I'm not really sure about Tedford's relevance to this discussion

since it’s been pretty well established that we’d have to spend catastrophically beyond our means to actually get rid of him. So it’s kind of like he’s just being shoehorned in here because we haven’t talked about Tedford’s future enough.

"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 7, 2012 11:01 AM PST reply actions

I believe everyone knows that unless the bottom completely falls out on the team, Tedford is safe for at least the next two seasons.

Cal doesn’t have the money to fire him and pay for a new coach.

by SDBear on Feb 7, 2012 11:09 AM PST up reply actions

Slightly different take

Cal doesn’t have the money to ~~fire him~~ simultaneously pay Tedford and ~~pay for~~ a new coach through 2015.

Because that’s what this is really about: paying for two head coaches when you only get the services of one.

But getting back to the issue raised in this article: I do respect the positions expressed here thus far. However, it seems to me that the thoughts expressed thus far are based in the immediate to near future; there’s no view to the long-term (10 or more years down the road).

In my own very general perspective, I think that there needs to be a three-pronged strategy:
(1) The best ROI in the short-term: what’s the appropriate level for coaches salaries based on the likely outcome in terms of football revenues?
(2) Olympic sports must build endowments to sustain their budget or at least close budget gaps,
(3a) Cal alums should lobby Sacramento to restore funding cuts to the UC system budget and
(3b) lobby the Board of Regents to reform the UC system so that inefficiencies are minimized and eliminated.

The first two prongs are obvious. 3a and 3b are not so obvious, but can be explained as follows: if the pressure is taken off the academic side, then pressure will be taken off the athletic side as well.

The athletic side needs to show a commitment to the academic side and make friends of the moderate majority, just so that the ridiculous academic fringe that wants to kill athletics is marginalized. You’ll never completely kill off the lunatic academic fringe, but you can muzzle them by supporting healthy levels of support for academics.

Right now California doesn’t give academics a healthy level of support: it’s anemic.

-- Andrew Latham Smith

by FiatSlug on Feb 7, 2012 11:39 AM PST up reply actions

4) Repeal Prop 13

Fire Starkey. You... complete me.

by since1997 on Feb 7, 2012 4:22 PM PST up reply actions

But don't tax people out of their homes when you do that

Seriously.

Were it not for Prop 13, I literally could not afford to live in my home. The valuation based on a paper value would boost my taxes so high that there is no way, save winning the Lottery, I could afford to stay in my home.

-- Andrew Latham Smith

by FiatSlug on Feb 7, 2012 4:40 PM PST up reply actions

Me too, and almost everyone that bought a house more than 5 years ago. SF would drive us out of our house in Year 1.

Never mind the lady next door that bought with her departed husband in 1946 when he got out of the Navy.

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 4:43 PM PST up reply actions

Fair enough. Homeowners shouldn’t be forced out of their homes because their incomes don’t keep pace with their rising home values. But if we’re going to protect people against the implicit tax burden associated with the good fortune of sitting on an unrealized capital gain, then it seems only fair that the state be allowed to claim a large share of that capital gain when it is finally realized. Millionaires should be taxed like millionaires, and if they’re only millionaires on paper, then the state can bide its time and wait to collect until said millionaire actually has the cash on hand.

And if fairness is the issue, then justify my next-door neighbor’s tax bill being less than a quarter of my own for a comparable property, simply because he had the good fortune to have been born a few decades before me. We have similar incomes, and we place similar demands on city/county services, yet the tax burden falls disproportionately upon me just because I’m younger.

Prop 13 didn’t eliminate unfairness from the tax code; it just shifted the target of that unfairness—at the expense of starving local government of much-needed revenue.

Go Bears!

by California Pete on Feb 7, 2012 8:53 PM PST up reply actions

Although, over time, prop 13’s influence on residential real property will wane. That is because over time, we all die. Now, there are exclusions for parent-child and grandparent-grandchild transfers. However, I do not think that that is a massive amount of transfers.

So, slowly, but surely, all the residential property will be re-appraised to modern levels.

In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It

by TwistNHook on Feb 7, 2012 8:56 PM PST up reply actions

Amend as to commercial property

At a minimum, regular increases should be allowed for commercial property. Otherwise an increasingly disproportionate amount of property tax falls on homeowners (and by extension, many renters).

by Bean on Feb 7, 2012 5:20 PM PST up reply actions

I am very much in favor of taxing commercial real estate differently

…than residential real estate.

I’d do two things re: commercial real estate: (1) remove the protections on inter-generational ownership transfers and (2) reassess every two years. The threat that taxing commercial real estate at a higher rate will result in lost more expensive goods and lost business is just that: a threat.

Most commercial real estate never gets re-assessed because title is held by a holding corporation. When a building is sold, really it’s the holding corporation that is sold, not the building. This is how commercial real estate avoids reassessment under current Prop 13 rules.

-- Andrew Latham Smith

by FiatSlug on Feb 7, 2012 6:43 PM PST up reply actions

I'm not sure I've ever seen tax policy discussed on SBN before.

by Bean on Feb 7, 2012 6:59 PM PST up reply actions

That's how we roll.

"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 7, 2012 7:00 PM PST up reply actions

You should spend more time in the DBD!

In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It

by TwistNHook on Feb 7, 2012 8:52 PM PST up reply actions

Welcome to CGB. We discuss just about everything here. No joke.

"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded

by atomsareenough on Feb 7, 2012 8:59 PM PST up reply actions

We’ve been through Prop 13 a least a dozen times. Yet, for some reason, this has not resulted in any change in the law.

CGB: The Strangest Blog

by CalBear81 on Feb 7, 2012 11:02 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs

I’d like to think my post tangentially referring to prop 8 singlehandedly resulted in today’s court decision!

KEEP CALM
AND
Z ON

by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 7, 2012 11:44 PM PST up reply actions

rec’d because I’m glad to see you posting!

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 8, 2012 3:18 PM PST up reply actions

Repeal the commercial part of Prop 13 and the 2/3rds majority vote on tax increases. THAT is what is killing California.

Further, other states allow for yearly appraisals with huge tax discounts for your main residence. I think we should go down that route. That way you dont have people payign tax on a 15K base, because they bought in 1903 or whatever.

In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It

by TwistNHook on Feb 7, 2012 8:55 PM PST up reply actions

Absolutely agree.

Ironically, there was just such a proposition on the same 1978 ballot that passed Prop 13. It was labeled Prop 9 and was also a winner. Prop 9 featured a split tax roll: residential and commercial properties were treated differently. What I don’t recall is if Prop 9 instituted a 2/3 supermajority on the Legislature to pass any new taxes.

But Prop 13 had more votes and it was enacted into the California Constitution over the Prop 9.

-- Andrew Latham Smith

by FiatSlug on Feb 7, 2012 9:00 PM PST up reply actions

No on 13
Yes on 9

Those buttons and signs were everywhere in Berkeley. But not many other places.

CGB: The Strangest Blog

by CalBear81 on Feb 7, 2012 11:04 PM PST up reply actions

I hate to say it but can't we just ape whatever the fuck Texas is doing that makes them not a shambling ungovernable wreck?

Because as a lifelong resident of California, I really respect large states that aren’t shambling ungovernable wrecks!

"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 7, 2012 9:12 PM PST up reply actions

Lots of in-migration and population growth fed their economy, and a well-regulated housing market prevented the kind of bubble and bust that we experienced here in California.

"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded

by atomsareenough on Feb 7, 2012 9:51 PM PST up reply actions

You mean all of our problems can't be solved with pat explanations of what's worked under different circumstances?

Well fuck me, there go all my ideas.

"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 7, 2012 10:04 PM PST up reply actions

Are you saying we're

…DOOMED?

by Berkelium97 on Feb 7, 2012 10:09 PM PST up reply actions

Not enough O's.

"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 7, 2012 10:15 PM PST up reply actions

Sorry dude.

"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded

by atomsareenough on Feb 7, 2012 10:40 PM PST up reply actions

Nobody wanted to move to Texas? Everybody and their mom wanted to move to Antioch and say they lived in the Bay Area.

In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It

by TwistNHook on Feb 7, 2012 10:38 PM PST up reply actions

Execute everybody!

CGB: The Strangest Blog

by CalBear81 on Feb 7, 2012 11:05 PM PST up reply actions

Charitable trusts

This discussion about Prop 13 highlights the fact that much of Californians’ wealth is tied up in real property. Perhaps Cal needs to focus more aggressively on tapping into that by promoting estate planning that includes gifts to Cal. Separately, Cal should promote charitable trusts in this era of low interest rates, again to tap into that non-liquid wealth. I know Cal sends the occasional pamphlet on estate planning, but this giving can be marketed much better. The problem with other sources of funding (ESP, ticket and merchandise sales, cash donations) is that they are paid with our post-tax cash on hand, and most of us are uncomfortable about whether we’ll need that cash for more immediate needs. In contrast, getting even a modest increase in planned giving, based on real property, will improve significantly the amount and predictability of funding. I’m not suggesting this is a cure-all, but we’ve been talking about what marketing improvements are possible, and this struck me as a high-ROI tactic.

by Bean on Feb 8, 2012 12:40 AM PST up reply actions 3 recs

Note to Cal fund-raising offices: HIre this man! (Or, woman, if that be the case.) Because I like the way s/he thinks.

Go Bears!

by California Pete on Feb 8, 2012 9:50 AM PST up reply actions

I haven’t until now processed the financial consequences of firing Tedford. What are the numbers on this?

by Reef on Feb 7, 2012 12:42 PM PST up reply actions

In round numbers...,

it’s about $200K each and every month through December 2015.

-- Andrew Latham Smith

by FiatSlug on Feb 7, 2012 12:53 PM PST up reply actions

Are buyouts in these situations typically at full value?

by Reef on Feb 7, 2012 1:08 PM PST up reply actions

Tedford's contract does not allow for a buyout

Tedford’s contract calls for continuing monthly payments for the life of the contract, even if the University were to choose to end Tedford’s employment without cause.

As part of the contract, Tedford, if no longer employed by the University, is required to seek employment as a football coach. In the event that Tedford were to find employment as a football coach with another employer, the monthly payments due him by Cal would be reduced by the amount paid to him by a subsequent employer.

-- Andrew Latham Smith

by FiatSlug on Feb 7, 2012 1:27 PM PST up reply actions

That certainly makes things more interesting.

Since I would be shocked if Tedford were out of coaching for more of a season.

"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 7, 2012 1:34 PM PST via Android app up reply actions

Thanks for the info. There are more layers here than I thought, but I’m now going to ignore them all until the end of next season…and hopefully forever after our trip to Pasadena.

by Reef on Feb 7, 2012 1:47 PM PST up reply actions

Tend to Be a Supporter of Coach T

On a historical basis he’s been remarkably successful. What this means is many bowl appearances (most years). Of course BCS and the Rose Bowl are the Holy Grail for the program. Getting there required the new athletic center and of course, top flight recruiting, which directly drives the bottom line. 7-6 is OK, but obviously 9-4 – or so would be much better. Of course, more creativity on offense would be fantastic. Some more details on the Pac-12 deal reveal that it is in the billions, not millions, for TV rights as was reported among the Pac-12 commissioner’s contract renewal which was in the news today. More to come in terms of non-traditional scheduling.

by goldenone on Feb 7, 2012 11:18 AM PST reply actions

7-6 is not OK

The SAHPC was not built to attain 7-6 seasons. It was built so that the team would be in a position to contend for the Rose Bowl every year.

Tedford has often said how important the SAHPC was to reaching the program’s potential, now it’s here, and it’s time to get much closer to that potential.

IMO there ought to be, at a minimum, one division title in the next three seasons, and if not it will be time to thank Tedford for all of the good things he has done for Cal football and give the next guy a shot at getting the Bears to the Rose Bowl.

MJB

by MJB on Feb 7, 2012 11:20 PM PST up reply actions

So if in the next three years Cal did what Stanfurd did in the last three years, you will want Tedford fired?

by fiatlux on Feb 7, 2012 11:25 PM PST up reply actions

YES.

If he turns our band into a laughing stock and makes our football team wear red then I want his head on a stake.

by Oski4Heisman on Feb 8, 2012 1:54 PM PST up reply actions

but harbaugh made furd’s team wear black…

by fiatlux on Feb 9, 2012 11:34 AM PST up reply actions

Regarding Tosh...

It’s one thing if all of the coaches may leave because they aren’t being paid enough, but is that the case? If he wanted to be paid more than the DC, than he didn’t leave just because of lack of funds, he left because he wanted an unrealistic pay structure. It’d be one thing to bonus him more because of better recruiting, but it wouldn’t be fair to the other coaches if he was paid a higher base salary than other higher-ranked positions. If that’s the case, he shouldn’t have gotten what he wanted even if we could have afforded it.

We’ll always be outgunned in terms of financing, due to the high cost of living and the fact we are a California public school. I think it’s another reason not to even think about firing Tedford – I doubt we can compete with other schools,or the NFL, for paying a top caliber coach.

by fuzzywuzzy on Feb 7, 2012 11:21 AM PST reply actions

Is there an argument to be made here that "we aren't identifying the problem?"

Too much Moneyball watching this weekend, but the point stands.

We aren’t going to spend as much money as the Texas’s and USCs and Miamis and Notre Dames of the world. Period. It’s not going to happen. So recruiting like them makes less sense too.

College football programs like Rutgers, Texas Tech, Northern Illinois, and (to a certain extent) Oregon State have shown strong growth by worrying less about budgeting and going at recruiting from a much different tact. it’s about developing a more flexible and progressive scheming system and taking more chances on diamonds in the rough (like our new monster-sized DB recruit).

I’d much rather us define our own style of recruiting and redefine our path to success than swing at a fighting weight in which we aren’t financially able or willing (due to the priorities of our university) to fully commit. We may or may not succeed if we blaze our own trail, but we’re certainly eating dust if we follow others.

"Pacific 12 Conference: Every conference's games count, but only we can count."

by slims on Feb 7, 2012 11:38 AM PST reply actions 1 recs

Like Coach Howard was saying

When you’ve got cadillac, you sell cadillac. When you’ve got a chevy, you sell a chevy.

by freshfunk on Feb 7, 2012 12:40 PM PST up reply actions

State of education funding

Regarding $, UC is reeling. Students have to pour more of their resources into the cost of education. As a donor, I’ve definitely shifted more of my resources into helping the colleges and students cope with the catastrophic drop in public funding. The athletic department simply will not be able to compete with other schools that don’t have the same level of issues about funding. My hope is that the new TV money allows enough funding that students and donors don’t have to pay as much, because frankly I don’t think we can pay much more. Within 10 years or so, the estimated 4-year cost of attending Berkeley will be around a quarter million dollars.

by Bean on Feb 7, 2012 11:39 AM PST reply actions 3 recs

Damn, I hope not

When I was at Cal from 87-91 tuition was $700 per semester! And I paid my own way through Cal working at REI and graduated without debt. This let me do socially beneficial work like teach and not get paid much. The state cuts in higher ed support have catastrophic effects on students, families, and society.

by Calbear91 on Feb 7, 2012 3:07 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs

Ours, I believe, is the last generation for which the idea of a debt-free, UC-quality college education was a reasonably achievable expectation/dream for the middle class. And like you, I’ve been able to do things with my life simply not possible had I been saddled with debt.

This is precisely why I find the college football “arms race” so offensive. Between donors and corporate sponsors, our society is somehow able to find a bottomless pit of millions to feed the BCS monster, but can’t manage to find a sustainable model for funding public higher education.

Go Bears!

by California Pete on Feb 7, 2012 3:42 PM PST up reply actions

Jesus, $700 per semester. My envy is all-encompassing.

"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 7, 2012 4:00 PM PST up reply actions

It was pretty awesome to get a world-class education at bargain-basement prices. LOL US

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 4:38 PM PST up reply actions

and I should say

finding the $700 + housing + etc. was no slam-dunk for my family and I know others who had it plenty harder. $14k or whatever is a hell of a long way removed from that.

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 4:40 PM PST up reply actions

Recruit inmates

http://www.baycitizen.org/education/interactive/education-vs-prisons-shifting-priorities/
When you look at the budget shift from California higher ed to Corrections in the past 20 years, it’s clear that we should place a priority on recruiting inmates. That’s where we can get our funding.

by Bean on Feb 7, 2012 4:06 PM PST up reply actions

Fantastic discussion

Thanks for this great post, and for the comments too. A breath of sanity. Though complex, our hearts and minds are for the most part wrestling with the same issues.

No question academics must take priority at Cal, and I wholly agree with Another Successful QB that the landscape at other schools is different.

My greatest hope is that we play smart, tough football, and lose games only to teams with clearly superior talent and not to teams with simply better coaching. This is how I feel about Monty and Basketball. We will lose to the top 10-15 teams nationally because we can’t match their talent, but no one out there plays a more beautiful or well coached game. And I truly don’t mind when we lose in those situations.

What I can’t stand, is losing to schools with equal or lesser talent. That is 100% coaching. I’m a Tedford fan, but just saying, I don’t expect us to beat Alabama, and they can rot in the stench of their choices, but we shouldn’t often lose to Oregon State and company.

What a pickle! For the overachiever student in all of us Cal alums, we can’t help but want excellence for our sports teams.

by Calbear91 on Feb 7, 2012 12:09 PM PST reply actions

I hate to be the bad guy who brings this up again but...

it still seems like we need to cut about two sports.

While non-revenue sports are funded by pennies compared to football, taking the budget of two sports and then distributing it amongst the remaining non-revenue sports would help make everyone more competitive. While no one wants to cut a sport and its extremely difficult to pick which sport to cut when we want a broad Olympic dept., we should remember that the other major schools in the conference are missing some HUGE* sports. $C doesn’t have M-Soccer or Softball. UCLAme doesn’t have M-Swimming. Oregon doesn’t have an M or W aquatics program or M-Soccer. Therefore, we probably won’t be alone in missing whatever sport is cut and, b/c we have so many sports, we do have some options for less-popular* sports.

*by “huge” or “less-popular” I simply mean sports that are in the Olympics and are very common to AD around the country

by GoldenBear8933 on Feb 7, 2012 1:04 PM PST reply actions

You are so right!

KEEP CALM
AND
Z ON

by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 7, 2012 1:15 PM PST up reply actions

Cut all the unpopular sports that cost more than x +y /z!

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 4:42 PM PST up reply actions

Yes!

KEEP CALM
AND
Z ON

by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 7, 2012 5:01 PM PST up reply actions

Problem

As we found out from the ensuing angst after the proposal to cut 5 sports in September 2010, doing so would subject Cal to a different standard of Title IX compliance.

Currently, Cal is considered in substantial compliance because it has expanded athletic scholarship opportunities for female athletes.

If Cal were to cut even one men’s sport, it would have to show that it is in actual full compliance with Title IX’s mandates. To do so would mean cutting even more men’s sports without cutting any women’s sports. In other words, out of the frying pan and into the fire.

No one wants to go there.

-- Andrew Latham Smith

by FiatSlug on Feb 7, 2012 1:33 PM PST up reply actions

I mean, some might be okay with that too.

KEEP CALM
AND
Z ON

by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 7, 2012 2:07 PM PST up reply actions

Some, certainly. Most? Almost certainly not.

-- Andrew Latham Smith

by FiatSlug on Feb 7, 2012 2:15 PM PST up reply actions

I think the real answer, across a full spectrum of Cal alum, is that some would be incredibly upset, some would be somewhat upset, some would have no reaction, some would be happy, but the vast, vast majority would genuinely not care. And I mean that in the sense that they would not even hear the news. Most of our alum do not care about minor Cal sports.

KEEP CALM
AND
Z ON

by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 7, 2012 2:19 PM PST up reply actions

That seems trrue

In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It

by TwistNHook on Feb 7, 2012 2:28 PM PST up reply actions

We should renew our debt contracts, interest rates are so low now. And i think I read somewhere that are interest payments are much higher than most national jumbo projects. Saving money on interest payments could definitely fund a few Olympic sports

by WallStreet GoldenBear on Feb 7, 2012 3:21 PM PST reply actions

Didn't we just have this conversation...

like just have it?

by fiatlux on Feb 7, 2012 10:33 PM PST reply actions

It is a two part post. That is why I used the term “continuing” and linked to part 1.

In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It

by TwistNHook on Feb 7, 2012 10:39 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs

Genius.

CGB: The Strangest Blog

by CalBear81 on Feb 7, 2012 11:06 PM PST up reply actions

Explain it to me like I’m 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 8, 2012 3:20 PM PST up reply actions

Tosh interview for those interested…

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/huskyfootballblog/2017459560_video_—-_tosh_lupoi.html#continue

"But there are no absolutes in human misery and things can always get worse"

by Cornelius Suttree on Feb 8, 2012 1:58 PM PST reply actions

Comments For This Post Are Closed

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Recent FanPosts

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Golden Bears Football Schedule

Fresno St.	Sat 09/03	W 36 - 21
@ Colorado The Ralphie Report	Sat 09/10	W 36 - 33
Presbyterian	Sat 09/17	W 63 - 12
@ Washington UW Dawg Pound	Sat 09/24	L 23 - 31
@ Oregon Addicted To Quack	Thu 10/06	L 15 - 43
USC Conquest Chronicles	Thu 10/13	L 9 - 30
Utah Block U	Sat 10/22	W 34 - 10
@ UCLA Bruins Nation	Sat 10/29	L 14 - 31
Washington St. CougCenter	Sat 11/05	W 30 - 7
Oregon St. Building The Dam	Sat 11/12	W 23 - 6
@ Stanford Rule Of Tree	Sat 11/19	L 28 - 31
@ Arizona St. House Of Sparky	Fri 11/25	W 47 - 38
@ Texas Burnt Orange Nation	Wed 12/28	L 10 - 21