Fellow Golden Bears: Let’s face it. As an institution, we have quit on our football program. It wasn’t THAT long ago that Tedford had us in the top 10 and we were always mentioned on Game Day. CMS had 60,000+ for most games and was rocking! Student section packed. Then, those in charge got all upset and ran Tedford out rather than workin…
Fellow Golden Bears: Let’s face it. As an institution, we have quit on our football program. It wasn’t THAT long ago that Tedford had us in the top 10 and we were always mentioned on Game Day. CMS had 60,000+ for most games and was rocking! Student section packed. Then, those in charge got all upset and ran Tedford out rather than working with him on a fix. (Things went down hill but, hey, our GPA is great. ) So here’s my question: do we just quit and think fondly of the days when we were relevant? Do we look at UCLA (same basic institution as Cal), Michigan, Penn State , etc.— all with solid academic standing—and ask, no demand, that we have a football program that matches those schools? It is NOT a zero sum game where you give up academic reputation for football success. There are many donors who would open up their wallets if convinced they were getting a reasonable return on investment—winning teams, a bowl game, fun on Saturdays and a general pride in wearing blue and gold. Maybe actually being able to walk into your office or country club on Monday and have folks say “nice game”, not WTF! The donor money is there but is too smart ti throw it down the rabbit hole. Oregon does it, OREGON STATE is doing it, UCLA always does it. Even Furd occasionally does it. The old: “Yes but they let ANYONE in and we have more Nobel Prizes." just doesn’t work. We should have both.
I’m just ssd that our administration doesn’t have the will to compete.
Fellow Golden Bears: Let’s face it. As an institution, we have quit on our football program. It wasn’t THAT long ago that Tedford had us in the top 10 and we were always mentioned on Game Day. CMS had 60,000+ for most games and was rocking! Student section packed. Then, those in charge got all upset and ran Tedford out rather than working with him on a fix. (Things went down hill but, hey, our GPA is great. ) So here’s my question: do we just quit and think fondly of the days when we were relevant? Do we look at UCLA (same basic institution as Cal), Michigan, Penn State , etc.— all with solid academic standing—and ask, no demand, that we have a football program that matches those schools? It is NOT a zero sum game where you give up academic reputation for football success. There are many donors who would open up their wallets if convinced they were getting a reasonable return on investment—winning teams, a bowl game, fun on Saturdays and a general pride in wearing blue and gold. Maybe actually being able to walk into your office or country club on Monday and have folks say “nice game”, not WTF! The donor money is there but is too smart ti throw it down the rabbit hole. Oregon does it, OREGON STATE is doing it, UCLA always does it. Even Furd occasionally does it. The old: “Yes but they let ANYONE in and we have more Nobel Prizes." just doesn’t work. We should have both.
I’m just ssd that our administration doesn’t have the will to compete.
Go Bears!