photo via wikicommons Hey, did you know that Cal Athletics might be in deep, deep trouble? That as of writing, perhaps the best case scenario is accepting junior status of 60-70% revenue distribution in a deeply unstable conference with the word ‘Atlantic’ in its title? And that barring an unforeseen change, even this option seems unlikely to happen? Good times.
FYI, since 2011 (and not counting the 2010-11 school year), Cal Athletics have claimed 23 of the current 103 team national championships. Of course, the Director's Cup nor Capital One Cups for the Men and Women consider the performances in the non-NCAA sports. That means the 7 rugby (5 in 7s and just 2 in 15s, the latter is consider an atypical championship drought) and 3 men's rowing titles do not matter at all (neither did the one women's tennis indoor team title that some may argue that Cal should not even count in the 103).
In reality, the Cal administration tightened the budgets across the board on both the revenue and non-revenue sports. Some of the better run and funded sports (aquatics, rowing, rugby) have thrived while some of the smaller programs run by great coaches (women's gymnastics, beach volleyball, throwing events in track and field) have drastically improved, but the rest had struggled. There is this clear dichotomy within Cal Athletics of the dominating and struggling programs in the recent decade. I would agree that this is not ideal. Yet at the same time, I would gladly probably trade several postseason appearances (and like 20 points in the Directors' cup where they rewards 100 for the national champions) for a national championship. I would just love the championships to be more spread out across different programs (of course, a lot of people love sports dynasties).
Regarding #3, Mike Williams said he was on the Cal wrestling team at the same time as me. If he was, both I and another fellow wrestler never saw him at a single wrestling practice or match. I pointed out this fabrication, but no action was ever taken.
Nick: Great article and very illuminating. I suppose that admin. thought that the tv gods would simply keep paying for a mediocre/awful product on the field and court. How wrong they were! I really do hope that one day we find out who the morons were that turned down the ESPN lifeline TWICE because they thought that Pac-12 schools (without $C and FUCLA) were worth at least $50 million each. Like I've said, Northern California really does grow the best dope.
Seems like they just didn't see the breakup of the Pac coming (it had been a conference for 100+ years!), which is fair. But once USC and UCLA were out they should have been a lot more prepared. It seems like it took an independent effort by the donors to bring football spending up to par.
Bitter much? SC & UCLA saw the writing on the wall and acted accordingly. Why should their sports programs suffer by carrying so much dead weight. To their AD’s credit, they saw how college sports (specifically football and basketball) was changing and the need for their programs to be seen by as many eyeballs as possible. It’s a different world today. Cal and Stanford (and their alumni) screwed this one up big time.
But the brand was a lot stronger, which is killing us now. Turns out this was the absolutely wrong stretch for a couple of buffoons like Williams and Knowlton to lead the Department.
Actually, USC had threatened to leave the Pac for decades. The Pac was always unstable because there weren't enough king programs around (same deal with the B12 and Texas). The rest of the Pac shouldn't have deferred to USC's objections and added in B12 schools when Texas and OU left the B12.
Yes, $C was a great partner with the PAC12. Vetoing many proposals that would have made the PAC stronger. As for "king programs" you mean by rankings or TV ratings? Oregon, Utah, Washington, and UCLA, were often in the Top 25. And Wazzou, Oregon State, and ASU have been strong programs. Honestly, how different is the B!G with its collection of schools? $C left because the money was right, but the competition would be a push. Oh, and UCLA said, "Me, too!" and tagged along.
Good riddance to Tommy Trojan and his inflated exceptionalism.
King programs by national titles won (in recent decades) and monetary value.
By that count, USC was the only king in the Pac while Texas and OU were the only kings in the B12. The B10 had OSU, UMich, and PSU (UNL was a king but really has no shot at winning a natty going forward) while the SEC had Bama, UGa, LSU, UF (and arguably Tennessee).
Aug 16, 2023·edited Aug 16, 2023Liked by Avinash Kunnath
We need a deep dive into our priorities as students, alumni, and administrators in order to realign them as well. My guess is that Cal will maintain its sports but the situation as you recount it is not optimal. Expecting the cash to keep tumbling in while we took our eye off the ball and let major sports whither was not realistic nor strategic in any sense of the imagination.
Cal suffered a similar fate as the P12 - namely, hiring back-to-back candidates in the top position that were woefully unprepared for the job. Larry Scott, George Kliavkoff, Mike Williams, Jim Knowlton…none had the requisite experience to be in such impactful positions of leadership.
Great article! I hate to say it but Cal should drop football. Their self imposed academic requirements for student athletes ensures that they will never be competitive with blue blood football programs.
It also appears that the school lacks the innovation needed to accommodate student athletes who participate in major sports. They had all but deemed major sports irrelevant. Could it be because college football and basketball players are predominantly Black?
It’s weird because other institutions like Oregon, Washington, and USC invest in their athletes and it will continue to pay off moving forward.
If we drop football what would you do with Memorial Stadium? I, as an alum, would never support the dropping of football. There are literally millions of us who feel this way,
I agree….I hate seeing the existing Pac-12 crumble before our eyes. And it sucks to see Cal in this current predicament. But they should have placed top priority on their football program, which has the luxury of being located in a top 10 media market and high school/junior college football hotbed.
If they had their stuff together, they would have been poached by the Big10.
If the Big10 or ACC doesn’t come calling, maybe the powers that be can rebrand west coast football by forming an all California league with Cal, Stanford, San Jose State, Fresno State, San Diego State, UC Davis, Sac State, Cal Poly—— And possibly add UNR and UNLV…
Then again joining the current MWC is always an option.
If not they could also use the space to possibly add additional housing, research centers, classroom space, convention center, etc.
You're making my point: Wyking was shown the door after two years while Fox was given two more years than Wyking to figure it out cause he was "a good guy", despite the same results.
And I'm a very white, very middle aged guy, but the difference between how they handled those two situations is glaring to me. That's what institutional racism looks like.
At least bum Fox had a better W/L percentage. They're both bums, but Jones was a bigger bum. Must be structural racism at work. I think I spotted some white hoods in the hallways of Sproul Hall.
They're both bums with Cal. Jones is still an assistant coach and with exception of Cal, not head coach material. Fox wasn't too shabby leading the Wolf Pack.
Not to defend Jones too much but at least he was viewed as a good recruiter and he didn’t have a failed record as a previous HC.
Fox was an average to mediocre HC at Georgia. Never was a good recruiter and had no west coast connections. He was the typical failed white guy HC retread.
Fox didn't do too bad with the Wolf Pack....2004 to 2009. Overall record of 123–43., including five postseason appearances in five years including three NCAA tournaments.
Ray, your post defies common sense (and politics). Ever since Prop 209 Cal and UCLA have spent millions trying to attract a greater proportion of URM's. Even the faculty that disdain sports appreciate the fact that they have persons of color in their classrooms. Note Nick's list of AD priorities: DEI is front and center.
The university has wasted millions trying to attract Black students. As of matter of fact the number of Black applicants has increased immensely. The university has failed because they are not real advocates for the Black community. There are 3 million Black Americans in CA. They are not hard to find!
False narrative! Countless Black students from California are excelling at HBCU’s around the country. They are both qualified and available. The University knows that they exist….
OC Bear is correct about K12. The "good" schools are always where the new money is located, driven by white flight. This is the dirty little secret of white progressives in California and elsewhere: they talk the talk, but when it comes to schools, they are quick to pull their kids out of the inner city. Eventually, the teachers and resources follow. Addressing the issue at the University admissions office is merely a band aid for a deeper problem that starts early on in our education system.
"Could it be because college football and basketball players are predominantly Black?" Point to anything concrete which supports your slanderous allegation.
Well have you stepped on a Power 5 college campus recently and seen the amenities/opportunities that are offered to these football players?
Everything is state of the art and the programs/facilities cater to the athletes immensely.
To be a part of this elite group of institutions, you have to pretty much ingratiate your facility and program with Black Culture. The facilities cater to the athletes that utilize them.
These facilities become their home while they are attending the university. And by all means these athletes are generating millions of dollars. No other students on campus generate the type of money that college football and basketball does.
The student-athletes are money makers. Keep in mind, college football and basketball are farm leagues for the pro’s and the Bay Area/Sacramento/Los Angeles are hotbeds for football talent.
So why wouldn’t Cal invest in this? They have willingly taken that 37 million dollar check that is attached to Pac-12 membership.
The other schools, namely, USC, Oregon, and Washington have went all in (cater to their athletes), while maintaining their high academic status. I’m having a hard time understanding Cal’s excuse.
The self imposed academic standards speak for itself…You don’t get a Marshawn Lynch, Tony Gonzalez, Deshawn Jackson, Jahvid Best, LaVell Hawkins, etc. with that self imposed standard.
It starts at the top. Cal hired Dirks (an anthropology professor) to run what amounts to a $1 Billion corporation (HR issues, budget issues, marketing issues, product development, etc.) Then, he hired Mike Williams, totally unqualified, as AD. Williams then hired Wyking Jones, again totally unqualified, as Basketball coach. What could go wrong with this chain of events? Well, we know the answer. We ran Jeff Tedford out due to “academic shortfalls” rather than taking a deep dive in to how Cal could do what THE OSU, Michigan, ND, and other competitive PAC 12 schools did to be competitive (call is academic arrogance if you want). Remember 70,000 fans and top 10 rankings during Tedford’s era? We would have been a top choice for a conference rather than a reject. The answer? Either give in to the “academic arrogance” that drives decisions at Cal, or take a look at how other highly thought of institutions (Michigan, Notre Dame and--yes--UCLA) take care of business. Hell, we won’t even create a grad school program like Sports Management to keep fifth year grad school from players interested in staying. I’m pessimistic that Cal will take the bold steps to make Football as competitive as it needs to be to attract 70,000 to Memorial Stadium (“school spirit, donors, etc.) as in the Tedford era, and settle for being an academic elite with disdain for high athletic achievement. We need strong, leadership that truly values athletic achievement an important component of the college experience. As they say, you won’t get 70,000 fans to attend a physics lecture. Go Bears,
In 1989 The University of Wisconsin's Athletic Department was in worse shape than Cal's currently. They were in the hole $2,100,000; the football team had won 6 games in 3 years, Attendance was pitiful.
The School Chancellor Donna Shalala was hired in 1988, she knew she had to turn things around and fast! She and the board moved on from the AD then recruited former UW football player Pat Richter who was the VP, Personnel for Oscar Meyer to be Athletic Director and she got out of his way and let him do his job. He went out and hired Barry Alvarez from Notre Dame and let him do his job. It can't be overstated the impact that hire had on Wisconsin, he literally saved the athletic department by turning around the football program. He's without a doubt the most consequential figure in Wisconsin athletics history and it's arguable he's in the top 5 for consequential figure in Big 10 history.
I say this because Cal and Wisconsin are similar in academic reputation but I'm sure he went to Shalala and said Hey I need to have an exception that I can get it admitted once every other year. He got Brent Moss in, Moss picked Wisconsin over Michigan, Michigan State and Penn State that recruit change the program for ever.
Now times are different, were talking 35 years ago and the landscape of the media in NCAA is vastly different than today but Cal could've done what Wisconsin did and they probably did in a small way, I'm sure there's have been Cal players who got in that wouldn't have if they were normal students.
It's probably too late for Cal now but they need a visionary who hires quality people and get's out of there way.
agree with all but the last few words. We need a Chancellor who will also lead, (instead of get out of the way), and that requires challenging the faculty, academic senate. We need a Chancellor that will convince Admissions to admit the next Marshawn and watch him get excellent grades at Cal even if his HS record wasn't A++.
there's a huge cultural difference (in sports) between Wisconsin and California (the states, not teh Unis). The masses in WI are proud of their state flagship in Madison, even if they have never gone to any college. And they are passionate fans. Even the faculty grudgingly admit that school spirit helps. So wining was a big plus. Top HS lineman wanted stay home to play.
I agree there is a cultural difference between California and Wisconsin, what's unfortunate is it appears that alums don't have an influential impact on how Cal is run. After Barry turned around Wisconsin the alums would never have allowed the program to be a
bottom feeder ever again thus they fired Paul Chryst in the middle of the season when they started bad.
I came across a captivating piece written by Nate Silver in 2011, now available in the New York Times archive. In it, Silver attempts to shed light on the college football realignment landscape by estimating the number of fans for each team and their geographic distribution. While he acknowledges that the methodology used to compile this data isn't scientific, a glance at the graphs for each conference and the team rankings effectively mirrors the actual college football landscape. It becomes evident which teams command the most interest and why they are strategically gravitating towards specific conferences. It was quite surprising to discover that Cal was ranked third in the PAC 12, trailing only behind USC and UCLA. Perhaps we are indeed a sleeping giant. We need a well-defined and strategic approach to awaken this potential giant. I remain hopeful that it's not too late, as few experiences rival the excitement of a vibrant Memorial Stadium resonating with the cheers of 70,000 fans rallying for our Golden Bears!
Bowlesman: Very good point and I think that it raises an even larger issue. As I stated previously, the tv gods are unwilling to pay us and the 'Furd for mediocre/awful products on the field or court. However, what about other schools like us, such as Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Rutgers or Indiana, that have fielded mediocre/awful teams? Is current or future realignment a signal to all schools that they had better spend money on athletics (especially football and basketball) or be relegated to minor conferences with no or little tv exposure? How much money will Cal have to spend in order to maintain Power Five status across all athletic programs?
well, the obvious answer is that they tag along with tOSU, Michigan and Penn State.
but I might add, that Northwestern has at least been to the Rose Bowl in the common era. (unlike us) And Indiana basketball has a strong following. But I predict that football powers will break off into thier own FB conference in the next contract cycles, and everyone else gets relegated. tOSU, Michigan and Penn State and not gonna want to continue to subsidize a full share to the likes of Rutgers. Ditto, Georgia and Alabama wrt Vandy.
Yep, GoldenBear88, this is my answer. Rutgers, Vandy, Northwestern may all be said to tread water and stay afloat, but only in the wake of more serious and well-invested programs.
We are at a point where we need to sh!t or get off the pot.
Wilcox has gotten a long leash for sure, but I do think Spav can be a game changer. Its our schedule that worries me most, and the fact that we still need a good bit of luck for things to break right.
understand, but I am more concerned about those handful of decisions at critical times: do we go for it on 4th down? FG or punt? Do we call a TO? Clock management at the end of the first half and 4th qtr. That's on the HC.
Interesting article but missing a vital item or two. About 40 years ago, the NCAA was first sued by a couple schools regarding TV rights control resulting in the NCAA no longer having sole control regarding TV contracts for conferences and/or individual teams. This was, most likely, the first crack in the dam. Then recently came college players court ruling on use of likeness monetary value and then the NIL ruling. Like corporate America, to remain relevant, the big became bigger at the expense of the others who chose not to make that leap of faith. Value became the driving force. For instance, the Big 10 administration didn't disassemble the PAC 12 as it was UCLA, USC, Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and California who asked to become members of the B1G and not the B1G raiding the PAC 12. Acceptance into the B1G then was based on several items, to include but not limited to: academics (which all had) and value (TV revenue opportunity to match or exceed the membership outlay). The BIG and SEC both admitted that "conference disruption" is not over and to expect others to eventually join either conference at some later date (maybe a year or so later).
Yes, but it's accumulative. Please don't misinterprete that I was critical as it seems you laid out local issues quite well. Just an off the wall prediction I'd throw out as follows: In the next 10 years you'll see a breakaway of the 'super' conferences from the NCAA. Two possibly three conferences will be involved (SEC and B1G with an outside possibility of the B1g 12 joining in). Each will consist of 20 to 25 or so schools. Football will be within the conference with a national championship determined between a playoff system within the 2 or 3. Other sports, such as basketball, baseball, softball, volleyball, etc., will be divided in to intersectional regions (reduce travel distance, time away from classes, etc) that involved the 2 or 3 conferences. From the regions there would exist a nation playoff to determine a national championship. Any schools outside these conferences would have to fend for themselves. I hope this doesn't happen as it makes me sad, but ..
Liberalism helped kill the cal athletic program, Too! Ever heard the slogan “go woke, go broke!” Cal doesn’t operate the way other athletic programs operate. They reward people for being nice people (knowlton) and not results. This liberalism has been going on years. At usc, and ucla it is a strict working environment in their athletic departments. If you aren’t getting the job done your are let go. Cal doesn’t do that. They say “he is such a nice guy, and we want him to work here forever.” Businesses succeed by being fiscal and conservative. If cal would have adopted that attitude, they wouldn’t be in this financial mess!
In this case, "woke" is an accurate assessment. The chancellor is more focused on "world-class participatory and educational opportunities" than actual winning on the field
If you think that is a misplaced organizational decision, then say that and make your argument, rather than resorting to an increasingly meaningless pejorative that illuminates nothing.
Like, there is NOTHING woke about giving Jim Knowlton millions of dollars for being at best a mediocrity. To the extent that I understand what “woke” is anymore, the woke solution would’ve been to fire him into the Sun a year ago
Agree. Not valuing sports has nothing to do with wokeness. Many non-woke taxpayers and faculty would prefer Cal become a public University of Chicago, and eliminate all athletic admissions. Their position is that if we must have sports, make them all D3.
You’re right but this brand of liberalism that borders on insanity also exists at UCLA and USC to an extent. A big part of the PAC-12’s demise was the conference’s handling of COVID. They didn’t take financial responsibility into consideration. A full year worth of lost revenue can be devastating for any business. In the case of sports, it created new fan habits on top of operating in the red. Many current PAC-12 schools are financially strapped. It’s a perfect case study of how liberalism and woke ideology can destroy a century plus old institution.
I think I would add the constant blackballing of institutions we thought weren’t an academic or cultural fit in the face of potential expansion. That wasn’t entirely in our control, but together with Stanford we played a huge role.
The reality is that Cal has a recruiting problem when they bring recruits to campus. It lacks diversity. Look, football and basketball players want to get to the NFL and NBA. What do those players look like? They want to see women who look like them. When they visit campus, they do clearly not. Also, Cal is a bargain basement program. I had a basketball player tell me how he had to turn in his worn-out shoes to get a new pair. Many schools just give you what you want. It's a shame that being in Pullman Washington or Oxford, Mississippi is better than Berkeley. Also, Cal has always had the impression that its Nobel prize winners and academic reputation ae more important than football and basketball. Face it, Cal has a recruiting problem. NIL helps but only so much. The better players want to play where they will be groomed for the pros. The Pac12 fell behind. Cal and Stanford for good or bad have great reputations but please, for Black students their Cal or Stanford degree will be look with an asterisk that they were at those schools because they were not "qualified" and a special admit and not worthy of the degree and they are not treated well.
I see places like Michigan and Texas who seem to have a good balance of quality academics and great athletic programs. Can we become that successful, in part or in full?
What do people view as the solution(s) to getting Cal back on track in athletics? Is it as simple as hiring a new AD? An increase in the budget to athletics? Identify anyone in the administration who is opposed to athletics and show them the door?
We have a passionate and smart fan base. Wondering if we can identify solutions and then start pushing those solutions forward in order to improve Cal athletics?
Nick-would love to hear your analysis/research around why football players aren’t allowed into MBA program at Cal. There’s a story there and it’s not all about the academics. This also impacts recruiting.
It doesn’t necessarily impact recruiting as much as it does retention of players who’ve graduated and still have a year or so of eligibility. Graduate admissions are a whole other animal in the Cal academia sphere that shows no favoritism to current students let alone student athletes. There have been somewhat recent grad transfers who came to Cal and weee “admitted” into certain grad programs they never finished. The most famous being Davis Webb who was on campus for one academic semester to play football while enrolled in a two grad program (MPH). So it does not surprise me that grad programs are gun shy in admitting athletes who have a higher percentage than most in not finishing their program.
its more than not favoring current students into grad programs. UC, like many other premier institutions, have a bias that students go somewhere else for graduate work. I know Carolina loves for its undergrads to attend its grad school, including for its competitive MBA program, but Cal and UCLA have the opposite philosophy and always have.
Exactly, or as teh Dean said when I was applying to grad school, "look, you have already taken 3 of our 1st year grad courses, so its time to go learn from someone else."
Top business schools (like Haas) prefer students who have work experience rather than direct-from-undergrad students.
Additionally, masters programs are the cash cows of the modern university (across the nation). Giving preference to athletes takes away a massive source of external revenue for the school.
Over the past few years, the challenge of graduate opportunities for Cal athletes has started being addressed through 1-year certificate programs. I believe it started with an entrepreneurship program but has now expanded to many other opportunities. I'd love to see the full listing but haven't come across it yet.
A sixth disastrous Cal decision was to not be proactively and actively engaged in conference decision making and negotiation, and direction, supervision and review of the commissioner and other top level executives, instead just relying on the commissioners office to serve there best interests without doing anything to deliver that. That is a disastrous decision shared across the conference.
FYI, since 2011 (and not counting the 2010-11 school year), Cal Athletics have claimed 23 of the current 103 team national championships. Of course, the Director's Cup nor Capital One Cups for the Men and Women consider the performances in the non-NCAA sports. That means the 7 rugby (5 in 7s and just 2 in 15s, the latter is consider an atypical championship drought) and 3 men's rowing titles do not matter at all (neither did the one women's tennis indoor team title that some may argue that Cal should not even count in the 103).
In reality, the Cal administration tightened the budgets across the board on both the revenue and non-revenue sports. Some of the better run and funded sports (aquatics, rowing, rugby) have thrived while some of the smaller programs run by great coaches (women's gymnastics, beach volleyball, throwing events in track and field) have drastically improved, but the rest had struggled. There is this clear dichotomy within Cal Athletics of the dominating and struggling programs in the recent decade. I would agree that this is not ideal. Yet at the same time, I would gladly probably trade several postseason appearances (and like 20 points in the Directors' cup where they rewards 100 for the national champions) for a national championship. I would just love the championships to be more spread out across different programs (of course, a lot of people love sports dynasties).
Regarding #3, Mike Williams said he was on the Cal wrestling team at the same time as me. If he was, both I and another fellow wrestler never saw him at a single wrestling practice or match. I pointed out this fabrication, but no action was ever taken.
That’s wild!
Nick: Great article and very illuminating. I suppose that admin. thought that the tv gods would simply keep paying for a mediocre/awful product on the field and court. How wrong they were! I really do hope that one day we find out who the morons were that turned down the ESPN lifeline TWICE because they thought that Pac-12 schools (without $C and FUCLA) were worth at least $50 million each. Like I've said, Northern California really does grow the best dope.
Seems like they just didn't see the breakup of the Pac coming (it had been a conference for 100+ years!), which is fair. But once USC and UCLA were out they should have been a lot more prepared. It seems like it took an independent effort by the donors to bring football spending up to par.
And we hire great dopes.
Well paid dopes.
The height of incompetence.
Peter Principle.
that assumes he grew into his incompetence. What is the term if someone is over-his-head to begin with?
Knowlton quite possibly has killed the 130+ year-old collegiate athletic department at one of the most iconic Universities in the world.
Can you f-ing imagine Colonel Clown in battle? Hardly a ringing endorsement for West Point and the Army.
He-who-sleeps-with-the-fishes.
Bitter much? SC & UCLA saw the writing on the wall and acted accordingly. Why should their sports programs suffer by carrying so much dead weight. To their AD’s credit, they saw how college sports (specifically football and basketball) was changing and the need for their programs to be seen by as many eyeballs as possible. It’s a different world today. Cal and Stanford (and their alumni) screwed this one up big time.
Love it when new folks jump on the board and expose their ignorance in under 100 words…classic.
I wonder if Cal could have gotten in the Big 10 in 2014?
Of course not.
But the brand was a lot stronger, which is killing us now. Turns out this was the absolutely wrong stretch for a couple of buffoons like Williams and Knowlton to lead the Department.
Very comforting.
But their well-reasoned exodus was without warning to the dead weight, despite long-time association.
Every $C loss to Cal had to be painful, though, and explains your need to vent frustration.
Good luck with the "dead weight" in the B!G.
Go Bears.
Actually, USC had threatened to leave the Pac for decades. The Pac was always unstable because there weren't enough king programs around (same deal with the B12 and Texas). The rest of the Pac shouldn't have deferred to USC's objections and added in B12 schools when Texas and OU left the B12.
Yes, $C was a great partner with the PAC12. Vetoing many proposals that would have made the PAC stronger. As for "king programs" you mean by rankings or TV ratings? Oregon, Utah, Washington, and UCLA, were often in the Top 25. And Wazzou, Oregon State, and ASU have been strong programs. Honestly, how different is the B!G with its collection of schools? $C left because the money was right, but the competition would be a push. Oh, and UCLA said, "Me, too!" and tagged along.
Good riddance to Tommy Trojan and his inflated exceptionalism.
King programs by national titles won (in recent decades) and monetary value.
By that count, USC was the only king in the Pac while Texas and OU were the only kings in the B12. The B10 had OSU, UMich, and PSU (UNL was a king but really has no shot at winning a natty going forward) while the SEC had Bama, UGa, LSU, UF (and arguably Tennessee).
We need a deep dive into our priorities as students, alumni, and administrators in order to realign them as well. My guess is that Cal will maintain its sports but the situation as you recount it is not optimal. Expecting the cash to keep tumbling in while we took our eye off the ball and let major sports whither was not realistic nor strategic in any sense of the imagination.
Great article Nick!
Agreed - thanks Nick.
Cal suffered a similar fate as the P12 - namely, hiring back-to-back candidates in the top position that were woefully unprepared for the job. Larry Scott, George Kliavkoff, Mike Williams, Jim Knowlton…none had the requisite experience to be in such impactful positions of leadership.
Great article! I hate to say it but Cal should drop football. Their self imposed academic requirements for student athletes ensures that they will never be competitive with blue blood football programs.
It also appears that the school lacks the innovation needed to accommodate student athletes who participate in major sports. They had all but deemed major sports irrelevant. Could it be because college football and basketball players are predominantly Black?
It’s weird because other institutions like Oregon, Washington, and USC invest in their athletes and it will continue to pay off moving forward.
If we drop football what would you do with Memorial Stadium? I, as an alum, would never support the dropping of football. There are literally millions of us who feel this way,
I agree….I hate seeing the existing Pac-12 crumble before our eyes. And it sucks to see Cal in this current predicament. But they should have placed top priority on their football program, which has the luxury of being located in a top 10 media market and high school/junior college football hotbed.
If they had their stuff together, they would have been poached by the Big10.
If the Big10 or ACC doesn’t come calling, maybe the powers that be can rebrand west coast football by forming an all California league with Cal, Stanford, San Jose State, Fresno State, San Diego State, UC Davis, Sac State, Cal Poly—— And possibly add UNR and UNLV…
Then again joining the current MWC is always an option.
If not they could also use the space to possibly add additional housing, research centers, classroom space, convention center, etc.
You mean tear down Memorial Stadium? Never going to happen.
To suggest racism is ridiculous.
Can I submit Mark Fox for 4 years as Exhibit A?
Topped by Wyking Jones, 2017–2019, (16–47) .254
You're making my point: Wyking was shown the door after two years while Fox was given two more years than Wyking to figure it out cause he was "a good guy", despite the same results.
And I'm a very white, very middle aged guy, but the difference between how they handled those two situations is glaring to me. That's what institutional racism looks like.
At least bum Fox had a better W/L percentage. They're both bums, but Jones was a bigger bum. Must be structural racism at work. I think I spotted some white hoods in the hallways of Sproul Hall.
They're both bums with Cal. Jones is still an assistant coach and with exception of Cal, not head coach material. Fox wasn't too shabby leading the Wolf Pack.
Not to defend Jones too much but at least he was viewed as a good recruiter and he didn’t have a failed record as a previous HC.
Fox was an average to mediocre HC at Georgia. Never was a good recruiter and had no west coast connections. He was the typical failed white guy HC retread.
Fox didn't do too bad with the Wolf Pack....2004 to 2009. Overall record of 123–43., including five postseason appearances in five years including three NCAA tournaments.
Please expound.
You made the claim. You need to back it up.
Ray, your post defies common sense (and politics). Ever since Prop 209 Cal and UCLA have spent millions trying to attract a greater proportion of URM's. Even the faculty that disdain sports appreciate the fact that they have persons of color in their classrooms. Note Nick's list of AD priorities: DEI is front and center.
The university has wasted millions trying to attract Black students. As of matter of fact the number of Black applicants has increased immensely. The university has failed because they are not real advocates for the Black community. There are 3 million Black Americans in CA. They are not hard to find!
The University has "failed" only bcos the State has failed K12.
False narrative! Countless Black students from California are excelling at HBCU’s around the country. They are both qualified and available. The University knows that they exist….
OC Bear is correct about K12. The "good" schools are always where the new money is located, driven by white flight. This is the dirty little secret of white progressives in California and elsewhere: they talk the talk, but when it comes to schools, they are quick to pull their kids out of the inner city. Eventually, the teachers and resources follow. Addressing the issue at the University admissions office is merely a band aid for a deeper problem that starts early on in our education system.
"Could it be because college football and basketball players are predominantly Black?" Point to anything concrete which supports your slanderous allegation.
Well have you stepped on a Power 5 college campus recently and seen the amenities/opportunities that are offered to these football players?
Everything is state of the art and the programs/facilities cater to the athletes immensely.
To be a part of this elite group of institutions, you have to pretty much ingratiate your facility and program with Black Culture. The facilities cater to the athletes that utilize them.
These facilities become their home while they are attending the university. And by all means these athletes are generating millions of dollars. No other students on campus generate the type of money that college football and basketball does.
The student-athletes are money makers. Keep in mind, college football and basketball are farm leagues for the pro’s and the Bay Area/Sacramento/Los Angeles are hotbeds for football talent.
So why wouldn’t Cal invest in this? They have willingly taken that 37 million dollar check that is attached to Pac-12 membership.
The other schools, namely, USC, Oregon, and Washington have went all in (cater to their athletes), while maintaining their high academic status. I’m having a hard time understanding Cal’s excuse.
Please make it make sense….
"Either get serious, or quit...." sums it up. Race is not a factor.
I agree with get serious or quit…
But race is definitely a factor.
The self imposed academic standards speak for itself…You don’t get a Marshawn Lynch, Tony Gonzalez, Deshawn Jackson, Jahvid Best, LaVell Hawkins, etc. with that self imposed standard.
Truth bomb!
"Their self imposed academic requirements for student athletes ensures that they will never be competitive with blue blood football programs."
It starts at the top. Cal hired Dirks (an anthropology professor) to run what amounts to a $1 Billion corporation (HR issues, budget issues, marketing issues, product development, etc.) Then, he hired Mike Williams, totally unqualified, as AD. Williams then hired Wyking Jones, again totally unqualified, as Basketball coach. What could go wrong with this chain of events? Well, we know the answer. We ran Jeff Tedford out due to “academic shortfalls” rather than taking a deep dive in to how Cal could do what THE OSU, Michigan, ND, and other competitive PAC 12 schools did to be competitive (call is academic arrogance if you want). Remember 70,000 fans and top 10 rankings during Tedford’s era? We would have been a top choice for a conference rather than a reject. The answer? Either give in to the “academic arrogance” that drives decisions at Cal, or take a look at how other highly thought of institutions (Michigan, Notre Dame and--yes--UCLA) take care of business. Hell, we won’t even create a grad school program like Sports Management to keep fifth year grad school from players interested in staying. I’m pessimistic that Cal will take the bold steps to make Football as competitive as it needs to be to attract 70,000 to Memorial Stadium (“school spirit, donors, etc.) as in the Tedford era, and settle for being an academic elite with disdain for high athletic achievement. We need strong, leadership that truly values athletic achievement an important component of the college experience. As they say, you won’t get 70,000 fans to attend a physics lecture. Go Bears,
In 1989 The University of Wisconsin's Athletic Department was in worse shape than Cal's currently. They were in the hole $2,100,000; the football team had won 6 games in 3 years, Attendance was pitiful.
The School Chancellor Donna Shalala was hired in 1988, she knew she had to turn things around and fast! She and the board moved on from the AD then recruited former UW football player Pat Richter who was the VP, Personnel for Oscar Meyer to be Athletic Director and she got out of his way and let him do his job. He went out and hired Barry Alvarez from Notre Dame and let him do his job. It can't be overstated the impact that hire had on Wisconsin, he literally saved the athletic department by turning around the football program. He's without a doubt the most consequential figure in Wisconsin athletics history and it's arguable he's in the top 5 for consequential figure in Big 10 history.
I say this because Cal and Wisconsin are similar in academic reputation but I'm sure he went to Shalala and said Hey I need to have an exception that I can get it admitted once every other year. He got Brent Moss in, Moss picked Wisconsin over Michigan, Michigan State and Penn State that recruit change the program for ever.
Now times are different, were talking 35 years ago and the landscape of the media in NCAA is vastly different than today but Cal could've done what Wisconsin did and they probably did in a small way, I'm sure there's have been Cal players who got in that wouldn't have if they were normal students.
It's probably too late for Cal now but they need a visionary who hires quality people and get's out of there way.
agree with all but the last few words. We need a Chancellor who will also lead, (instead of get out of the way), and that requires challenging the faculty, academic senate. We need a Chancellor that will convince Admissions to admit the next Marshawn and watch him get excellent grades at Cal even if his HS record wasn't A++.
there's a huge cultural difference (in sports) between Wisconsin and California (the states, not teh Unis). The masses in WI are proud of their state flagship in Madison, even if they have never gone to any college. And they are passionate fans. Even the faculty grudgingly admit that school spirit helps. So wining was a big plus. Top HS lineman wanted stay home to play.
I agree there is a cultural difference between California and Wisconsin, what's unfortunate is it appears that alums don't have an influential impact on how Cal is run. After Barry turned around Wisconsin the alums would never have allowed the program to be a
bottom feeder ever again thus they fired Paul Chryst in the middle of the season when they started bad.
Love this!
Go Bucky!
I came across a captivating piece written by Nate Silver in 2011, now available in the New York Times archive. In it, Silver attempts to shed light on the college football realignment landscape by estimating the number of fans for each team and their geographic distribution. While he acknowledges that the methodology used to compile this data isn't scientific, a glance at the graphs for each conference and the team rankings effectively mirrors the actual college football landscape. It becomes evident which teams command the most interest and why they are strategically gravitating towards specific conferences. It was quite surprising to discover that Cal was ranked third in the PAC 12, trailing only behind USC and UCLA. Perhaps we are indeed a sleeping giant. We need a well-defined and strategic approach to awaken this potential giant. I remain hopeful that it's not too late, as few experiences rival the excitement of a vibrant Memorial Stadium resonating with the cheers of 70,000 fans rallying for our Golden Bears!
https://archive.nytimes.com/thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/
We're not a sleeping giant. We're a giant that voluntarily ingested cyanide because we never want to wake up
I was convinced until recently that we could have been a sleeping giant in basketball, until we made some inexplicable hires.
Football? I don’t see it unless Aaron Rodgers 2.0 walks through that door.
What are your thoughts on how Utah has been able to excel for so long without Aaron Rodgers 2.0?
The piety of Dirks, who then dragged an RSF trainer on trips with him and his wife on the company dime.
Woah, what is this about? Was this about staying in shape or the “lifestyle”?
More wholesome than a Jerry Fallwell Jr. situation, but an error in judgment nonetheless: https://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-ln-berkeley-chancellor-probe-20160712-snap-story.html
From the article it sounds like it was just the trainer and Dirks’s wife on the trip.
“Either get serious, or quit.”
Indeed.
Absolutely true, to the point, and well said, Nick.
A thorough postmortem for mediocrity in Cal athletics.
Bowlesman: Very good point and I think that it raises an even larger issue. As I stated previously, the tv gods are unwilling to pay us and the 'Furd for mediocre/awful products on the field or court. However, what about other schools like us, such as Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Rutgers or Indiana, that have fielded mediocre/awful teams? Is current or future realignment a signal to all schools that they had better spend money on athletics (especially football and basketball) or be relegated to minor conferences with no or little tv exposure? How much money will Cal have to spend in order to maintain Power Five status across all athletic programs?
well, the obvious answer is that they tag along with tOSU, Michigan and Penn State.
but I might add, that Northwestern has at least been to the Rose Bowl in the common era. (unlike us) And Indiana basketball has a strong following. But I predict that football powers will break off into thier own FB conference in the next contract cycles, and everyone else gets relegated. tOSU, Michigan and Penn State and not gonna want to continue to subsidize a full share to the likes of Rutgers. Ditto, Georgia and Alabama wrt Vandy.
Yep, GoldenBear88, this is my answer. Rutgers, Vandy, Northwestern may all be said to tread water and stay afloat, but only in the wake of more serious and well-invested programs.
We are at a point where we need to sh!t or get off the pot.
Trouble is, we have no pot on which to sit. In the game of musical chairs/pots, we are looking at empty space.
Welp. Bears sh!t in the woods, right?
Look out junior university.
I believe in Mad Dog, but JW has not shown that he's capable of more than mediocre football at best.
Wilcox has gotten a long leash for sure, but I do think Spav can be a game changer. Its our schedule that worries me most, and the fact that we still need a good bit of luck for things to break right.
yes, schedule is brutal, as are some of JW's in-game calls.
understand, but I am more concerned about those handful of decisions at critical times: do we go for it on 4th down? FG or punt? Do we call a TO? Clock management at the end of the first half and 4th qtr. That's on the HC.
Interesting article but missing a vital item or two. About 40 years ago, the NCAA was first sued by a couple schools regarding TV rights control resulting in the NCAA no longer having sole control regarding TV contracts for conferences and/or individual teams. This was, most likely, the first crack in the dam. Then recently came college players court ruling on use of likeness monetary value and then the NIL ruling. Like corporate America, to remain relevant, the big became bigger at the expense of the others who chose not to make that leap of faith. Value became the driving force. For instance, the Big 10 administration didn't disassemble the PAC 12 as it was UCLA, USC, Oregon, Washington, Stanford, and California who asked to become members of the B1G and not the B1G raiding the PAC 12. Acceptance into the B1G then was based on several items, to include but not limited to: academics (which all had) and value (TV revenue opportunity to match or exceed the membership outlay). The BIG and SEC both admitted that "conference disruption" is not over and to expect others to eventually join either conference at some later date (maybe a year or so later).
I don’t disagree, but this article was specifically focusing on things that were in Cal’s control
Yes, but it's accumulative. Please don't misinterprete that I was critical as it seems you laid out local issues quite well. Just an off the wall prediction I'd throw out as follows: In the next 10 years you'll see a breakaway of the 'super' conferences from the NCAA. Two possibly three conferences will be involved (SEC and B1G with an outside possibility of the B1g 12 joining in). Each will consist of 20 to 25 or so schools. Football will be within the conference with a national championship determined between a playoff system within the 2 or 3. Other sports, such as basketball, baseball, softball, volleyball, etc., will be divided in to intersectional regions (reduce travel distance, time away from classes, etc) that involved the 2 or 3 conferences. From the regions there would exist a nation playoff to determine a national championship. Any schools outside these conferences would have to fend for themselves. I hope this doesn't happen as it makes me sad, but ..
???
Liberalism helped kill the cal athletic program, Too! Ever heard the slogan “go woke, go broke!” Cal doesn’t operate the way other athletic programs operate. They reward people for being nice people (knowlton) and not results. This liberalism has been going on years. At usc, and ucla it is a strict working environment in their athletic departments. If you aren’t getting the job done your are let go. Cal doesn’t do that. They say “he is such a nice guy, and we want him to work here forever.” Businesses succeed by being fiscal and conservative. If cal would have adopted that attitude, they wouldn’t be in this financial mess!
https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/D4E22AQGaP5VSt1EDSg/feedshare-shrink_800/0/1681807032435?e=1695254400&v=beta&t=VocX4Rfl3LdQfVtRGY6lgc-yGe_SmS-Ja-v7-xT_mdY
In this case, "woke" is an accurate assessment. The chancellor is more focused on "world-class participatory and educational opportunities" than actual winning on the field
If you think that is a misplaced organizational decision, then say that and make your argument, rather than resorting to an increasingly meaningless pejorative that illuminates nothing.
Like, there is NOTHING woke about giving Jim Knowlton millions of dollars for being at best a mediocrity. To the extent that I understand what “woke” is anymore, the woke solution would’ve been to fire him into the Sun a year ago
As we should have done.
Agree. Not valuing sports has nothing to do with wokeness. Many non-woke taxpayers and faculty would prefer Cal become a public University of Chicago, and eliminate all athletic admissions. Their position is that if we must have sports, make them all D3.
You’re right but this brand of liberalism that borders on insanity also exists at UCLA and USC to an extent. A big part of the PAC-12’s demise was the conference’s handling of COVID. They didn’t take financial responsibility into consideration. A full year worth of lost revenue can be devastating for any business. In the case of sports, it created new fan habits on top of operating in the red. Many current PAC-12 schools are financially strapped. It’s a perfect case study of how liberalism and woke ideology can destroy a century plus old institution.
I think I would add the constant blackballing of institutions we thought weren’t an academic or cultural fit in the face of potential expansion. That wasn’t entirely in our control, but together with Stanford we played a huge role.
The reality is that Cal has a recruiting problem when they bring recruits to campus. It lacks diversity. Look, football and basketball players want to get to the NFL and NBA. What do those players look like? They want to see women who look like them. When they visit campus, they do clearly not. Also, Cal is a bargain basement program. I had a basketball player tell me how he had to turn in his worn-out shoes to get a new pair. Many schools just give you what you want. It's a shame that being in Pullman Washington or Oxford, Mississippi is better than Berkeley. Also, Cal has always had the impression that its Nobel prize winners and academic reputation ae more important than football and basketball. Face it, Cal has a recruiting problem. NIL helps but only so much. The better players want to play where they will be groomed for the pros. The Pac12 fell behind. Cal and Stanford for good or bad have great reputations but please, for Black students their Cal or Stanford degree will be look with an asterisk that they were at those schools because they were not "qualified" and a special admit and not worthy of the degree and they are not treated well.
How about instead of what you're proposing, lets make the football and basketball teams look more like the rest of the students on campus
This is a hard pill for many to swallow!
I see places like Michigan and Texas who seem to have a good balance of quality academics and great athletic programs. Can we become that successful, in part or in full?
What do people view as the solution(s) to getting Cal back on track in athletics? Is it as simple as hiring a new AD? An increase in the budget to athletics? Identify anyone in the administration who is opposed to athletics and show them the door?
We have a passionate and smart fan base. Wondering if we can identify solutions and then start pushing those solutions forward in order to improve Cal athletics?
Dykes was, is, always will be a 2-faced tool, good riddance.
F that guy.
Nick-would love to hear your analysis/research around why football players aren’t allowed into MBA program at Cal. There’s a story there and it’s not all about the academics. This also impacts recruiting.
It doesn’t necessarily impact recruiting as much as it does retention of players who’ve graduated and still have a year or so of eligibility. Graduate admissions are a whole other animal in the Cal academia sphere that shows no favoritism to current students let alone student athletes. There have been somewhat recent grad transfers who came to Cal and weee “admitted” into certain grad programs they never finished. The most famous being Davis Webb who was on campus for one academic semester to play football while enrolled in a two grad program (MPH). So it does not surprise me that grad programs are gun shy in admitting athletes who have a higher percentage than most in not finishing their program.
its more than not favoring current students into grad programs. UC, like many other premier institutions, have a bias that students go somewhere else for graduate work. I know Carolina loves for its undergrads to attend its grad school, including for its competitive MBA program, but Cal and UCLA have the opposite philosophy and always have.
Be fruitful and multiply; cast your seeds to the wind.
Exactly, or as teh Dean said when I was applying to grad school, "look, you have already taken 3 of our 1st year grad courses, so its time to go learn from someone else."
In the new world of recruiting where transfer portal players are key, this is an issue…there’s more to the story…
Top business schools (like Haas) prefer students who have work experience rather than direct-from-undergrad students.
Additionally, masters programs are the cash cows of the modern university (across the nation). Giving preference to athletes takes away a massive source of external revenue for the school.
Over the past few years, the challenge of graduate opportunities for Cal athletes has started being addressed through 1-year certificate programs. I believe it started with an entrepreneurship program but has now expanded to many other opportunities. I'd love to see the full listing but haven't come across it yet.
A sixth disastrous Cal decision was to not be proactively and actively engaged in conference decision making and negotiation, and direction, supervision and review of the commissioner and other top level executives, instead just relying on the commissioners office to serve there best interests without doing anything to deliver that. That is a disastrous decision shared across the conference.