Andy and Rob are back to talk about the Mark Fox and Cal basketball story that dropped on The Athletic, Potential new apparel deals, Coaching Decisions, Kai Millner, the Future of the program and Athletics Department, and AD Knowlton.
It's telling what is being said by Fox and also what is not being said. For all the talk about this still being a rebuild, calls for patience and using the predecessors as an excuse, there's literally no talk of goals or expectation setting of any kind. Lots of we want to get better, but zero we want to achieve this by when from the coach, AD and chancellor. As any leader knows, you get nowhere if you're unable or unwilling to set goals. You're also covering your own ass.
It seems like the various revenue programs have some soul searching to do. What do they look like now? What does the future hold? What is the strategic plan?
Wondering how you think the university can continue to pay for its football program, given Cal's "brand," in the face of current financial forces being unleashed. Put another way, who pays for it? I know the answer to that question when you're talking about Stanford. Although I also don't know how long they can say to donors, "well, we're Stanford," and continue to have the football program that they have currently. I guess I wonder about financial sustainability of Cal football given that I don't see the faculty being willing to bail out Cal athletics on the assumption that there has to be a football program but it doesn't have to be better entertainment-which in the current context does mean being basically being able to compete within the Pac-12 conference. I guess I'm confused about how Cal Athletics pays its bills over the longterm.
I'm genuinely curious-do football programs have to sell tickets? Do they have to put "butts in the seats," like airlines or even like the academic side of universities do. I'm a faculty member, not in the state or UC system, but I just don't get how you pay your bills if you insist on having athletes at the top of the Pac-12 APR and competing like an "SC." Okay, I'm exaggerating but it's for a good cause-namely, an athletic department that, if it can't run in the black, is not solely just for alumni and maybe in the future, the wealthiest of alumni. If I'm a faculty member having to grit my teeth to have $ intended for academics go to fund athletics, because of vague ideas about "Cal," who is the "game day experience" for-by social class, for starters, if I'm at Berkeley. I love the fact that I can buy a ticket and sit practically anywhere I want to in Memorial Stadium, because attendance is so low. But that seems like a luxury that a public university with the social, political and economic demands on it like Cal, can't sustain.
Also, I would like to know-what percentage of football players does UCLA graduate? They're not Cal but they are a UC school.
Yeah, I really don't get the economics at all. I think they do actually care to some degree about getting butts in the seats for football, but on the cheap and wildly unsuccessfully. With basketball, I'm convinced they don't care if anyone comes. It's like they are using the program as a tax write-off. I don't know how that apathy can be sustainable in the near or long-term. What are we missing here?
I already forgot. Was it Harsin you guys mentioned in the prospective OC segment that had potential off field issues that might be a turnoff?
Yep
It's telling what is being said by Fox and also what is not being said. For all the talk about this still being a rebuild, calls for patience and using the predecessors as an excuse, there's literally no talk of goals or expectation setting of any kind. Lots of we want to get better, but zero we want to achieve this by when from the coach, AD and chancellor. As any leader knows, you get nowhere if you're unable or unwilling to set goals. You're also covering your own ass.
When you’re in year 4 but still call it a rebuild you should be embarrassed to even be saying that as a coach.
Yep. I noted the same elsewhere. He's keeping expectations firmly at the bottom still. Such an incredible lack of accountability.
It seems like the various revenue programs have some soul searching to do. What do they look like now? What does the future hold? What is the strategic plan?
Wondering how you think the university can continue to pay for its football program, given Cal's "brand," in the face of current financial forces being unleashed. Put another way, who pays for it? I know the answer to that question when you're talking about Stanford. Although I also don't know how long they can say to donors, "well, we're Stanford," and continue to have the football program that they have currently. I guess I wonder about financial sustainability of Cal football given that I don't see the faculty being willing to bail out Cal athletics on the assumption that there has to be a football program but it doesn't have to be better entertainment-which in the current context does mean being basically being able to compete within the Pac-12 conference. I guess I'm confused about how Cal Athletics pays its bills over the longterm.
You're confused? That's not the problem. The problem is that Knowlton is confused, lost like a little lamb headed for slaughter.
I'm genuinely curious-do football programs have to sell tickets? Do they have to put "butts in the seats," like airlines or even like the academic side of universities do. I'm a faculty member, not in the state or UC system, but I just don't get how you pay your bills if you insist on having athletes at the top of the Pac-12 APR and competing like an "SC." Okay, I'm exaggerating but it's for a good cause-namely, an athletic department that, if it can't run in the black, is not solely just for alumni and maybe in the future, the wealthiest of alumni. If I'm a faculty member having to grit my teeth to have $ intended for academics go to fund athletics, because of vague ideas about "Cal," who is the "game day experience" for-by social class, for starters, if I'm at Berkeley. I love the fact that I can buy a ticket and sit practically anywhere I want to in Memorial Stadium, because attendance is so low. But that seems like a luxury that a public university with the social, political and economic demands on it like Cal, can't sustain.
Also, I would like to know-what percentage of football players does UCLA graduate? They're not Cal but they are a UC school.
Yeah, I really don't get the economics at all. I think they do actually care to some degree about getting butts in the seats for football, but on the cheap and wildly unsuccessfully. With basketball, I'm convinced they don't care if anyone comes. It's like they are using the program as a tax write-off. I don't know how that apathy can be sustainable in the near or long-term. What are we missing here?
Nice!