this week in b.ear schadenfreude - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: this week in b.ear schadenfreude (/thread-4176.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: this week in b.ear schadenfreude (/thread-4176.html)
Re: this week in b.ear schadenfreude - jayasena - 11-05-2012
(11-05-2012, 10:26 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=6813.msg51422#msg51422 date=1352135551]
I don't think kal football has a "brand" that resonates to recruits
They don't have a brand period, unless not having a brand is a brand. [/quote]
They do have a brand. It's the team that played The Play. Your guess is as good as mine as to what that stands for...
Re: this week in b.ear schadenfreude - jayasena - 11-05-2012
(11-05-2012, 10:26 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:[quote author=FarmBoy link=topic=6813.msg51422#msg51422 date=1352135551]
I don't think kal football has a "brand" that resonates to recruits
They don't have a brand period, unless not having a brand is a brand. [/quote]
They do have a brand. It's the team that played The Play. Your guess is as good as mine as to what that stands for...
Re: this week in b.ear schadenfreude - Leftcoast - 11-05-2012
It's weird how this has worked out over the past 25 years.Â
Both programs are locked into a dynastic cycle relative to each other where one program's ascendancy is directly linked to the other program's decline. Big games are competitive during those brief transition years but otherwise one sided . (Bruce Snyder -> Walsh/Willingham -> Tedford -> Harbaugh/Shaw).
Naturally I'm hoping that our turn at the top will last forever or at least a very long time, the Roman Empire of dynastic cycles, but the evidence suggest otherwise. The Rhine will not hold, barbarians will appear in Palo Alto and we'll have to suffer through the Berkeley based Ostrogoths sitting on the Big Game throne along with the loss of all learning and civilization in the West until Stanford ascends again.Â
At least that's my story.
(And see Garvin, I really DO hate tea.)
Re: this week in b.ear schadenfreude - Leftcoast - 11-05-2012
It's weird how this has worked out over the past 25 years.Â
Both programs are locked into a dynastic cycle relative to each other where one program's ascendancy is directly linked to the other program's decline. Big games are competitive during those brief transition years but otherwise one sided . (Bruce Snyder -> Walsh/Willingham -> Tedford -> Harbaugh/Shaw).
Naturally I'm hoping that our turn at the top will last forever or at least a very long time, the Roman Empire of dynastic cycles, but the evidence suggest otherwise. The Rhine will not hold, barbarians will appear in Palo Alto and we'll have to suffer through the Berkeley based Ostrogoths sitting on the Big Game throne along with the loss of all learning and civilization in the West until Stanford ascends again.Â
At least that's my story.
(And see Garvin, I really DO hate tea.)
Re: this week in b.ear schadenfreude - OutsiderFan - 11-06-2012
Even if Stanford football should ever again plumb the depths of the PAC-12 standings, Stanford at least has a strong brand and knows what it wants the football program to be. California has no earthly clue. this is focused on football, but applies to the role of and standard for all athletic programs.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Stanford football: Is the school with the highest entrance requirements in the highest level of college football. It puts a premium on graduating players and there is no confusion that academics come before athletics. It's goal is to be among the best in the class room and on the field, and prepare its players for life after football.
Over in Berkeley: I can't begin to say what California wants its football team to be, but here is what it is: The number one public university, that takes pride in its academic reputation, but doesn't hold it's football program to any standard of performance. It treats football as a necessary evil, and holds the belief that if it wins too much it demonstrates the school has the wrong priorities; Berkeley is the top public university, not a football factory. It isn't U.S.C. Nobody should expect California to win much. As long as we go to a bowl game, we're happy, but we understand we aren't a football factory so we might have a few down years and that's OK as long as Stanford isn't going to BCS games and winning too many Big Games, we graduate our players, and they don't embarrass us with off the field transgressions.
That's neither a brand or an identity that informs what the role of the program is or what is expected from it in terms of its performance. California cares so little that it even allows the academic performance of its football program to slip without consequences, and that has translated to no consequences on the team either, which IMO are a major factor in why the team is now 3-7, with one of those wins against an overmatched FCS school.
Re: this week in b.ear schadenfreude - OutsiderFan - 11-06-2012
Even if Stanford football should ever again plumb the depths of the PAC-12 standings, Stanford at least has a strong brand and knows what it wants the football program to be. California has no earthly clue. this is focused on football, but applies to the role of and standard for all athletic programs.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Stanford football: Is the school with the highest entrance requirements in the highest level of college football. It puts a premium on graduating players and there is no confusion that academics come before athletics. It's goal is to be among the best in the class room and on the field, and prepare its players for life after football.
Over in Berkeley: I can't begin to say what California wants its football team to be, but here is what it is: The number one public university, that takes pride in its academic reputation, but doesn't hold it's football program to any standard of performance. It treats football as a necessary evil, and holds the belief that if it wins too much it demonstrates the school has the wrong priorities; Berkeley is the top public university, not a football factory. It isn't U.S.C. Nobody should expect California to win much. As long as we go to a bowl game, we're happy, but we understand we aren't a football factory so we might have a few down years and that's OK as long as Stanford isn't going to BCS games and winning too many Big Games, we graduate our players, and they don't embarrass us with off the field transgressions.
That's neither a brand or an identity that informs what the role of the program is or what is expected from it in terms of its performance. California cares so little that it even allows the academic performance of its football program to slip without consequences, and that has translated to no consequences on the team either, which IMO are a major factor in why the team is now 3-7, with one of those wins against an overmatched FCS school.
Re: this week in b.ear schadenfreude - Kathy - 11-06-2012
(11-06-2012, 05:43 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Over in Berkeley: I can't begin to say what California wants its football team to be, but here is what it is: The number one public university, that takes pride in its academic reputation, but doesn't hold it's football program to any standard of performance. It treats football as a necessary evil, and holds the belief that if it wins too much it demonstrates the school has the wrong priorities; Berkeley is the top public university, not a football factory. It isn't U.S.C. Nobody should expect California to win much. As long as we go to a bowl game, we're happy, but we understand we aren't a football factory so we might have a few down years and that's OK as long as Stanford isn't going to BCS games and winning too many Big Games, we graduate our players, and they don't embarrass us with off the field transgressions.
Wrong, RE: The weenies "we graduate our players"
The University of California football program has the worst record in the Pac-12 for NCAA Graduation Success Rate (48%) and Federal Graduation Rate (47%), according to the most recent report for the entering class of 2005 that should have graduated within six years.
Institution       GSR FGR
Stanford University 90 87
University of Washington 74 67
University of Utah 66 60
University of Oregon 64 52
Arizona State University 63 48
University of Colorado, Boulder 63 51
University of California, Los Angeles 62 51
Oregon State University 60 54
University of Southern California 57 48
University of Arizona 53 49
Washington State University 53 50
University of California, Berkeley 48 47
Re: this week in b.ear schadenfreude - Kathy - 11-06-2012
(11-06-2012, 05:43 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Over in Berkeley: I can't begin to say what California wants its football team to be, but here is what it is: The number one public university, that takes pride in its academic reputation, but doesn't hold it's football program to any standard of performance. It treats football as a necessary evil, and holds the belief that if it wins too much it demonstrates the school has the wrong priorities; Berkeley is the top public university, not a football factory. It isn't U.S.C. Nobody should expect California to win much. As long as we go to a bowl game, we're happy, but we understand we aren't a football factory so we might have a few down years and that's OK as long as Stanford isn't going to BCS games and winning too many Big Games, we graduate our players, and they don't embarrass us with off the field transgressions.
Wrong, RE: The weenies "we graduate our players"
The University of California football program has the worst record in the Pac-12 for NCAA Graduation Success Rate (48%) and Federal Graduation Rate (47%), according to the most recent report for the entering class of 2005 that should have graduated within six years.
Institution       GSR FGR
Stanford University 90 87
University of Washington 74 67
University of Utah 66 60
University of Oregon 64 52
Arizona State University 63 48
University of Colorado, Boulder 63 51
University of California, Los Angeles 62 51
Oregon State University 60 54
University of Southern California 57 48
University of Arizona 53 49
Washington State University 53 50
University of California, Berkeley 48 47
Re: this week in b.ear schadenfreude - OutsiderFan - 11-06-2012
Kathy,
You are making my point. Graduating its players is suppose to be one of the things California aims to do. The fact they allow this terrible graduation rate to happen is proof positive how little the institution prioritizes its football team's performance.
It would be one thing if California football players were taking rigorous majors and not graduating, but the reality is most football players are in very easy majors. Given all the assistance football players can receive, it's hard not to matriculate if you just go to class.Â
Stanford has never fallen on its academic sword for football. The team performance on the field may falter, but the academic performance is always strong. That's a function of Stanford having an institutional standard for its football team in terms of how it fits into the university. California people say UC values the same things Stanford does, but it clearly has not laid down the gauntlet and made sure the football team is held to a similar standard. That demonstrates institutional indifference to football. So even while Stanford struggled to a 1-10 season, its struggles were limited to the football field. With California, its struggles are both on the field and in the class room.
Don't confuse low graduation rates with not valuing them. California just doesn't care enough for its football program to make sure it performs academically. It's far easier to just replace another failing head coach than actually define a vision for the sport that gives the program the chance for success that very few in the California leadership structure really want anyway.
Re: this week in b.ear schadenfreude - OutsiderFan - 11-06-2012
Kathy,
You are making my point. Graduating its players is suppose to be one of the things California aims to do. The fact they allow this terrible graduation rate to happen is proof positive how little the institution prioritizes its football team's performance.
It would be one thing if California football players were taking rigorous majors and not graduating, but the reality is most football players are in very easy majors. Given all the assistance football players can receive, it's hard not to matriculate if you just go to class.Â
Stanford has never fallen on its academic sword for football. The team performance on the field may falter, but the academic performance is always strong. That's a function of Stanford having an institutional standard for its football team in terms of how it fits into the university. California people say UC values the same things Stanford does, but it clearly has not laid down the gauntlet and made sure the football team is held to a similar standard. That demonstrates institutional indifference to football. So even while Stanford struggled to a 1-10 season, its struggles were limited to the football field. With California, its struggles are both on the field and in the class room.
Don't confuse low graduation rates with not valuing them. California just doesn't care enough for its football program to make sure it performs academically. It's far easier to just replace another failing head coach than actually define a vision for the sport that gives the program the chance for success that very few in the California leadership structure really want anyway.
Re: this week in b.ear schadenfreude - OutsiderFan - 11-06-2012
Kathy,
You are making my point. Graduating its players is suppose to be one of the things California aims to do. The fact they allow this terrible graduation rate to happen is proof positive how little the institution prioritizes its football team's performance.
It would be one thing if California football players were taking rigorous majors and not graduating, but the reality is most football players are in very easy majors. Given all the assistance football players can receive, it's hard not to matriculate if you just go to class.Â
Stanford has never fallen on its academic sword for football. The team performance on the field may falter, but the academic performance is always strong. That's a function of Stanford having an institutional standard for its football team in terms of how it fits into the university. California people say UC values the same things Stanford does, but it clearly has not laid down the gauntlet and made sure the football team is held to a similar standard. That demonstrates institutional indifference to football. So even while Stanford struggled to a 1-10 season, its struggles were limited to the football field. With California, its struggles are both on the field and in the class room.
Don't confuse low graduation rates with not valuing them. California just doesn't care enough for its football program to make sure it performs academically. It's far easier to just replace another failing head coach than actually define a vision for the sport that gives the program the chance for success that very few in the California leadership structure really want anyway.
Re: this week in b.ear schadenfreude I just posted this - JohnOlenchalk - 11-07-2012
on the kal open board, under the heading "kal team picture after Utah" let's see how long it stays up- it's a pic of a dead bear LMAO...you PETA people won't like it...
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=166&f=1419&t=10441750
[attachment deleted by admin]
Re: this week in b.ear schadenfreude I just posted this - JohnOlenchalk - 11-07-2012
on the kal open board, under the heading "kal team picture after Utah" let's see how long it stays up- it's a pic of a dead bear LMAO...you PETA people won't like it...
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=166&f=1419&t=10441750
[attachment deleted by admin]
Re: this week in b.ear schadenfreude - fullmetal - 11-07-2012
How hot is the fire that kal fans are lighting under Ted.ford's seat?
Re: this week in b.ear schadenfreude - fullmetal - 11-07-2012
How hot is the fire that kal fans are lighting under Ted.ford's seat?
Re: this week in b.ear schadenfreude - JohnOlenchalk - 11-07-2012
I heard it's a $6.2M buy out, and money talks, b.s. walks, from what I'm hearing from kal major donors, nobody's going to step up and write the check. I think they are stuck with him, especially after blowing their gigantic stadium budget...
Re: this week in b.ear schadenfreude - JohnOlenchalk - 11-07-2012
I heard it's a $6.2M buy out, and money talks, b.s. walks, from what I'm hearing from kal major donors, nobody's going to step up and write the check. I think they are stuck with him, especially after blowing their gigantic stadium budget...
Re: this week in b.ear schadenfreude - yvonne - 11-07-2012
There is no buyout. Hence, Cal would be on the line for his contract, minus the difference of whatever his next job would pay during the period the contract is in force. He would be required to make a good faith effort to find a new job.
Paying that salary for three years is the problem.
Re: this week in b.ear schadenfreude - yvonne - 11-07-2012
There is no buyout. Hence, Cal would be on the line for his contract, minus the difference of whatever his next job would pay during the period the contract is in force. He would be required to make a good faith effort to find a new job.
Paying that salary for three years is the problem.
Re: this week in b.ear schadenfreude - JohnOlenchalk - 11-07-2012
Do you dispute the $6.2M figure I've been told is the amount it takes for him to be kicked loose?Â
What is your understanding of the amount and mechanics for his removal? I really don't care, because I want him to stay, but you seem to have some knowledge of the situation, whaddaya got?