04-18-2012, 09:22 AM
The article does point out that 70 percent of the costs were for seismic upgrade. That couldn't have been cheap for a stadium that sits atop an active fault.
I fail to see the strong correlation you're tying between "every California citizen," and losing Lupoi, OutsiderFan. Sure, he was a great recruiter, but a lot of that stemmed from being able to be a pal with the kids. That would seem a little strange five years from now. I guess that you're trying to say that because he pulled in good recruits, the team would be more likely to win, and the wins would translate into enough ticket buyers to pay for the stadium. Pinning all that on an assistant coach seems a bit far-fetched. Moreover, no matter how good the players are, the players have to be coached to produce. Looking at the number of former 59ers in the pros, it appears the UC-B has had plenty of talent, but having those players has not resulted in championships. So, I really can't see how you're tying an ill-financed stadium to the loss of a single coach.
Cal had to build a stadium to keep up with the arms race in football. They facilities they had were decrepit. Now, every Pac-12 team except Colorado and SC will have a stadium that has been upgraded in the last 10-15 years. Most, including Stanford, will have upgrades to other football facilities. (An Arrillaga Center upgrade has been approved.) The 59ers had to upgrade. The problem is in the scope and the financial planning around financing it.
I fail to see the strong correlation you're tying between "every California citizen," and losing Lupoi, OutsiderFan. Sure, he was a great recruiter, but a lot of that stemmed from being able to be a pal with the kids. That would seem a little strange five years from now. I guess that you're trying to say that because he pulled in good recruits, the team would be more likely to win, and the wins would translate into enough ticket buyers to pay for the stadium. Pinning all that on an assistant coach seems a bit far-fetched. Moreover, no matter how good the players are, the players have to be coached to produce. Looking at the number of former 59ers in the pros, it appears the UC-B has had plenty of talent, but having those players has not resulted in championships. So, I really can't see how you're tying an ill-financed stadium to the loss of a single coach.
Cal had to build a stadium to keep up with the arms race in football. They facilities they had were decrepit. Now, every Pac-12 team except Colorado and SC will have a stadium that has been upgraded in the last 10-15 years. Most, including Stanford, will have upgrades to other football facilities. (An Arrillaga Center upgrade has been approved.) The 59ers had to upgrade. The problem is in the scope and the financial planning around financing it.