[OutsiderFan]

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.

The School near Oakland 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.

Yvonne, Lupoi leaving isn't the reason, it is both another example of and a metaphor for why California is in the situation it is in.  If the school or alums cared about winning 50 years ago, the stadium might have been re-done years ago.  It could have been easily funded by donors.  The Lupoi situation is just one in a long list of symptoms of a much greater disease.  Had California kept Lupoi and cashiered Tedsel, the program would have some life breathed in to it.  If it ever got a coach who could perform, and held him accountable for performing, donations would increase and more ESP commitments would happen.

Here's something to ponder.  Stanford razed its own historic stadium and built a new one in an attempt to make the football program stronger.  The objective was to get it done ASAP, and efficiently.  At California, the CMS project is more about having a project to work on than it is about having a winning football team.  Someone above cited the proof.

The fact is 70% of the project cost went to retrofitting because the CMS renovation was more about being a cool engineering project than being a pragmatic and responsible expenditure.  It wasn't planned to be funded by taxpayers, but UC never put measures in place and held people accountable to make sure it never could become a tax payer liability. 

Another reality.  California's donor class and school brass were more concerned about "preserving the old CMS" because it was a memorial to WW1 vets than about being economically prudent.  The stadium should have been razed (I have to think there are ways to raze historical landmarks) and a new one built. Instead, UC decided to pay extra to maintain the old facade build on top of a strike-slip fault line (that will never stop moving and tearing the stadium apart.  It's sheer lunacy to do what UC allowed to happen.  They could have built a new stadium where Edwards Track Stadium is.  They could have built near Golden Gate Fields.  There were other options, all with drawbacks, but none that would be so costly.  Not one of the reasons had anything to do with improving the football program, because the primary goal is not to improve the football program.  Until California realizes that having the football program succeed is the objective, it never will.

[OutsiderFan]

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.

The School near Oakland 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.

Yvonne, Lupoi leaving isn't the reason, it is both another example of and a metaphor for why California is in the situation it is in.  If the school or alums cared about winning 50 years ago, the stadium might have been re-done years ago.  It could have been easily funded by donors.  The Lupoi situation is just one in a long list of symptoms of a much greater disease.  Had California kept Lupoi and cashiered Tedsel, the program would have some life breathed in to it.  If it ever got a coach who could perform, and held him accountable for performing, donations would increase and more ESP commitments would happen.

Here's something to ponder.  Stanford razed its own historic stadium and built a new one in an attempt to make the football program stronger.  The objective was to get it done ASAP, and efficiently.  At California, the CMS project is more about having a project to work on than it is about having a winning football team.  Someone above cited the proof.

The fact is 70% of the project cost went to retrofitting because the CMS renovation was more about being a cool engineering project than being a pragmatic and responsible expenditure.  It wasn't planned to be funded by taxpayers, but UC never put measures in place and held people accountable to make sure it never could become a tax payer liability. 

Another reality.  California's donor class and school brass were more concerned about "preserving the old CMS" because it was a memorial to WW1 vets than about being economically prudent.  The stadium should have been razed (I have to think there are ways to raze historical landmarks) and a new one built. Instead, UC decided to pay extra to maintain the old facade build on top of a strike-slip fault line (that will never stop moving and tearing the stadium apart.  It's sheer lunacy to do what UC allowed to happen.  They could have built a new stadium where Edwards Track Stadium is.  They could have built near Golden Gate Fields.  There were other options, all with drawbacks, but none that would be so costly.  Not one of the reasons had anything to do with improving the football program, because the primary goal is not to improve the football program.  Until California realizes that having the football program succeed is the objective, it never will.