[Farm93]

I wish Stanford had their offense.

Definitely no thanks to that one.

UCB's O still has a multi-year problem scoring against good defenses. 
UCB's O features a style that leaves them competing with dozens of other programs for the very type of athletes that Stanford struggles to land even in the best of times.
UCB's O often goes three and out and does it QUICKLY - that exposes their lack of depth on D.
UCB's O is incapable of simply running out the clock in the fourth quarter, so even multiple TD leads are not safe.

And most importantly, UCB's style leads to 4+ hour games.  Pac-12 AFTER DARK gets dangerously close to Pac-12 after midnight when UCB is part of those 7:30PM kicks. 

Stanford fans that grumble about 7:30PM games ending at 10:30PM have no idea how good they have it because ASU, WSU, UofA and UCB fans are routinely watching home games drift to 11:30PM. 

[Farm93]

I wish Stanford had their offense.

Definitely no thanks to that one.

UCB's O still has a multi-year problem scoring against good defenses. 
UCB's O features a style that leaves them competing with dozens of other programs for the very type of athletes that Stanford struggles to land even in the best of times.
UCB's O often goes three and out and does it QUICKLY - that exposes their lack of depth on D.
UCB's O is incapable of simply running out the clock in the fourth quarter, so even multiple TD leads are not safe.

And most importantly, UCB's style leads to 4+ hour games.  Pac-12 AFTER DARK gets dangerously close to Pac-12 after midnight when UCB is part of those 7:30PM kicks. 

Stanford fans that grumble about 7:30PM games ending at 10:30PM have no idea how good they have it because ASU, WSU, UofA and UCB fans are routinely watching home games drift to 11:30PM. 

[Farm93]

I wish Stanford had their offense.

Definitely no thanks to that one.

UCB's O still has a multi-year problem scoring against good defenses. 
UCB's O features a style that leaves them competing with dozens of other programs for the very type of athletes that Stanford struggles to land even in the best of times.
UCB's O often goes three and out and does it QUICKLY - that exposes their lack of depth on D.
UCB's O is incapable of simply running out the clock in the fourth quarter, so even multiple TD leads are not safe.

And most importantly, UCB's style leads to 4+ hour games.  Pac-12 AFTER DARK gets dangerously close to Pac-12 after midnight when UCB is part of those 7:30PM kicks. 

Stanford fans that grumble about 7:30PM games ending at 10:30PM have no idea how good they have it because ASU, WSU, UofA and UCB fans are routinely watching home games drift to 11:30PM. 

[Farm93]

I wish Stanford had their offense.

Definitely no thanks to that one.

UCB's O still has a multi-year problem scoring against good defenses. 
UCB's O features a style that leaves them competing with dozens of other programs for the very type of athletes that Stanford struggles to land even in the best of times.
UCB's O often goes three and out and does it QUICKLY - that exposes their lack of depth on D.
UCB's O is incapable of simply running out the clock in the fourth quarter, so even multiple TD leads are not safe.

And most importantly, UCB's style leads to 4+ hour games.  Pac-12 AFTER DARK gets dangerously close to Pac-12 after midnight when UCB is part of those 7:30PM kicks. 

Stanford fans that grumble about 7:30PM games ending at 10:30PM have no idea how good they have it because ASU, WSU, UofA and UCB fans are routinely watching home games drift to 11:30PM. 

[81alum]

Until UCB really focuses on generating a strong donor base for athletics, they will continue to run a large deficit.  It's amazing to me that weenie alums don't step up and back their school financially.  They outnumber us here in the Bay area by a large margin, but their giving history is pathetic.  There were actually Stanford alums who donated to keep UCB's baseball program alive. 

It's past time to start cutting programs.  That's the sad truth, but until the entitled bunch of weenies actually start reaching into their pockets to support their own program, they get what they deserve. 

Improving the academics of the UC system needs to be the priority.

Does Stanford publish its athletics finances anywhere?  It would be nice if we voluntarily complied with the disclosure that all public universities are required to provide (see the USA Today athletics database) so we could directly compare a few things.

C.al raised $22.6 million last year, which is more than double what they raised a decade earlier.  Their downfall is the exorbitant debt-service on their stadium, which contributes mightily to their extreme overhead of $23.7 million.  In other words, every dollar they raise has to be used just to pay the interest on their stadium debt. 

By comparison, UCLA raised $16.9 million, significantly less than C.al!  But their overhead was only $10.4 million.

C.al's problem is that stadium hanging around their neck like a one hundred yard wide millstone.  But this was known from the very beginning.  I think, cynically, that many knew that the half billion dollars they borrowed to make their stadium safe couldn't really be paid back using athletic funds, and so they simply made a false promise to do so, knowing that in time it would blow up and someone would bail them out.

[81alum]

Until UCB really focuses on generating a strong donor base for athletics, they will continue to run a large deficit.  It's amazing to me that weenie alums don't step up and back their school financially.  They outnumber us here in the Bay area by a large margin, but their giving history is pathetic.  There were actually Stanford alums who donated to keep UCB's baseball program alive. 

It's past time to start cutting programs.  That's the sad truth, but until the entitled bunch of weenies actually start reaching into their pockets to support their own program, they get what they deserve. 

Improving the academics of the UC system needs to be the priority.

Does Stanford publish its athletics finances anywhere?  It would be nice if we voluntarily complied with the disclosure that all public universities are required to provide (see the USA Today athletics database) so we could directly compare a few things.

C.al raised $22.6 million last year, which is more than double what they raised a decade earlier.  Their downfall is the exorbitant debt-service on their stadium, which contributes mightily to their extreme overhead of $23.7 million.  In other words, every dollar they raise has to be used just to pay the interest on their stadium debt. 

By comparison, UCLA raised $16.9 million, significantly less than C.al!  But their overhead was only $10.4 million.

C.al's problem is that stadium hanging around their neck like a one hundred yard wide millstone.  But this was known from the very beginning.  I think, cynically, that many knew that the half billion dollars they borrowed to make their stadium safe couldn't really be paid back using athletic funds, and so they simply made a false promise to do so, knowing that in time it would blow up and someone would bail them out.

[81alum]

Until UCB really focuses on generating a strong donor base for athletics, they will continue to run a large deficit.  It's amazing to me that weenie alums don't step up and back their school financially.  They outnumber us here in the Bay area by a large margin, but their giving history is pathetic.  There were actually Stanford alums who donated to keep UCB's baseball program alive. 

It's past time to start cutting programs.  That's the sad truth, but until the entitled bunch of weenies actually start reaching into their pockets to support their own program, they get what they deserve. 

Improving the academics of the UC system needs to be the priority.

Does Stanford publish its athletics finances anywhere?  It would be nice if we voluntarily complied with the disclosure that all public universities are required to provide (see the USA Today athletics database) so we could directly compare a few things.

C.al raised $22.6 million last year, which is more than double what they raised a decade earlier.  Their downfall is the exorbitant debt-service on their stadium, which contributes mightily to their extreme overhead of $23.7 million.  In other words, every dollar they raise has to be used just to pay the interest on their stadium debt. 

By comparison, UCLA raised $16.9 million, significantly less than C.al!  But their overhead was only $10.4 million.

C.al's problem is that stadium hanging around their neck like a one hundred yard wide millstone.  But this was known from the very beginning.  I think, cynically, that many knew that the half billion dollars they borrowed to make their stadium safe couldn't really be paid back using athletic funds, and so they simply made a false promise to do so, knowing that in time it would blow up and someone would bail them out.

[81alum]

Until UCB really focuses on generating a strong donor base for athletics, they will continue to run a large deficit.  It's amazing to me that weenie alums don't step up and back their school financially.  They outnumber us here in the Bay area by a large margin, but their giving history is pathetic.  There were actually Stanford alums who donated to keep UCB's baseball program alive. 

It's past time to start cutting programs.  That's the sad truth, but until the entitled bunch of weenies actually start reaching into their pockets to support their own program, they get what they deserve. 

Improving the academics of the UC system needs to be the priority.

Does Stanford publish its athletics finances anywhere?  It would be nice if we voluntarily complied with the disclosure that all public universities are required to provide (see the USA Today athletics database) so we could directly compare a few things.

C.al raised $22.6 million last year, which is more than double what they raised a decade earlier.  Their downfall is the exorbitant debt-service on their stadium, which contributes mightily to their extreme overhead of $23.7 million.  In other words, every dollar they raise has to be used just to pay the interest on their stadium debt. 

By comparison, UCLA raised $16.9 million, significantly less than C.al!  But their overhead was only $10.4 million.

C.al's problem is that stadium hanging around their neck like a one hundred yard wide millstone.  But this was known from the very beginning.  I think, cynically, that many knew that the half billion dollars they borrowed to make their stadium safe couldn't really be paid back using athletic funds, and so they simply made a false promise to do so, knowing that in time it would blow up and someone would bail them out.

[82lsju]

Does Stanford publish its athletics finances anywhere?  It would be nice if we voluntarily complied with the disclosure that all public universities are required to provide (see the USA Today athletics database) so we could directly compare a few things.

sort of, the link below gives the revenue side of the AD, total $116.5 million for 2014-2015

http://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/pd...report.pdf

and here's a link to the discussion of the 2013-14 version of the report

http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?topic=12160.0

[82lsju]

Does Stanford publish its athletics finances anywhere?  It would be nice if we voluntarily complied with the disclosure that all public universities are required to provide (see the USA Today athletics database) so we could directly compare a few things.

sort of, the link below gives the revenue side of the AD, total $116.5 million for 2014-2015

http://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/pd...report.pdf

and here's a link to the discussion of the 2013-14 version of the report

http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?topic=12160.0

[82lsju]

Does Stanford publish its athletics finances anywhere?  It would be nice if we voluntarily complied with the disclosure that all public universities are required to provide (see the USA Today athletics database) so we could directly compare a few things.

sort of, the link below gives the revenue side of the AD, total $116.5 million for 2014-2015

http://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/pd...report.pdf

and here's a link to the discussion of the 2013-14 version of the report

http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?topic=12160.0

[82lsju]

Does Stanford publish its athletics finances anywhere?  It would be nice if we voluntarily complied with the disclosure that all public universities are required to provide (see the USA Today athletics database) so we could directly compare a few things.

sort of, the link below gives the revenue side of the AD, total $116.5 million for 2014-2015

http://stanford_ftp.sidearmsports.com/pd...report.pdf

and here's a link to the discussion of the 2013-14 version of the report

http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?topic=12160.0

[Redrum]

(Do you like how I managed to sneak Hitler into the discussion?)  That's OK. We all hate Hitler and we all hate Kal.

But going back to the run-up to the renovation the financial delusion was palpable and reasonable people within the Kal community and outside were vocal skeptics.  The financial underpinnings, IIRC, were based on three main things to make the plan "viable" (in quotes because associating the common meaning of "viable" was a stretch).  Those were:
-- Projections of greatly increased athletic donor support.  Even Kal people were saying at the time they had pulled the desired increase projection out of an orifice located half way down/up the human body.  They seemed to be dialing the amount of increased projected giving to match the needs of the financial package.
-- A massive re-fi at some point.  I'm not sophisticated enough to know how the mechanics of this works.  Overall interest rates are lower now than when Kal's plan was put together, but how much that affects the overall burden on Kal going forward I don't know.  It's possible that financial types that know how it works might not offer the refi rates needed to make the debt relief that meaningful.
-- Sponsorship rights to the stadium sold. Kabam!! Done. Well, the expanse of the actual playing field is Kabam field. But you knew that already. It was right on the tip of your tongue.  But there's nothing on the scale of Century Link Field, FedEx Field, or Edward Jones Dome.  But it's $18 million that they didn't have before...but spread out over 15 years.  Suddenly it looks less significant in making their  $23.7 million dollar annual costs and debt service.

[Redrum]

(Do you like how I managed to sneak Hitler into the discussion?)  That's OK. We all hate Hitler and we all hate Kal.

But going back to the run-up to the renovation the financial delusion was palpable and reasonable people within the Kal community and outside were vocal skeptics.  The financial underpinnings, IIRC, were based on three main things to make the plan "viable" (in quotes because associating the common meaning of "viable" was a stretch).  Those were:
-- Projections of greatly increased athletic donor support.  Even Kal people were saying at the time they had pulled the desired increase projection out of an orifice located half way down/up the human body.  They seemed to be dialing the amount of increased projected giving to match the needs of the financial package.
-- A massive re-fi at some point.  I'm not sophisticated enough to know how the mechanics of this works.  Overall interest rates are lower now than when Kal's plan was put together, but how much that affects the overall burden on Kal going forward I don't know.  It's possible that financial types that know how it works might not offer the refi rates needed to make the debt relief that meaningful.
-- Sponsorship rights to the stadium sold. Kabam!! Done. Well, the expanse of the actual playing field is Kabam field. But you knew that already. It was right on the tip of your tongue.  But there's nothing on the scale of Century Link Field, FedEx Field, or Edward Jones Dome.  But it's $18 million that they didn't have before...but spread out over 15 years.  Suddenly it looks less significant in making their  $23.7 million dollar annual costs and debt service.

[Phogge]

[quote author=Phogge link=topic=15854.msg174796#msg174796 date=1475700417]
I wish Stanford had their offense.

Definitely no thanks to that one.

UCB's O still has a multi-year problem scoring against good defenses. 
UCB's O features a style that leaves them competing with dozens of other programs for the very type of athletes that Stanford struggles to land even in the best of times.
UCB's O often goes three and out and does it QUICKLY - that exposes their lack of depth on D.
UCB's O is incapable of simply running out the clock in the fourth quarter, so even multiple TD leads are not safe.

And most importantly, UCB's style leads to 4+ hour games.  Pac-12 AFTER DARK gets dangerously close to Pac-12 after midnight when UCB is part of those 7:30PM kicks. 

Stanford fans that grumble about 7:30PM games ending at 10:30PM have no idea how good they have it because ASU, WSU, UofA and UCB fans are routinely watching home games drift to 11:30PM.



Well, you assume Cal's D which I didn't. Also you assume multi year stats, I didn't. THIS year only. NOT boring, productive, exciting. Not stagnant, not boring like Stanford so far. Plus they moved the ball throughout on a good D, Utah.
[/quote]

[Phogge]

[quote author=Phogge link=topic=15854.msg174796#msg174796 date=1475700417]
I wish Stanford had their offense.

Definitely no thanks to that one.

UCB's O still has a multi-year problem scoring against good defenses. 
UCB's O features a style that leaves them competing with dozens of other programs for the very type of athletes that Stanford struggles to land even in the best of times.
UCB's O often goes three and out and does it QUICKLY - that exposes their lack of depth on D.
UCB's O is incapable of simply running out the clock in the fourth quarter, so even multiple TD leads are not safe.

And most importantly, UCB's style leads to 4+ hour games.  Pac-12 AFTER DARK gets dangerously close to Pac-12 after midnight when UCB is part of those 7:30PM kicks. 

Stanford fans that grumble about 7:30PM games ending at 10:30PM have no idea how good they have it because ASU, WSU, UofA and UCB fans are routinely watching home games drift to 11:30PM.



Well, you assume Cal's D which I didn't. Also you assume multi year stats, I didn't. THIS year only. NOT boring, productive, exciting. Not stagnant, not boring like Stanford so far. Plus they moved the ball throughout on a good D, Utah.
[/quote]

[CTcard]

Plus they moved the ball throughout on a good D, Utah.

So far, it is not entirely clear whether Utah has a good D this year.

They have only played two teams with an offensive pulse, $C and ןɐɔ.
$C managed 7.9 yards per play against Utah
ןɐɔ managed 7.4 yards per play against Utah
Those are [very big] numbers.

For comparison, Stanford held even UW to 6.8 yards per play ($C to 5.8 ).
Those numbers allowed by Utah are well above the average yards per play of anyone in the conference.
For both ןɐɔ and $C those numbers were their best yards per play versus anyone they have played this season, including their puffball opponents.

[CTcard]

Plus they moved the ball throughout on a good D, Utah.

So far, it is not entirely clear whether Utah has a good D this year.

They have only played two teams with an offensive pulse, $C and ןɐɔ.
$C managed 7.9 yards per play against Utah
ןɐɔ managed 7.4 yards per play against Utah
Those are [very big] numbers.

For comparison, Stanford held even UW to 6.8 yards per play ($C to 5.8 ).
Those numbers allowed by Utah are well above the average yards per play of anyone in the conference.
For both ןɐɔ and $C those numbers were their best yards per play versus anyone they have played this season, including their puffball opponents.

[Farm93]

The problem with UCB's O is that it creates a bad D.  Oregon was noteworthy because their D managed to thrive despite staying on the field most of the game.

UCB's D is not that lucky because the O is not as good and the D is not as deep.  When the D is out there they are getting pushed around, and then when the O sputters they are right back out there to struggle some more.  A slower moving O, see Stanford, would really help their D. 

Simply a UCB style O creates a bad D.  No way Stanford 2015 survives with only a few DLs with the UCB O scheme.

That's not really the critical reason for the no thanks comment though.  UCB O still struggles for long stretches against quality teams.  And it is fueled by a QB that is already more worried about the NFL draft than winning at UCB.

[Farm93]

The problem with UCB's O is that it creates a bad D.  Oregon was noteworthy because their D managed to thrive despite staying on the field most of the game.

UCB's D is not that lucky because the O is not as good and the D is not as deep.  When the D is out there they are getting pushed around, and then when the O sputters they are right back out there to struggle some more.  A slower moving O, see Stanford, would really help their D. 

Simply a UCB style O creates a bad D.  No way Stanford 2015 survives with only a few DLs with the UCB O scheme.

That's not really the critical reason for the no thanks comment though.  UCB O still struggles for long stretches against quality teams.  And it is fueled by a QB that is already more worried about the NFL draft than winning at UCB.