How much does sticking with Cal matter to you? - 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: How much does sticking with Cal matter to you? (/thread-24304.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: How much does sticking with Cal matter to you? (/thread-24304.html)
Mudhead - Mudhead - 07-31-2023
P
(07-31-2023, 04:43 PM)chrisk Wrote:(07-31-2023, 07:46 AM)Mudhead Wrote: Cal is no more important to Stanford than many other West Coast schools . If we just talk about football, Norte Dame is more important than Cal.
USC, Oregon, UCLA and probably Washington are more significant athletic rivals to Stanford simply because beating them maters to people outside of a very tight geography in the Bay Area . The “Big ——- “ thing has felt manufactured over the last twenty years .
All things equal, it would be nice to be in the same conference with any of these schools but “nice” is not essential . Neither Cal nor Stanford nor any other school can afford to stay linked if that is a great economic cost.
If we do in fact get the opportunity to be part of the Big whatever, we should jump at it.
The alternative is Division 3 or Ivy League and that would be a of immense proportions cultural change , ie a retreat by Stanford from excellence at the highest level . It may come to that and we might be forced to go there out of dislike for the consequences of NIL, an open transfer portal and fear of “ big media” and the money it provides. But Stanford would be a different place then and not a better one. It would be a lesser of evils kind of move.
I hope that for now , Stanford is actively pursuing membership in the only major conference that appears to be open, the former Big 10.
Where do you get the impression that the Big 10 is open? The new commissioner has pretty well said the door is shut.
I have no inside information from Stanford, PAC 12 or Big 10 officials. We all know that the BIG whatever wants Norte Dame. Membership is not closed.
I believe that some of the Big 10 Presidents and some advertisers would like Stanford as part of that enlargement. The Presidents because they don’t want to be compared to the SEC as what they look down on as a lot of athletic programs that also have academic programs . Rather they want to be seen as academic institutions first with strong athletic programs second .
There has also been talk of creating a west coast pod which would have UCLA, USC, Stanford , Cal ( this assuages the presidents further) and Oregon and Washington. They could form a third division of West coast teams who played five games against each other and 3 against each of the other two divisions.
this is speculative to say the least. But if you believe the big time college sports world will boil down to two super conferences that’s about where BIG 10 goes with SEC expanding into ACC country.
Don’t know if that is right but I am pretty sure there are no other conference options for Stanford worth a plug. Thus my hope that Stanford works the opportunity hard and with only .Stanford on its mind.
I do have reason to believe that the BIG 10 and their TV sponsors have Stanford on the draft board. The latter needs for west coast time slots and does t want to leave the NorCal market open.
RE: How much does sticking with Cal matter to you? - Giants - 07-31-2023
It would be interesting to view the responses to this question through a generational lens. I suspect older posters have some sentimental attachments to the Big Game and younger posters don’t give a rats behind about it.
Speaking for myself, at one time, it was the biggest sporting event in the Bay Area every year. I looked forward to it annually with a great deal of anticipation. Once the league scheduled the game in October, I realized the end was near. Now, that end has arrived. It is no longer part of either school’s season ticket package, it no longer is an automatic sellout (those days of 90+K at Stanford and 76+K, including field bleachers, at Berkeley are a distant memory), it is no longer a great experience with unexpected off-field craziness. Nothing lasts forever. I’m glad I had a chance to see 50 of the games (1960-2009).
RE: Mudhead - 82lsju - 07-31-2023
(07-31-2023, 07:44 PM)Mudhead Wrote: I have no inside information from Stanford, PAC 12 or Big 10 officials. We all know that the BIG whatever wants Norte Dame. Membership is not closed.
I believe that some of the Big 10 Presidents and some advertisers would like Stanford as part of that enlargement. The Presidents because they don’t want to be compared to the SEC as what they look down on as a lot of athletic programs that also have academic programs . Rather they want to be seen as academic institutions first with strong athletic programs second .
There has also been talk of creating a west coast pod which would have UCLA, USC, Stanford , Cal ( this assuages the presidents further) and Oregon and Washington. They could form a third division of West coast teams who played five games against each other and 3 against each of the other two divisions.
this is speculative to say the least. But if you believe the big time college sports world will boil down to two super conferences that’s about where BIG 10 goes with SEC expanding into ACC country.
Don’t know if that is right but I am pretty sure there are no other conference options for Stanford worth a plug. Thus my hope that Stanford works the opportunity hard and with only .Stanford on its mind.
I do have reason to believe that the BIG 10 and their TV sponsors have Stanford on the draft board. The latter needs for west coast time slots and does t want to leave the NorCal market open.
this is the best case situation for us, a member of the "west coast division" of the Big 10. I would guess the Big 10 would like more 7pm PT TV inventory than UCLA and USC can provide.
There was an article on the Athletic about travel for Big 10 teams to play on the west coast.
Yes it is behind a paywall
https://theathletic.com/4696457/2023/07/20/penn-state-usc-ucla-big-ten/
The lift for teams without easy access to major airports (the example they discussed was Penn State) is not trivial. And while Big 10 teams would probably like west coast games their reluctance to schedule them as non-conference games leads at least me to believe that not all the teams will be all that eager to make the trips, especially if they get "Big 10 after dark" time slots
RE: How much does sticking with Cal matter to you? - calfan - 07-31-2023
(07-31-2023, 07:18 PM)Canalejas Wrote: OP, have you guys discussed this question over on any Bears forums? If so, can you provide a link? I'm curious.Yes, there are a few threads on BearInsider having discussed this over the past year (wow, can't believe that's how long this media nonsense has dragged out) but here's a fairly recent one that discusses Stanford/Cal + general Cal desirable outcomes:
https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/115522/1
I think a lot of Cal fans mirror you guys: ideally we can stick with you, but overall we have to put our survival first (best financial option being the B1G). I think there is also a general sentiment of sadless at the changing landscape of the game. Also, re: the diminishing value of the Big Game / generational perspectives: It still remains the most important football game on campus, and tons of kids show up for it at Cal despite not going to any other football games. Honestly, I think the underlying issue is that Stanford + Cal, as the universities have become more and more selective, have cultivated a student base that may be generally apathetic towards sports-- truthfully many of the friends I have at Cal do not care about athletics, and likewise many of my friends at Stanford are the same way. Just my 2 cents.
RE: How much does sticking with Cal matter to you? - Canalejas - 07-31-2023
(07-31-2023, 08:00 PM)Giants Wrote: It would be interesting to view the responses to this question through a generational lens. I suspect older posters have some sentimental attachments to the Big Game and younger posters don’t give a rats behind about it.
Speaking for myself, at one time, it was the biggest sporting event in the Bay Area every year. I looked forward to it annually with a great deal of anticipation. Once the league scheduled the game in October, I realized the end was near. Now, that end has arrived. It is no longer part of either school’s season ticket package, it no longer is an automatic sellout (those days of 90+K at Stanford and 76+K, including field bleachers, at Berkeley are a distant memory), it is no longer a great experience with unexpected off-field craziness. Nothing lasts forever. I’m glad I had a chance to see 50 of the games (1960-2009).
I like this idea of the generational lens.
I wonder if there might also be any differences based on where we grew up, and if we attended public high schools.
I went to a more than decent public high school in the LA suburbs during the late 90s. For most of my time there I was certain that I'd go to Cal. Maybe UCLA, but more than likely Cal. But then I got that early admit big envelope and I got to wear red instead of blue. But dozens of my friends and classmates did indeed go on to Berkeley and Westwood. So it was particularly easy for me to make a Big deal out of the rivalry.
Meanwhile, I found that some of my new friends on the Farm came in without any strong feelings about Cal, no ties to that other school at all. Because why would they? They were from other states and had mostly applied to private schools. Berkeley was never on their radar. The rivalry was just about some nearby school and they weren't into football anyway.
Has the profile of our admits changed at all over the decades? Are there fewer Californians? Or at least fewer that attended public high schools? Just a thought.
RE: How much does sticking with Cal matter to you? - Branner77 - 07-31-2023
(07-31-2023, 10:04 PM)Canalejas Wrote:(07-31-2023, 08:00 PM)Giants Wrote: It would be interesting to view the responses to this question through a generational lens. I suspect older posters have some sentimental attachments to the Big Game and younger posters don’t give a rats behind about it.
Speaking for myself, at one time, it was the biggest sporting event in the Bay Area every year. I looked forward to it annually with a great deal of anticipation. Once the league scheduled the game in October, I realized the end was near. Now, that end has arrived. It is no longer part of either school’s season ticket package, it no longer is an automatic sellout (those days of 90+K at Stanford and 76+K, including field bleachers, at Berkeley are a distant memory), it is no longer a great experience with unexpected off-field craziness. Nothing lasts forever. I’m glad I had a chance to see 50 of the games (1960-2009).
I like this idea of the generational lens.
I wonder if there might also be any differences based on where we grew up, and if we attended public high schools.
I went to a more than decent public high school in the LA suburbs during the late 90s. For most of my time there I was certain that I'd go to Cal. Maybe UCLA, but more than likely Cal. But then I got that early admit big envelope and I got to wear red instead of blue. But dozens of my friends and classmates did indeed go on to Berkeley and Westwood. So it was particularly easy for me to make a Big deal out of the rivalry.
Meanwhile, I found that some of my new friends on the Farm came in without any strong feelings about Cal, no ties to that other school at all. Because why would they? They were from other states and had mostly applied to private schools. Berkeley was never on their radar. The rivalry was just about some nearby school and they weren't into football anyway.
Has the profile of our admits changed at all over the decades? Are there fewer Californians? Or at least fewer that attended public high schools? Just a thought.
In the 1960s-80s (which I think covers most CardBoard readers), the LSJU undergrads were at least ~ half Californians. It's fallen to a little over a third. And international students, negligible back then, are now 12% of the students. One out of eight. I doubt they know or care much about the Axe. But I'm guessing most of them pay full tuition without any financial aid. So LSJU likes that!
RE: How much does sticking with Cal matter to you? - Canalejas - 07-31-2023
(07-31-2023, 08:23 PM)calfan Wrote:(07-31-2023, 07:18 PM)Canalejas Wrote: OP, have you guys discussed this question over on any Bears forums? If so, can you provide a link? I'm curious.Yes, there are a few threads on BearInsider having discussed this over the past year (wow, can't believe that's how long this media nonsense has dragged out) but here's a fairly recent one that discusses Stanford/Cal + general Cal desirable outcomes:
https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/115522/1
I think a lot of Cal fans mirror you guys: ideally we can stick with you, but overall we have to put our survival first (best financial option being the B1G). I think there is also a general sentiment of sadless at the changing landscape of the game. Also, re: the diminishing value of the Big Game / generational perspectives: It still remains the most important football game on campus, and tons of kids show up for it at Cal despite not going to any other football games. Honestly, I think the underlying issue is that Stanford + Cal, as the universities have become more and more selective, have cultivated a student base that may be generally apathetic towards sports-- truthfully many of the friends I have at Cal do not care about athletics, and likewise many of my friends at Stanford are the same way. Just my 2 cents.
Thanks for sharing. I've spent the last 13 months talking up both Stanford and Cal on r/cfb and this is the first time I've peeked at how the Bears feel about us.
RE: How much does sticking with Cal matter to you? - BillBradley - 07-31-2023
(07-31-2023, 10:04 PM)Canalejas Wrote: Meanwhile, I found that some of my new friends on the Farm came in without any strong feelings about Cal, no ties to that other school at all. Because why would they? They were from other states and had mostly applied to private schools. Berkeley was never on their radar. The rivalry was just about some nearby school and they weren't into football anyway.Anecdotally, I think the profile has really changed. In my different Stanford residences in the 80's, I was surrounded by many great athletes who weren't rostered on a Stanford team - they were just regular students. All-state quarterbacks/receivers, basketball players, baseball players...they were everywhere. A-League intramurals were highly competitive. I think the admissions office really valued excellence in athletics. My sense was they would admit the 3.9 1450 3 sport All-League athlete over the 4.0 1500 student who might have played a few sports recreationally. This helped to make a student body who did care somewhat about Stanford football and the Big Game. It was never a rabid fan base like at other schools, but the campus had some solid energy leading up to Big Game. I could be wrong (I don't have any evidence to back up my opinion), but I think the current admissions office doesn't score athletic excellence very highly. Applicants who have a lot of non-athletic extracurriculars (e.g. student government, community service, business, activism, etc.) plus some recreational athletic participation are admitted ahead of the kids who spend most of their high school careers in the gym and on the field, racking up the wins and the awards. This results in a student body that cares as much about sports now as they did in high school.
Has the profile of our admits changed at all over the decades? Are there fewer Californians? Or at least fewer that attended public high schools? Just a thought.
RE: How much does sticking with Cal matter to you? - Goose - 08-01-2023
(07-31-2023, 10:31 PM)Branner77 Wrote: In the 1960s-80s (which I think covers most CardBoard readers), the LSJU undergrads were at least ~ half Californians. It's fallen to a little over a third. And international students, negligible back then, are now 12% of the students. One out of eight. I doubt they know or care much about the Axe.I agree that non-Californians are less likely to have an understanding/attachment to the Cal-Stanford Big Game rivalry. The effects you cite are relevant. Going back to the 1960s, it should be remembered that Stanford was very predominantly male. Essentially everybody had played the game at at least some level, if only in PE. Additionally California itself contains a larger population of immigrants and children of immigrants than it did in the past.
On top of that the interest in football at the High School level in general is not what it was in the past. Much like the college game there are more "high profile" programs but much less strength at the "grass roots" level. Football is not the social force that it used to be. Many students in high school attended games because "that is just what you did". The girls went because it was a social exercise. Many of them only vaguely knew who was playing, but they went. Not so today, both at the high school and college level. "Friday Night Lights" just isn't anymore.
RE: How much does sticking with Cal matter to you? - Canalejas - 08-01-2023
I'm an immigrant that got into football not because I ever played it (my "career" highlight was chasing down a breakaway run at the 10 yd line in middle school flag football,) but rather because I joined the marching band and got a little taste of Friday Night Lights that way. Our high school team was terrible, but hanging out in the stands playing tunes was a blast.
RE: How much does sticking with Cal matter to you? - 81alum - 08-01-2023
(08-01-2023, 02:57 PM)Goose Wrote:(07-31-2023, 10:31 PM)Branner77 Wrote: In the 1960s-80s (which I think covers most CardBoard readers), the LSJU undergrads were at least ~ half Californians. It's fallen to a little over a third. And international students, negligible back then, are now 12% of the students. One out of eight. I doubt they know or care much about the Axe.I agree that non-Californians are less likely to have an understanding/attachment to the Cal-Stanford Big Game rivalry. The effects you cite are relevant. Going back to the 1960s, it should be remembered that Stanford was very predominantly male. Essentially everybody had played the game at at least some level, if only in PE. Additionally California itself contains a larger population of immigrants and children of immigrants than it did in the past.
On top of that the interest in football at the High School level in general is not what it was in the past. Much like the college game there are more "high profile" programs but much less strength at the "grass roots" level. Football is not the social force that it used to be. Many students in high school attended games because "that is just what you did". The girls went because it was a social exercise. Many of them only vaguely knew who was playing, but they went. Not so today, both at the high school and college level. "Friday Night Lights" just isn't anymore.
Goose is right to point to changing demographics weakening football in California. Without discussing any particular political position, I can point out that there has been research linking different sports to different political inclinations. For example, professional basketball has the most liberal fan base of any sport. The fan base for professional football is more or less even or neutral. And which sport has the most conservative fan base? I would have said Nascar, but in fact it is college football.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-every-nfl-teams-fans-lean-politically/
Now, consider that over the last 50 years the two coasts have grown increasingly liberal, and the Midwest and South have become increasingly conservative. It should not be a surprise that the fan base for college football has declined in those areas that have become more left leaning, and increased in those areas that have become more right leaning. And as Goose points out, participation in high school football is declining. But this decline appears to be faster in the blue states than the red ones.
This is most probably a simple correlation--certainly not causal--and my guess is that it has to do with demographic changes. Liberals appear to have--on average--different tastes in sports than conservatives. But trying to create an enthusiastic college football fan base in the increasingly liberal Bay Area does feel like swimming upstream. And Stanford, Cal and SJSU have similar problems with their football fan bases, all of which have dwindled over the years.
RE: How much does sticking with Cal matter to you? - OutsiderFan - 08-02-2023
Cal is cancer to sports excellence. The more Stanford aligns with Cal, the more the weight of Cal's indifference to sports will drag down Stanford.
The irony is Stanford is much wealthier than Cal and doesn't need the money sports brings in like Cal does.
But Stanford understands and leverages elite athletics to add value to the university brand in ways that Cal does not.
Just an anecdotal observation to sort of make the point, ESPN employs the following former Stanford athletes in on air positions:
- Chiney Oguimike
- Jessica Mendoza
- Ramona Shelbourne
- Julie Foudy
- Dave Fleming
- Rod Gilmore
- Stanford Steve
I'm sure I'm missing some.
Cal? Roxy Bernstein.
RE: How much does sticking with Cal matter to you? - cardcrimson - 08-02-2023
(08-02-2023, 05:05 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Cal is cancer to sports excellence.
Tell that to Cal's men's water polo team. . . .
RE: How much does sticking with Cal matter to you? - Mick - 08-02-2023
(08-02-2023, 05:56 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:(08-02-2023, 05:05 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Cal is cancer to sports excellence.
Tell that to Cal's men's water polo team. . . .
Pretty good rugby team too, if memory serves.
RE: How much does sticking with Cal matter to you? - cardcrimson - 08-02-2023
(08-02-2023, 06:24 AM)Mick Wrote:Lost to Navy in the Championships. Friend once played for Navy and was quite proud. Another friend's son plays for Cal and was quite bummed.(08-02-2023, 05:56 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:(08-02-2023, 05:05 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Cal is cancer to sports excellence.
Tell that to Cal's men's water polo team. . . .
Pretty good rugby team too, if memory serves.
RE: How much does sticking with Cal matter to you? - lex24 - 08-02-2023
(08-01-2023, 08:55 PM)81alum Wrote:(08-01-2023, 02:57 PM)Goose Wrote:(07-31-2023, 10:31 PM)Branner77 Wrote: In the 1960s-80s (which I think covers most CardBoard readers), the LSJU undergrads were at least ~ half Californians. It's fallen to a little over a third. And international students, negligible back then, are now 12% of the students. One out of eight. I doubt they know or care much about the Axe.I agree that non-Californians are less likely to have an understanding/attachment to the Cal-Stanford Big Game rivalry. The effects you cite are relevant. Going back to the 1960s, it should be remembered that Stanford was very predominantly male. Essentially everybody had played the game at at least some level, if only in PE. Additionally California itself contains a larger population of immigrants and children of immigrants than it did in the past.
On top of that the interest in football at the High School level in general is not what it was in the past. Much like the college game there are more "high profile" programs but much less strength at the "grass roots" level. Football is not the social force that it used to be. Many students in high school attended games because "that is just what you did". The girls went because it was a social exercise. Many of them only vaguely knew who was playing, but they went. Not so today, both at the high school and college level. "Friday Night Lights" just isn't anymore.
Goose is right to point to changing demographics weakening football in California. Without discussing any particular political position, I can point out that there has been research linking different sports to different political inclinations. For example, professional basketball has the most liberal fan base of any sport. The fan base for professional football is more or less even or neutral. And which sport has the most conservative fan base? I would have said Nascar, but in fact it is college football.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-every-nfl-teams-fans-lean-politically/
Now, consider that over the last 50 years the two coasts have grown increasingly liberal, and the Midwest and South have become increasingly conservative. It should not be a surprise that the fan base for college football has declined in those areas that have become more left leaning, and increased in those areas that have become more right leaning. And as Goose points out, participation in high school football is declining. But this decline appears to be faster in the blue states than the red ones.
This is most probably a simple correlation--certainly not causal--and my guess is that it has to do with demographic changes. Liberals appear to have--on average--different tastes in sports than conservatives. But trying to create an enthusiastic college football fan base in the increasingly liberal Bay Area does feel like swimming upstream. And Stanford, Cal and SJSU have similar problems with their football fan bases, all of which have dwindled over the years.
The 49ers don’t seem to have much problem. Despite its political proclivities, pro football is King in the Bay Area. Followed by Pro Basketball. Then pro baseball.
So while I think while your overall premise is sound, it ignores perhaps the biggest difference - student body attitudes. And my guess is there is a rather large indifference to Stanford sports, in general, amongst the student body and football in particular.
As for Cal. If they ever win, the will draw. But …..
RE: How much does sticking with Cal matter to you? - cardcrimson - 08-02-2023
(08-02-2023, 07:33 AM)lex24 Wrote: So while I think while your overall premise is sound, it ignores perhaps the biggest difference - student body attitudes. And my guess is there is a rather large indifference to Stanford sports, in general, amongst the student body and football in particular.
I think you might be correct, and wonder why. Saturdays at the old stadium were not to be missed events. Wake up, tailgate, go to the game, tailgate, shower, go to campus party somewhere. Great times. I think similar traditions still exist in the Big 10 and the SEC, but no longer out here. Why the demise?
RE: How much does sticking with Cal matter to you? - BobK - 08-02-2023
Approximately 1 of 9 Stanford undergrad population is an ncaa athlete. Nane another school with that high of a ratio
RE: How much does sticking with Cal matter to you? - 82lsju - 08-02-2023
(08-02-2023, 07:54 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:(08-02-2023, 07:33 AM)lex24 Wrote: So while I think while your overall premise is sound, it ignores perhaps the biggest difference - student body attitudes. And my guess is there is a rather large indifference to Stanford sports, in general, amongst the student body and football in particular.
I think you might be correct, and wonder why. Saturdays at the old stadium were not to be missed events. Wake up, tailgate, go to the game, tailgate, shower, go to campus party somewhere. Great times. I think similar traditions still exist in the Big 10 and the SEC, but no longer out here. Why the demise?
looking at a few Big 10 schedules from last football season (UM, OSU, UW, and NU) they all had it at most 2 conference games that started after 4pm, last season we had 6 (5 if you don't count the USC game that started at 4:30pm). USC had mostly late conference games as well, they had five conference games that started between 4pm-5pm and four that started between 6:30pm-7:30pm. Their earliest conference game kick-off was 4pm
RE: How much does sticking with Cal matter to you? - Spiny_Norman - 08-02-2023
We are all sports fans here. It *is* a sports discussion board. So everyone knows the emotional investment in being a fan. Imagine Stanford competing in intercollegiate athletics without any of its traditional rivals - USC, UCLA or Cal. It doesn't matter which sport - football, basketball, softball, soccer, tennis, baseball, volleyball, swimming, etc. - Stanford has a close rivalry with at least one of those schools in just about every sport.
What would it mean to you as a fan if Stanford was in a conference with none of its traditional rivals? Maybe new rivalries would develop with the other conference teams. But I think it will diminish the intensity of the fan experience. Cynical (but perhaps accurate) observers might say that overall fan intensity at both Cal and Stanford is already pretty low so why do we care?
My $0.02 is that Stanford needs to stay tethered to Cal to preserve at least one traditional rival for both schools.