[CTcard]

Cal is not very good this year, but they did play Oregon pretty straight up for 3 quarters.  They usually get really psyched up for us, and it seems they always play us pretty tough. 

It took a minute for me to realize that you by playing Oregon straight up for 3 quarters you meant the first, third and fourth. 

But, the thing about cal in conference play is that the cannot hold onto the ball. They have lost the turnover battle to Oregon 1-5, Arizona 2-4, and UCLA 0-5. You cannot win games like that.
Normally, they say that turnovers are the best telling backwards looking stat and least predictive forward looking stat. But cal has turned over the ball so much, it may be well beyond luck. Still, cal has outgained its conference opponents from scrimmage, so they are not simply weak.

As to whether they play us particularly tough, maybe. But, over the current streak of 8 Stanford wins only 2 have been within one score.

It's worth wondering if they will ever escape the long-term recruiting disadvantages that now seem embedded there -- the highest academic standards in the UC system, a relative dearth of African-Americans in the student body, a campus embedded in an urban community that won't appeal to everyone.

My impression is that cal's biggest disadvantage is facilities broadly, driven by investment and lack of space in their urban environment.
The dearth of African-Americans is likely an issue, and surprises me how low that is - about 1.7% on their latest common data set.
I'm not convinced that they have completely followed through on their pledge to have the highest athlete-admissions standards among the UC schools - though at least their APRs have climbed out of the basement.

You'd think as the flagship institution in the largest state in the union, they'd have some notable advantages in recruiting to go along with the disadvantages. But it takes a great force of will to overturn inertia.

[CTcard]

Cal is not very good this year, but they did play Oregon pretty straight up for 3 quarters.  They usually get really psyched up for us, and it seems they always play us pretty tough. 

It took a minute for me to realize that you by playing Oregon straight up for 3 quarters you meant the first, third and fourth. 

But, the thing about cal in conference play is that the cannot hold onto the ball. They have lost the turnover battle to Oregon 1-5, Arizona 2-4, and UCLA 0-5. You cannot win games like that.
Normally, they say that turnovers are the best telling backwards looking stat and least predictive forward looking stat. But cal has turned over the ball so much, it may be well beyond luck. Still, cal has outgained its conference opponents from scrimmage, so they are not simply weak.

As to whether they play us particularly tough, maybe. But, over the current streak of 8 Stanford wins only 2 have been within one score.

It's worth wondering if they will ever escape the long-term recruiting disadvantages that now seem embedded there -- the highest academic standards in the UC system, a relative dearth of African-Americans in the student body, a campus embedded in an urban community that won't appeal to everyone.

My impression is that cal's biggest disadvantage is facilities broadly, driven by investment and lack of space in their urban environment.
The dearth of African-Americans is likely an issue, and surprises me how low that is - about 1.7% on their latest common data set.
I'm not convinced that they have completely followed through on their pledge to have the highest athlete-admissions standards among the UC schools - though at least their APRs have climbed out of the basement.

You'd think as the flagship institution in the largest state in the union, they'd have some notable advantages in recruiting to go along with the disadvantages. But it takes a great force of will to overturn inertia.

[qwerty49]

I could see a 5-5 Cal team playing for a bowl game vs. a 6-4 Stanford team that is playing for nothing better than the Amazing Chicken Bowl which is a sign of a bad season for this program.

Big Game is not going to be a walkover the way Stanford is playing of late.

I really hope the Chicken Bowl is not the ceiling.

---

You'd think as the flagship institution in the largest state in the union, they'd have some notable advantages in recruiting to go along with the disadvantages. 

I think recruiting is more and more a national game for schools who actually have academic admissions standards.  I really wonder if high school recruits (and the media, for that matter) outside of California even realize that UCB and UCLA are part of the same educational system.  Or even if they care.

[qwerty49]

I could see a 5-5 Cal team playing for a bowl game vs. a 6-4 Stanford team that is playing for nothing better than the Amazing Chicken Bowl which is a sign of a bad season for this program.

Big Game is not going to be a walkover the way Stanford is playing of late.

I really hope the Chicken Bowl is not the ceiling.

---

You'd think as the flagship institution in the largest state in the union, they'd have some notable advantages in recruiting to go along with the disadvantages. 

I think recruiting is more and more a national game for schools who actually have academic admissions standards.  I really wonder if high school recruits (and the media, for that matter) outside of California even realize that UCB and UCLA are part of the same educational system.  Or even if they care.

[CTcard]

You'd think as the flagship institution in the largest state in the union, they'd have some notable advantages in recruiting to go along with the disadvantages. 

I think recruiting is more and more a national game for schools who actually have academic admissions standards.  I really wonder if high school recruits (and the media, for that matter) outside of California even realize that UCB and UCLA are part of the same educational system.  Or even if they care.

Well, UCLA seems to have about 85% of their roster from CA, cal a little lower but looks like still about 75%. So in state recruiting still matters.

Plus, people know which is the flagship. Think about all the descriptions of the places chafing at being the "little brother" institution.
Right now it looks like 15 of the top 25 teams are the state flagship institution in their state, and another 3 are the #2 institution ranked behind the flagship for their state.

[CTcard]

You'd think as the flagship institution in the largest state in the union, they'd have some notable advantages in recruiting to go along with the disadvantages. 

I think recruiting is more and more a national game for schools who actually have academic admissions standards.  I really wonder if high school recruits (and the media, for that matter) outside of California even realize that UCB and UCLA are part of the same educational system.  Or even if they care.

Well, UCLA seems to have about 85% of their roster from CA, cal a little lower but looks like still about 75%. So in state recruiting still matters.

Plus, people know which is the flagship. Think about all the descriptions of the places chafing at being the "little brother" institution.
Right now it looks like 15 of the top 25 teams are the state flagship institution in their state, and another 3 are the #2 institution ranked behind the flagship for their state.

[2006alum]

It's worth wondering if they will ever escape the long-term recruiting disadvantages that now seem embedded there -- the highest academic standards in the UC system, a relative dearth of African-Americans in the student body, a campus embedded in an urban community that won't appeal to everyone.

My impression is that cal's biggest disadvantage is facilities broadly, driven by investment and lack of space in their urban environment.
The dearth of African-Americans is likely an issue, and surprises me how low that is - about 1.7% on their latest common data set.

I don't say this to politicize matters, but as a descriptive fact, both UCB and UCLA's rates of AA enrollment dropped off substantially after Prop 209 prohibited any consideration of race in college admissions. It's obscured somewhat because the UC system mostly provides statistics for the system as a whole, and the rates of enrollment at the other UCs didn't drop off as badly, but it's a significant issue at the two flagships. IIRC, about a decade ago it was revealed that UCLA had ~100 AA frosh in a class of ~5,000 students. Berkeley has a similar dynamic.

[2006alum]

It's worth wondering if they will ever escape the long-term recruiting disadvantages that now seem embedded there -- the highest academic standards in the UC system, a relative dearth of African-Americans in the student body, a campus embedded in an urban community that won't appeal to everyone.

My impression is that cal's biggest disadvantage is facilities broadly, driven by investment and lack of space in their urban environment.
The dearth of African-Americans is likely an issue, and surprises me how low that is - about 1.7% on their latest common data set.

I don't say this to politicize matters, but as a descriptive fact, both UCB and UCLA's rates of AA enrollment dropped off substantially after Prop 209 prohibited any consideration of race in college admissions. It's obscured somewhat because the UC system mostly provides statistics for the system as a whole, and the rates of enrollment at the other UCs didn't drop off as badly, but it's a significant issue at the two flagships. IIRC, about a decade ago it was revealed that UCLA had ~100 AA frosh in a class of ~5,000 students. Berkeley has a similar dynamic.

[CTcard]

I don't say this to politicize matters, but as a descriptive fact, both UCB and UCLA's rates of AA enrollment dropped off substantially after Prop 209 prohibited any consideration of race in college admissions. It's obscured somewhat because the UC system mostly provides statistics for the system as a whole, and the rates of enrollment at the other UCs didn't drop off as badly, but it's a significant issue at the two flagships. IIRC, about a decade ago it was revealed that UCLA had ~100 AA frosh in a class of ~5,000 students. Berkeley has a similar dynamic.

Yes, it had a big effect.

You can easily look up the numbers. Most every major university publishes the "common data set".

Berkeley: https://opa.berkeley.edu/campus-data/common-data-set
UCLA: https://www.apb.ucla.edu/campus-statisti...n-data-set

For cal, click on the year you want. For UCLA, there is a drop down menu to choose a year.
Go to section B2.

For 2017-18, UCLA had 190 African American frosh in a class of 6038, and a total enrollment of 1059 out of 31,002 - 3.4%. Or about twice the African American enrollment as Berkeley.

For that matter you can look up Stanford as well.
https://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/
For 2017-18 Stanford's undergrad enrollment was 6.7% African American. 
[Stanford has a rather large fraction (~10%) of students who chose "two or more races", which could be all sorts of mixes.]

[CTcard]

I don't say this to politicize matters, but as a descriptive fact, both UCB and UCLA's rates of AA enrollment dropped off substantially after Prop 209 prohibited any consideration of race in college admissions. It's obscured somewhat because the UC system mostly provides statistics for the system as a whole, and the rates of enrollment at the other UCs didn't drop off as badly, but it's a significant issue at the two flagships. IIRC, about a decade ago it was revealed that UCLA had ~100 AA frosh in a class of ~5,000 students. Berkeley has a similar dynamic.

Yes, it had a big effect.

You can easily look up the numbers. Most every major university publishes the "common data set".

Berkeley: https://opa.berkeley.edu/campus-data/common-data-set
UCLA: https://www.apb.ucla.edu/campus-statisti...n-data-set

For cal, click on the year you want. For UCLA, there is a drop down menu to choose a year.
Go to section B2.

For 2017-18, UCLA had 190 African American frosh in a class of 6038, and a total enrollment of 1059 out of 31,002 - 3.4%. Or about twice the African American enrollment as Berkeley.

For that matter you can look up Stanford as well.
https://ucomm.stanford.edu/cds/
For 2017-18 Stanford's undergrad enrollment was 6.7% African American. 
[Stanford has a rather large fraction (~10%) of students who chose "two or more races", which could be all sorts of mixes.]