socaltownie said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

barsad said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

barsad said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

barsad said:

---

How about instead of getting upset that there are four other guards recruited for your team, you decide you're going to prove yourself in practice and actually earn a starting position OVER those four guards. How about not running scared to the portal whenever things get tough?
This idea that you can "dip your toe" into the portal and come back if you can't secure more $$ is hogwash. The whole player-coach-team dynamic is different once you go that route. You ruined it, TT, good riddance.

---

I have had many colleagues and friends who found themselves in a job that didn't offer them a good pathway for advancement with co-workers who were more valued turn down better offers from others to fight and prove themselves to their employer who had no loyalty to them go on to thrive by burying themselves at that job for several years rather than take a job with better opportunities just to not be called afraid to compete

I also have never heard of an employee getting an offer and then using it to negotiate a better situation with their current employer. I've never had an employer who placed a very high value on me openly admit that my salary was 50% too low but that they wouldn't give me a raise unless I got a better offer from someone else. And I absolutely didn't get an offer from someone else with a 60% pay increase and I absolutely didn't leave to take that job even though my current employer matched their offer and I didn't go on to double my salary in 5 years and triple it in 10 years without ever asking for a raise simply because that employer valued me when my first employer proved they would make me fight for every dollar

I absolutely don't think that anyone who would stay to prove themselves rather than take a better opportunity elsewhere is a moron, nor do I think anyone who would castigate someone for doing so is probably a gigantic hypocrite.

Sincerely,

George Costanza

---

Really hilarious, BC, leave it to you to put the Turd In a Punch Bowl with words like "moron" and "hypocrite" that no one else had used in the entire thread. TIPB is going to be your new handle in my mind from now on.
We'll see what great "job opportunity" TT can land. Next time you feel the need to tell us about all your worldly success, maybe consider not sharing.

---

I didn't call anyone, including you a moron. I called the hypothetical person that would turn down the opportunity a moron, which is to say I called no one a moron because no one would. I did call you a hypocrite and I stand by that on this point 1000 fold.

Leave it to you to put a TIPB by ripping a 19 year old for reasonably evaluating his options after getting recruited over.

---

Astonishing wit in your comebacks, TIPB, keep it up, apparently Bobo is entertained. Free agents "evaluating options" every year, four schools in four years… yeah, what was I thinking, we should support this 100%, great for college sports.
Carr will find somewhere to land, but he won't find himself at Cal after "evaluating", and he's getting bad advice on this move so early in his career.

---

I wasn't trying to be witty.

I don't remember you screaming about coaches getting paid millions, able to jump from program to program, while driving salaries multiple times higher and draining resources from universities and programs that could have gone to support student athletes. I don't remember you screaming about administrators making 7 figure salaries. I don't remember you having a problem with an industry making billions while using non-paid workers to prop up those billions, at great personal risk by the way.

If we were talking about nice activity where alums, students, and other members of the community pay $20 to go see students at their school give the old college try to defeat students of other schools, where coaches and administrators are paid a reasonable salary, and revenue is a reasonable amount to cover the reasonable expenses of a program with reasonable resources, I'd agree with you. Give em a schollie for their efforts, develop them over 4-5 years, expect some loyalty to the school. That ain't what we have and it isn't the players' fault. The adults ruined this thing. They set out to get rich and squeeze every dime out of this endeavor and made it a multi billion dollar industry with no loyalty to the fans or the player, all while getting rich because they didn't have to pay players a remotely fair share of the revenue the players had a significant hand in generating.

You also seem to miss there is not loyalty from the university either. Under the old system, you recruited a guy and part of the deal was you developed him with some intention that he was going to play for you down the line. Yeah, you brought in new recruits every year, but they were almost all younger recruits. Transfers were a small percentage and mostly came from JC. Now, a guy can work his butt off for 4 years and be ready to start, be the best player at his position, and the school will still be actively looking for players who developed elsewhere to take his place if they are a smidge better. You want loyalty one way and not the other. The players all have to live by some code from 50 years ago while no one else does.

And let's be honest. You wrap this up in some morality play in your mind, but you aren't really upset with players for ethical reasons. You are upset because you want to watch football and basketball and enjoy it the way you used to and you don't care that your enjoyment required young players to be completely taken advantage of. You are blaming players savagely for being the last straw that broke the camel's back instead of looking at any of the straws that went before it.

I would love to go back to days where student athletes competed on behalf of their schools and money was a much smaller part of the system. That isn't going to happen. This is a professional league. The school-player relationship is an employer-employee relationship. Schools have no loyalty to players and have proven time and again that they will replace them and provide them as little compensation as they possibly can arguing some "be true to your school" BS. And in return, players have no loyalty to schools and will take the best deal they can. For many of these guys, these are their highest earning potential years and asking them not to maximize their earning potential while everyone around them does in the extreme is quite simply unfair. And ultimately your enmity is because you want to watch them play sports and you don't want to pay them market rate for it.

We don't disagree that the system sucks. We severely disagree about where the blame lies for that. And much of that blame, by the way, is also with the fans who continually make demands that lead to this ridiculous arms race. In fact, you could still have the system you want where players behave how you want, you just have to accept stepping down to a level where revenue is much lower and players don't command high dollars. You could have players with all the loyalty and heart that you want, they would just be much worse at actually playing and that is your real problem. You don't want to give up the high value player. You just don't want to pay them.

---

It was a little long so I skimmed So I didn't get to the punch line in that last 2 paragraphs.

Absolutely well said. If you like a system were we don't pay players, get game times on Saturday afternoon and have to alter the marketing so that we can still get 20K or so in CMS (BTW - that isn't that much fewer than some games) than there is a way - emulate UC Davis.

Oh and you know a good early step - repeat after me. Berkeley is NOT the flagship. Hasn't been for over 2 generations. Flagships get special budgets, rules, powers, etc. Berkeley is rather one member of a system. Trying to think of it as being akin to a true Midwestern Flagship will tie you in knots of disappointment because, to be crass, cal can not subsidize itself off the backs of the other members of the UC System.

---

Sports identities and academics are separate. We compete historically as "California" just like Texas, Arizona, Oklahoma, Alabama, North Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Nebraska, Ohio State, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Virginia, Georgia, Kansas….

Do any sports fans care how those states' university systems are organized and whether those schools are technically the "flagship" campus for their state in an academic sense? It is immaterial. Our sports teams are "California," and we are therefore the "flagship" as far as sports are concerned as long as we embrace and promote being "California."

---

It isnt immaterial!! Those schoools get more money and monet translates into more compettitve teams. Hard stop. Thinking you are a flagship and should be "special" when you dont get special treatment is insane

---

Is it defined anywhere exactly what constitutes a "flagship" state university? Because I think the general consensus over the last century+ is that Cal is the flagship campus of the UC system.

Maybe in the past 50 years or so, one could make the case that there is the true flagship and also a "flagship, southern branch". To me, a flagship campus has always been more about reputation. I have no idea if there are any specific criteria.

"Cal" was the "flagship" of used car salesmen.

I dont have time for an exhaustive post but ann abor by statute has a seperate budget than the rest of their system and college station is explicitly cited by statute as thd flagship and has a built in budgetary advantage. Ut a has a sperate revenue stream from their oil royalty fund (along with a&m college station) unc alzonhas a carve out but i am less clear on how that works.

socaltownie said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

barsad said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

barsad said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

barsad said:

---

How about instead of getting upset that there are four other guards recruited for your team, you decide you're going to prove yourself in practice and actually earn a starting position OVER those four guards. How about not running scared to the portal whenever things get tough?
This idea that you can "dip your toe" into the portal and come back if you can't secure more $$ is hogwash. The whole player-coach-team dynamic is different once you go that route. You ruined it, TT, good riddance.

---

I have had many colleagues and friends who found themselves in a job that didn't offer them a good pathway for advancement with co-workers who were more valued turn down better offers from others to fight and prove themselves to their employer who had no loyalty to them go on to thrive by burying themselves at that job for several years rather than take a job with better opportunities just to not be called afraid to compete

I also have never heard of an employee getting an offer and then using it to negotiate a better situation with their current employer. I've never had an employer who placed a very high value on me openly admit that my salary was 50% too low but that they wouldn't give me a raise unless I got a better offer from someone else. And I absolutely didn't get an offer from someone else with a 60% pay increase and I absolutely didn't leave to take that job even though my current employer matched their offer and I didn't go on to double my salary in 5 years and triple it in 10 years without ever asking for a raise simply because that employer valued me when my first employer proved they would make me fight for every dollar

I absolutely don't think that anyone who would stay to prove themselves rather than take a better opportunity elsewhere is a moron, nor do I think anyone who would castigate someone for doing so is probably a gigantic hypocrite.

Sincerely,

George Costanza

---

Really hilarious, BC, leave it to you to put the Turd In a Punch Bowl with words like "moron" and "hypocrite" that no one else had used in the entire thread. TIPB is going to be your new handle in my mind from now on.
We'll see what great "job opportunity" TT can land. Next time you feel the need to tell us about all your worldly success, maybe consider not sharing.

---

I didn't call anyone, including you a moron. I called the hypothetical person that would turn down the opportunity a moron, which is to say I called no one a moron because no one would. I did call you a hypocrite and I stand by that on this point 1000 fold.

Leave it to you to put a TIPB by ripping a 19 year old for reasonably evaluating his options after getting recruited over.

---

Astonishing wit in your comebacks, TIPB, keep it up, apparently Bobo is entertained. Free agents "evaluating options" every year, four schools in four years… yeah, what was I thinking, we should support this 100%, great for college sports.
Carr will find somewhere to land, but he won't find himself at Cal after "evaluating", and he's getting bad advice on this move so early in his career.

---

I wasn't trying to be witty.

I don't remember you screaming about coaches getting paid millions, able to jump from program to program, while driving salaries multiple times higher and draining resources from universities and programs that could have gone to support student athletes. I don't remember you screaming about administrators making 7 figure salaries. I don't remember you having a problem with an industry making billions while using non-paid workers to prop up those billions, at great personal risk by the way.

If we were talking about nice activity where alums, students, and other members of the community pay $20 to go see students at their school give the old college try to defeat students of other schools, where coaches and administrators are paid a reasonable salary, and revenue is a reasonable amount to cover the reasonable expenses of a program with reasonable resources, I'd agree with you. Give em a schollie for their efforts, develop them over 4-5 years, expect some loyalty to the school. That ain't what we have and it isn't the players' fault. The adults ruined this thing. They set out to get rich and squeeze every dime out of this endeavor and made it a multi billion dollar industry with no loyalty to the fans or the player, all while getting rich because they didn't have to pay players a remotely fair share of the revenue the players had a significant hand in generating.

You also seem to miss there is not loyalty from the university either. Under the old system, you recruited a guy and part of the deal was you developed him with some intention that he was going to play for you down the line. Yeah, you brought in new recruits every year, but they were almost all younger recruits. Transfers were a small percentage and mostly came from JC. Now, a guy can work his butt off for 4 years and be ready to start, be the best player at his position, and the school will still be actively looking for players who developed elsewhere to take his place if they are a smidge better. You want loyalty one way and not the other. The players all have to live by some code from 50 years ago while no one else does.

And let's be honest. You wrap this up in some morality play in your mind, but you aren't really upset with players for ethical reasons. You are upset because you want to watch football and basketball and enjoy it the way you used to and you don't care that your enjoyment required young players to be completely taken advantage of. You are blaming players savagely for being the last straw that broke the camel's back instead of looking at any of the straws that went before it.

I would love to go back to days where student athletes competed on behalf of their schools and money was a much smaller part of the system. That isn't going to happen. This is a professional league. The school-player relationship is an employer-employee relationship. Schools have no loyalty to players and have proven time and again that they will replace them and provide them as little compensation as they possibly can arguing some "be true to your school" BS. And in return, players have no loyalty to schools and will take the best deal they can. For many of these guys, these are their highest earning potential years and asking them not to maximize their earning potential while everyone around them does in the extreme is quite simply unfair. And ultimately your enmity is because you want to watch them play sports and you don't want to pay them market rate for it.

We don't disagree that the system sucks. We severely disagree about where the blame lies for that. And much of that blame, by the way, is also with the fans who continually make demands that lead to this ridiculous arms race. In fact, you could still have the system you want where players behave how you want, you just have to accept stepping down to a level where revenue is much lower and players don't command high dollars. You could have players with all the loyalty and heart that you want, they would just be much worse at actually playing and that is your real problem. You don't want to give up the high value player. You just don't want to pay them.

---

It was a little long so I skimmed So I didn't get to the punch line in that last 2 paragraphs.

Absolutely well said. If you like a system were we don't pay players, get game times on Saturday afternoon and have to alter the marketing so that we can still get 20K or so in CMS (BTW - that isn't that much fewer than some games) than there is a way - emulate UC Davis.

Oh and you know a good early step - repeat after me. Berkeley is NOT the flagship. Hasn't been for over 2 generations. Flagships get special budgets, rules, powers, etc. Berkeley is rather one member of a system. Trying to think of it as being akin to a true Midwestern Flagship will tie you in knots of disappointment because, to be crass, cal can not subsidize itself off the backs of the other members of the UC System.

---

Sports identities and academics are separate. We compete historically as "California" just like Texas, Arizona, Oklahoma, Alabama, North Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Nebraska, Ohio State, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Virginia, Georgia, Kansas….

Do any sports fans care how those states' university systems are organized and whether those schools are technically the "flagship" campus for their state in an academic sense? It is immaterial. Our sports teams are "California," and we are therefore the "flagship" as far as sports are concerned as long as we embrace and promote being "California."

---

It isnt immaterial!! Those schoools get more money and monet translates into more compettitve teams. Hard stop. Thinking you are a flagship and should be "special" when you dont get special treatment is insane

---

"Flagship" or not, UC Berkeley has a larger endowment and budget, plus wealthier alumni, than any of those schools. Certainly we have more academic prestige.

However, that is immaterial. Those schools' football programs don't get their money from their state, they get their revenues from their media contracts, ticket sales and donors. It is up to each school to market their brand.

I doubt the vast majority of football fans even know how their state university systems are organized. If the regents in Wisconsin decided that, for academic purposes, the Madison campus is no longer "the flagship" and each campus will be run independently, I do not see any way that affects their football team's ability to win games. Are Wisconsin fans going to stop being Wisconsin fans? Conversely, if tomorrow the UC Regents passed a resolution making us "the flagship" campus again, how would that change our football team exactly?

If we act like we are "California" the team for the historic flagship campus for the greatest state in the country, and market ourselves as such, it will only be pedants who will say we are not.

"Unlike many state systems, there would be no "flagship" campus within the University of California; similar faculty structures, admissions requirements, and expectations for excellence would be provided for all. In that vein, the University of California, Los Angeles, was given what Kerr referred to as "a place in the sun," receiving equal resources with Berkeley in most areas."

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/inmemoriam/html/clarkkerr.html

GoCal80 said:

---

"Unlike many state systems, there would be no "flagship" campus within the University of California; similar faculty structures, admissions requirements, and expectations for excellence would be provided for all. In that vein, the University of California, Los Angeles, was given what Kerr referred to as "a place in the sun," receiving equal resources with Berkeley in most areas."

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/inmemoriam/html/clarkkerr.html

---

This. I mean it was a huge deal and undergirds a ton of the way that UC operates. Someone asked above why it matters - because while Cal gets dinged (pretty badly) for running a deficit Flagships have much more flexibility. Ditto things like special fees to support athletics while Cal has to follow "UC" rules which (generally) require a vote of students. Really a 1000 things that all matter once you start to try tthink about solutions to some of Cal's challenges.

Even the idea that we could be a "defacto" flagship flies in the face of how fractured state media coverage is. We would have to be EXTREMELY good to displace UCLA/USC from the (web) pages of the LATIMES or KABC and ditto them to get coverage on the Bay Area sports pages. That isn't a criticism, just an observation of fact.

It also just means that saying we should be X because we are the "flagship" just is sorta a nonsensical argument. We should be X for lots of reasons - just not that one.

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Is this the "TT Carr" thread?

---

I guess not.

No offers for TT yet? What gives?

Of course it was

Here are the schools he reached out to, according to @TransferTapes on X
California transfer Semetri Carr has been in contact with the following schools since entering the Portal, a close source tells Transfer Tapes

May 21: UC Davis | UC Riverside | Northwestern State | Bucknell | Northeastern | Northern Arizona | Canisius | Youngstown State | Utah Tech | Marist | Boston | Wofford | San Francisco | Seattle | Pacific | Abilene Christian | Idaho | New Mexico | + other D1's

Among those I'd choose UC Davis but that's me, not TT.

stu said:

---

Among those I'd choose UC Davis but that's me, not TT.

---

USF, UC Davis, Boston (College?) or "other D1"

Can't believe that he is sacrificing a Cal degree for that. But I guess he thinks that he can play at that level and then transfer up.

First, I don't know either Carr or whoever posted that list of schools.

Second, the quote says "been in contact with", which doesn't specify which party initiated the contact.

My guess is Carr wants more playing time than he thought he would get at Cal. If he also wants a comparable education and plans to stay through graduation then I think another UC would make sense. The others don't have the prestige of Berkeley but do offer excellent undergraduate programs.

IMHO Carr is unlikely to become a NBA prospect and may not play basketball after college. If so then he may as well find a school where he can play. If he should develop enough to transfer back to a power program than all the better.

stu said:

---

First, I don't know either Carr or whoever posted that list of schools.

Second, the quote says "been in contact with", which doesn't specify which party initiated the contact.

My guess is Carr wants more playing time than he thought he would get at Cal. If he also wants a comparable education and plans to stay through graduation then I think another UC would make sense. The others don't have the prestige of Berkeley but do offer excellent undergraduate programs.

IMHO Carr is unlikely to become a NBA prospect and may not play basketball after college. If so then he may as well find a school where he can play. If he should develop enough to transfer back to a power program than all the better.

---

Agree with you on Davis. But his agent and family must not have any other interests in mind for him except for potential money.

socaltownie said:

---

GoCal80 said:

---

"Unlike many state systems, there would be no "flagship" campus within the University of California; similar faculty structures, admissions requirements, and expectations for excellence would be provided for all. In that vein, the University of California, Los Angeles, was given what Kerr referred to as "a place in the sun," receiving equal resources with Berkeley in most areas."

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/inmemoriam/html/clarkkerr.html

---

This. I mean it was a huge deal and undergirds a ton of the way that UC operates. Someone asked above why it matters - because while Cal gets dinged (pretty badly) for running a deficit Flagships have much more flexibility. Ditto things like special fees to support athletics while Cal has to follow "UC" rules which (generally) require a vote of students. Really a 1000 things that all matter once you start to try tthink about solutions to some of Cal's challenges.

Even the idea that we could be a "defacto" flagship flies in the face of how fractured state media coverage is. We would have to be EXTREMELY good to displace UCLA/USC from the (web) pages of the LATIMES or KABC and ditto them to get coverage on the Bay Area sports pages. That isn't a criticism, just an observation of fact.

It also just means that saying we should be X because we are the "flagship" just is sorta a nonsensical argument. We should be X for lots of reasons - just not that one.

---

Again, the point is we compete as "California" and if people in SoCal pick us up as their second or third team, but most don't, who cares? The object is maximum viewership. TV ratings. Surviving the next round of realignment.

Similarly if people in Florida and Texas tune in to root against "California" who cares? Just build a compelling team as you build a compelling brand. A team that people want to watch with an easily identifiable brand. Don't limit yourself to what is or what was in the era of the Pac-12, newspapers and broadcast television. The San Francisco Forty Niners developed a huge following in Southern California during the Montana era that persists to this day with Forty Niner fans outnumbering Rams and Chargers fans in their own stadiums.

"California" is our brand just like "Florida" and "Florida State" are "the Florida flagships" even if people in South Florida root for Miami and a few sports fans in California can argue that "technically the UC system has no longer has an official flagship campus." We started as "Sons of California" competing as the "California Golden Bears" and should just assert that is who we are.

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

GoCal80 said:

---

"Unlike many state systems, there would be no "flagship" campus within the University of California; similar faculty structures, admissions requirements, and expectations for excellence would be provided for all. In that vein, the University of California, Los Angeles, was given what Kerr referred to as "a place in the sun," receiving equal resources with Berkeley in most areas."

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/inmemoriam/html/clarkkerr.html

---

This. I mean it was a huge deal and undergirds a ton of the way that UC operates. Someone asked above why it matters - because while Cal gets dinged (pretty badly) for running a deficit Flagships have much more flexibility. Ditto things like special fees to support athletics while Cal has to follow "UC" rules which (generally) require a vote of students. Really a 1000 things that all matter once you start to try tthink about solutions to some of Cal's challenges.

Even the idea that we could be a "defacto" flagship flies in the face of how fractured state media coverage is. We would have to be EXTREMELY good to displace UCLA/USC from the (web) pages of the LATIMES or KABC and ditto them to get coverage on the Bay Area sports pages. That isn't a criticism, just an observation of fact.

It also just means that saying we should be X because we are the "flagship" just is sorta a nonsensical argument. We should be X for lots of reasons - just not that one.

---

Again, the point is we compete as "California" and if people in SoCal pick us up as their second or third team, but most don't, who cares? The object is maximum viewership. TV ratings. Surviving the next round of realignment.

Similarly if people in Florida and Texas tune in to root against "California" who cares? Just build a compelling team as you build a compelling brand. A team that people want to watch with an easily identifiable brand. Don't limit yourself to what is or what was in the era of the Pac-12, newspapers and broadcast television. The San Francisco Forty Niners developed a huge following in Southern California during the Montana era that persists to this day with Forty Niner fans outnumbering Rams and Chargers fans in their own stadiums.

"California" is our brand just like "Florida" and "Florida State" are "the Florida flagships" even if people in South Florida root for Miami and a few sports fans in California can argue that "technically the UC system has no longer has an official flagship campus." We started as "Sons of California" competing as the "California Golden Bears" and should just assert that is who we are.

---

Saying it doesn't make it so.

1) A good thought excercise is whether a branch school could torpedo the conference your flagship played in. Calimony be dammed that is suggesting it is a system of equals.

2) A full throated assertion of us as the flagship would get deep sixed by Oakland. You could do it partially (I guess) like running out of the tunnel but I suggest you do a thought experiment and pay for 100,000 of ads in the socal media market around a theme like "There is only one school who is the true flagship of this state - and it is in Berkeley" and see how quickly you got a call from the chancellor because he had his ass chewed out by the President

3) Failing to accept/understand this means that too many are slow to learn from what other campuses are doing well - such a raising money without a football team and accepting that this is the only way. It may still be the best way but 7 other branches say you don't need to be in the p2 to raise billions in philanthropy or have a national brand that drives accceptance rates into the low teens. Arguably it is a benefit because you learn how to be nimble and engage your alumni without a crutch.

socaltownie said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

GoCal80 said:

---

"Unlike many state systems, there would be no "flagship" campus within the University of California; similar faculty structures, admissions requirements, and expectations for excellence would be provided for all. In that vein, the University of California, Los Angeles, was given what Kerr referred to as "a place in the sun," receiving equal resources with Berkeley in most areas."

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/inmemoriam/html/clarkkerr.html

---

This. I mean it was a huge deal and undergirds a ton of the way that UC operates. Someone asked above why it matters - because while Cal gets dinged (pretty badly) for running a deficit Flagships have much more flexibility. Ditto things like special fees to support athletics while Cal has to follow "UC" rules which (generally) require a vote of students. Really a 1000 things that all matter once you start to try tthink about solutions to some of Cal's challenges.

Even the idea that we could be a "defacto" flagship flies in the face of how fractured state media coverage is. We would have to be EXTREMELY good to displace UCLA/USC from the (web) pages of the LATIMES or KABC and ditto them to get coverage on the Bay Area sports pages. That isn't a criticism, just an observation of fact.

It also just means that saying we should be X because we are the "flagship" just is sorta a nonsensical argument. We should be X for lots of reasons - just not that one.

---

Again, the point is we compete as "California" and if people in SoCal pick us up as their second or third team, but most don't, who cares? The object is maximum viewership. TV ratings. Surviving the next round of realignment.

Similarly if people in Florida and Texas tune in to root against "California" who cares? Just build a compelling team as you build a compelling brand. A team that people want to watch with an easily identifiable brand. Don't limit yourself to what is or what was in the era of the Pac-12, newspapers and broadcast television. The San Francisco Forty Niners developed a huge following in Southern California during the Montana era that persists to this day with Forty Niner fans outnumbering Rams and Chargers fans in their own stadiums.

"California" is our brand just like "Florida" and "Florida State" are "the Florida flagships" even if people in South Florida root for Miami and a few sports fans in California can argue that "technically the UC system has no longer has an official flagship campus." We started as "Sons of California" competing as the "California Golden Bears" and should just assert that is who we are.

---

Saying it doesn't make it so.

1) A good thought excercise is whether a branch school could torpedo the conference your flagship played in. Calimony be dammed that is suggesting it is a system of equals.

2) A full throated assertion of us as the flagship would get deep sixed by Oakland. You could do it partially (I guess) like running out of the tunnel but I suggest you do a thought experiment and pay for 100,000 of ads in the socal media market around a theme like "There is only one school who is the true flagship of this state - and it is in Berkeley" and see how quickly you got a call from the chancellor because he had his ass chewed out by the President

3) Failing to accept/understand this means that too many are slow to learn from what other campuses are doing well - such a raising money without a football team and accepting that this is the only way. It may still be the best way but 7 other branches say you don't need to be in the p2 to raise billions in philanthropy or have a national brand that drives accceptance rates into the low teens. Arguably it is a benefit because you learn how to be nimble and engage your alumni without a crutch.

---

I am talking about branding and marketing of a sports team. "The Golden State Warriors" instead of the "San Francisco Warriors of Oakland" or some such. In our case "California" is our brand and has historic meaning, ALL our fight songs reference "California." Why willingly give that up? Of course it is more than just "saying" it, you don't even need to say it, just act like it. You need a compelling team but with Sagapolutele and Tosh, with Rivera as GM, I think we have that now. We have billboards in Time Square. Why limit ourselves to what UC Davis is doing? We need to fill CMS and Haas. We need better NATIONAL TV ratings. It is what we are building toward: A nationally relevant sports program, not accepting the mediocrity or worse of Wilcox and Fox and figuring out how to fund that as a D2 program by charging the students a fee. Maybe we fail and end up there, but we should not be relegating ourselves.

pretty sure TT already landed a spot on a P4 team based on what I saw on his socials

stu said:

---

Maybe TT is looking for a school which cares more about basketball than branding. Maybe that's why his search is taking so long.

---

All this talk about flagships got him interested in playing for Navy.

stu said:

---

IMHO Carr is unlikely to become a NBA prospect and may not play basketball after college. If so then he may as well find a school where he can play. If he should develop enough to transfer back to a power program than all the better.

---

Barring serious injury or falling out of love with basketball, TT will 1000% have opportunities to play professional basketball.

Granted some leagues are probably veering the line between pro and semi-pro but Cal alums who TT is already better than and made money playing at least a couple of pro seasons including Stephen Domingo, Sam Singer, Roger Moute a Bidias, Cole Welle, and Dimitrios Kolanaras just from a quick scan.

northbay said:

---

stu said:

---

IMHO Carr is unlikely to become a NBA prospect and may not play basketball after college. If so then he may as well find a school where he can play. If he should develop enough to transfer back to a power program than all the better.

---

Barring serious injury or falling out of love with basketball, TT will 1000% have opportunities to play professional basketball.

Granted some leagues are probably veering the line between pro and semi-pro but Cal alums who TT is already better than and made money playing at least a couple of pro seasons including Stephen Domingo, Sam Singer, Roger Moute a Bidias, Cole Welle, and Dimitrios Kolanaras just from a quick scan.

---

Yes, though some have likely taken advantage of foreign citizenship to get around the quotas on Americans in many of the leagues.

I'm hoping it isn't Davis. Conner Sevilla is an ex student of mine whom I want to see thrive!

Might hear something tomorrow after the NBA Draft withdrawal deadline - someone told me chance he might be headed to Stanford (where he was considering out of HS before their coaching change)

kc1121 said:

---

Might hear something tomorrow after the NBA Draft withdrawal deadline - someone told me chance he might be headed to Stanford (where he was considering out of HS before their coaching change)

---

He liked Haase better than Smith???

Could of been Haase extended the offer and Smith didn't when he took the job. (at that time)

kc1121 said:

---

Could of been Haase extended the offer and Smith didn't when he took the job. (at that time)

---

Good point. Both sides have to be interested.

northbay said:

---

stu said:

---

IMHO Carr is unlikely to become a NBA prospect and may not play basketball after college. If so then he may as well find a school where he can play. If he should develop enough to transfer back to a power program than all the better.

---

Barring serious injury or falling out of love with basketball, TT will 1000% have opportunities to play professional basketball.

Granted some leagues are probably veering the line between pro and semi-pro but Cal alums who TT is already better than and made money playing at least a couple of pro seasons including Stephen Domingo, Sam Singer, Roger Moute a Bidias, Cole Welle, and Dimitrios Kolanaras just from a quick scan.

---

Even in international ball you have to be able to shoot over closing defenders.

Does anyone have an update on TT? Does he have a new team or is he coming back to Cal? If he inked a new deal why has it not been announced?

barsad said:

---

Does anyone have an update on TT? Does he have a new team or is he coming back to Cal? If he inked a new deal why has it not been announced?

---

I have also been wondering about this. I think Madsen used the last scholarship on a new freshman.247 portal still shoes him with no destination

oskidunker said:

---

barsad said:

---

Does anyone have an update on TT? Does he have a new team or is he coming back to Cal? If he inked a new deal why has it not been announced?

---

I have also been wondering about this. I think Madsen used the last scholarship on a new freshman.247 portal still shoes him with no destination

---

Sounds like if Carr does not find a new home he likes before Fall, he could/would stay at Cal as a walkon (with NIL)? He is local and would only pay instate tuition. I'm sure we would find enough NIL to cover that at least.

To make good money in the portal you have to be a proven shooter. That being said, I hope he comes back.he made a mistake