Athletic Facilities

[All Hail]

Academics and culture are very big reasons, for years Cal has been accepting recruits that have no business being at Cal. For years UCLA had to deal with an administration that did not believe in investing money into athletics or making exceptions for athletes, I think Virginia was the same way.

 

Texas A&M is nothing like UCLA, culture or academics, Texas A&M is a weird conservative semi-military type school in the middle of nowhere Texas. Football is king at A&M, they do not have the same hurdles with admissions or funding that UCLA or Virginia have to deal with.

This post made me laugh out loud. UCLA admits 3x more unqualified students than Cal does.

m.sfgate.com/collegesports/article/Why-do-Cal-athletes-not-graduate-5004343.php#page-1

 

80% of Cal football recruits must have a 3.0 or higher by 2017. UCLA will still play the special admit game and then spend far more money on academic resources for athletes to make sure they pass. Something Cal is finally doing themselves.

 

www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_26823904/80-percent-cal-recruits-must-have-3-0

[MrBug708]

I think you continued to misunderstand the special admits (you have done so the last few times you've posted those articles). It's kids who wouldn't normally get into UCLA because of competition, not who didnt meet entrance requirements to a UC school. UCLA doesnt ask for waivers for kids who do not meet UC requirements as they don't really recruit those kids, something Cal, under Tedford, did on more than one occasion.

 

Your article mentions underqualified, not unqualified as you mentioned in your above post. It's apparent that UCLA doesn't really recruit 4.3 student athletes like Cal does, but they aren't looking for 2.3 kids, either. The 2.8 kids that UCLA is taking, meet UC requirements but still are classified as "special admits" because their profile doesnt meet the normal UCLA incoming freshman class profile. They aren't taking ASU/SDSU special admits, just need a pulse class.

 

As soon as I saw IE Bruin make that post, I knew I was going to see that poorly worded "special admits" post again. But there is a big difference in being underqualfied and unqualified.

 

UCLA"s graduation rate is decently impressive as they don't have a football degree program like PE, Family Studies, Sports Administration, or Business. The athletes usually have to take History or Pysch, which requires a fair amount of paper writing. How much of those papers they might write, is another story.

 

I do think Mora has earned some 'silver bullets" from the Admissions department. I think they tried to use one on Joseph Wicker, but it looks like he won't even get into ASU, so I'm not sure it will matter. I do wonder if Cal's policy is changing because the team isnt as successful now and with a poor performing team plus a poor graduation rate, changes needed to be made. If UCLA sees its graduation rates go down for athletes as well as the performance sink to Dorrell/Neu levels, we might see the requirements go back up.

[MrBug708]

Here was a job, albeit an old one, from the Orlando Sentinel about getting in kids to football programs and the ease of it

 

http://collegefootballresource.com/blog/2006/2/5/squeezing-the-cork-back-into-the-bottle.html

 

If you want counter arguments, Bearinsider dismisses this article greatly. Just ask them (Most of their anger was back in 2009 when #Calgang was at its height)

[All Hail]

I think you continued to misunderstand the special admits (you have done so the last few times you've posted those articles). It's kids who wouldn't normally get into UCLA because of competition, not who didnt meet entrance requirements to a UC school. UCLA doesnt ask for waivers for kids who do not meet UC requirements as they don't really recruit those kids, something Cal, under Tedford, did on more than one occasion.

 

Your article mentions underqualified, not unqualified as you mentioned in your above post. It's apparent that UCLA doesn't really recruit 4.3 student athletes like Cal does, but they aren't looking for 2.3 kids, either. The 2.8 kids that UCLA is taking, meet UC requirements but still are classified as "special admits" because their profile doesnt meet the normal UCLA incoming freshman class profile. They aren't taking ASU/SDSU special admits, just need a pulse class.

 

As soon as I saw IE Bruin make that post, I knew I was going to see that poorly worded "special admits" post again. But there is a big difference in being underqualfied and unqualified.

 

UCLA"s graduation rate is decently impressive as they don't have a football degree program like PE, Family Studies, Sports Administration, or Business. The athletes usually have to take History or Pysch, which requires a fair amount of paper writing. How much of those papers they might write, is another story.

 

I do think Mora has earned some 'silver bullets" from the Admissions department. I think they tried to use one on Joseph Wicker, but it looks like he won't even get into ASU, so I'm not sure it will matter. I do wonder if Cal's policy is changing because the team isnt as successful now and with a poor performing team plus a poor graduation rate, changes needed to be made. If UCLA sees its graduation rates go down for athletes as well as the performance sink to Dorrell/Neu levels, we might see the requirements go back up.

To sum it up: UCLA takes more marginal academic recruits than Cal does. Cal football has a higher standard for entrance than UCLA. You decided to insert a speculative opinion as to why for obvious reasons. IEBruin was full of crap. But underqualified is different from unqualified so you have there's that, although that wasn't the point of discussion.

[MrBug708]

UCLA takes more kids that wouldn't normally get into UCLA, no one is arguing that. But IE Bruin's point was that Cal has taken a lower profile of kids that UCLA wouldnt normally be able to get past their admissions department.

[All Hail]

UCLA takes more kids that wouldn't normally get into UCLA, no one is arguing that. But IE Bruin's point was that Cal has taken a lower profile of kids that UCLA wouldnt normally be able to get past their admissions department.

Can this be proven? How are the admissions departments different?

 

His point is undermined by the fact that UCLA takes 3x more admits underqualified commits than Cal.

[I.E. Bruin]

This post made me laugh out loud.

80% of Cal football recruits must have a 3.0 or higher by 2017. UCLA will still play the special admit game and then spend far more money on academic resources for athletes to make sure they pass. Something Cal is finally doing themselves.

www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_26823904/80-percent-cal-recruits-must-have-3-0

Exactly, Why is Cal suddenly raising their admission requirements for student athletes? Because of their embarrassing low APR and GSR scores due to admitting basketball and football players that have no business attending Cal.

[Sparky]

The Notre Dame model:  When all else fails, blame academics. 

[PAC MAN]

An old CU Buffs schedule from 1956 that highlighted expansion at Folsom Field back then.  Yes back then, there was a running track at Folsom Field.

 

[PAC MAN]

 

http://bsndenver.com/what-you-didnt-know-about-the-new-cu-facilities-part-1/

[Sparky]

The new Colorado facilities are mighty impressive. They definitely have sizzle and will be a huge boost for recruiting.

 

Colorado could be scary good in just a couple of years.

 

[glduck]

who doesn't have amazing facilities these days?

[Sparky]

who doesn't have amazing facilities these days?

 

A lot of P5 schools are still playing catch-up. CU is finally in the picture and competing in the facilities race. Let's see how they do now that there is a more level playing field for them.

[Damage U]

 

Colorado could be scary good in just a couple of years.

 

 

 

 

If they're going to be scary good, I'm glad they're now USC's rival.

[All Hail]

The new Colorado facilities are mighty impressive. They definitely have sizzle and will be a huge boost for recruiting.

 

Colorado could be scary good in just a couple of years.

 

 

Yes, and WSU could be scary good in a couple of years too.  Cal recruited better when our facilities ranked dead last in the conference.  A team doesn't become a powerhouse in a matter of years due to facilites.  It's coaches that make the college football world go round. 

[Sparky]

Cal just recently completed their new facilities upgrades. They have been down for a very long time. I look for Cal to also compete very soon. Give it a couple of years.

 

As far as the coaching aspect, everyone has good coaches. It's recruiting and talent on the field that matters most. Coaching is vastly overrated in every sport.

[All Hail]

Cal just recently completed their new facilities upgrades. They have been down for a very long time. I look for Cal to also compete very soon. Give it a couple of years.

 

As far as the coaching aspect, everyone has good coaches. It's recruiting and talent on the field that matters most. Coaching is vastly overrated in every sport.

 

Cal finished the regular season ranked #4 in 2004, hauled in top 10 recruiting classes in 2006 and 2010, and was briefly ranked #1 in the nation in 2007 and all of this was done before our facilities upgrades.  It was done because of a coach.  I'm not sure what you consider down for a very long time but if the aforementioned stats meant that Cal was down then ASU has never been up. 

 

Who brings in the talent?  That would be the coaches, not the facilities as Tedford repeatedly proved.  Recruits commit to coach they can trust, they don't commit to a gym. 

[Sparky]

Tedford never had new facilities.

[All Hail]

Tedford never had new facilities.

 

Yes and that was my point.  He was recruiting better than Dykes ever did with the worst facilities in the conference and got far better results as well.  Facilities don't matter nearly as much as coaches do and until Colorado gets a good coach, their facilities won't mean a damn thing. 

[Mano]

Yes and that was my point.  He was recruiting better than Dykes ever did with the worst facilities in the conference and got far better results as well.  Facilities don't matter nearly as much as coaches do and until Colorado gets a good coach, their facilities won't mean a damn thing. 

 

I think having decent facilities may be a prerequisite to getting a top coach these days. A good coach is not going to come if the school does not show that it is committed to winning (and commitment means spending money on the program).