11-06-2012, 05:43 AM
Even if Stanford football should ever again plumb the depths of the PAC-12 standings, Stanford at least has a strong brand and knows what it wants the football program to be. California has no earthly clue. this is focused on football, but applies to the role of and standard for all athletic programs.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Stanford football: Is the school with the highest entrance requirements in the highest level of college football. It puts a premium on graduating players and there is no confusion that academics come before athletics. It's goal is to be among the best in the class room and on the field, and prepare its players for life after football.
Over in Berkeley: I can't begin to say what California wants its football team to be, but here is what it is: The number one public university, that takes pride in its academic reputation, but doesn't hold it's football program to any standard of performance. It treats football as a necessary evil, and holds the belief that if it wins too much it demonstrates the school has the wrong priorities; Berkeley is the top public university, not a football factory. It isn't U.S.C. Nobody should expect California to win much. As long as we go to a bowl game, we're happy, but we understand we aren't a football factory so we might have a few down years and that's OK as long as Stanford isn't going to BCS games and winning too many Big Games, we graduate our players, and they don't embarrass us with off the field transgressions.
That's neither a brand or an identity that informs what the role of the program is or what is expected from it in terms of its performance. California cares so little that it even allows the academic performance of its football program to slip without consequences, and that has translated to no consequences on the team either, which IMO are a major factor in why the team is now 3-7, with one of those wins against an overmatched FCS school.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Stanford football: Is the school with the highest entrance requirements in the highest level of college football. It puts a premium on graduating players and there is no confusion that academics come before athletics. It's goal is to be among the best in the class room and on the field, and prepare its players for life after football.
Over in Berkeley: I can't begin to say what California wants its football team to be, but here is what it is: The number one public university, that takes pride in its academic reputation, but doesn't hold it's football program to any standard of performance. It treats football as a necessary evil, and holds the belief that if it wins too much it demonstrates the school has the wrong priorities; Berkeley is the top public university, not a football factory. It isn't U.S.C. Nobody should expect California to win much. As long as we go to a bowl game, we're happy, but we understand we aren't a football factory so we might have a few down years and that's OK as long as Stanford isn't going to BCS games and winning too many Big Games, we graduate our players, and they don't embarrass us with off the field transgressions.
That's neither a brand or an identity that informs what the role of the program is or what is expected from it in terms of its performance. California cares so little that it even allows the academic performance of its football program to slip without consequences, and that has translated to no consequences on the team either, which IMO are a major factor in why the team is now 3-7, with one of those wins against an overmatched FCS school.