In most states the P-5 representative is part of the largest school system in the state and/or and or is often the largest university in the state. Neither of these statements is true in California.

The Cal State System has total full time undergraduate residents of 349,088 The Cal State System is the largest University system in the country and has no P5 representation

The UC System has total undergraduate residents of 175,492. Cal has 22,158 Resident students, UCLA has 23,834 Resident students. 5 Cal State Schools have larger resident undergraduate enrollments than either of the Pac-12 UC schools. ( Cal and UCLA have a relatively small percentage of CA residents enrolled:~ 75 percent)

* If Cal were in the SEC only Mississippi St and Vanderbilt appear to have smaller enrollments

* If Cal were in the Big 10 only Nebraska and Northwestern appear to have smaller enrollments

* Even in the Pac, Stanford and USC are the lowest enrollment then Cal and UCLA appear to be the lowest with Oregon State.

While you can make an argument about density in many states. A large density argument can be made in in CA. With a population of 23.67 million in 1980, CA residents could get into the Pac-12 schools. Now with a 39.2 million population level and an international admission rate that has risen from 2% to 12%, Pac-12 schools have chosen to increase their exclusivity instead of their enrollment.

On Cal

Before 1960, 15 percent of California's high school graduates were eligible to attend the school, and until 1964, the school admitted anyone who met its requirements.

By the early 80s, the school was denying nearly half of its applicants, and by the end of that decade, it was denying almost two thirds of those who applied.

In 2016 the admit rate of the University of California was 17.5% and many of those were out of state students.

This declining ability to get into the Pac-12 UC's is not unnoticed by California residents and impacts the support of the school and the Pac-12 conference by California residents. Even graduates of the UC's whose kids are forced to go elsewhere see declining interest. Unless the Pac-12 fixes it California problem it will continue to grow increasingly irrelevant in the world of major college sports.

If we want the same kind of student that got into UCLA or Cal in the 1980's wouldn't the logical move be to add more UC campuses, not CSU schools?

Sactowndog,

There is no support in California from the general public for any University, excepting some from the Compton-Long Beach etc pipeline for athletes at USC. The reliance upon alumni for support is probably greater in the west than anywhere else.

The CSU problem is low graduation rates, small endowments and zero campus spirit outside of three or four campuses, as a result of commuter syndrome. Only Cal Poly, Chico State and San Diego State enjoy anything like a residential experience - the first two are in the middle of nowhere, so attendance is confined to students, hence FCS and D-II level. Fresno has a residue of "townee" support, but nothing like it had in the 80's and 90's.

The solution for the UC problem is to allow the Davis campus to explode to 50,000 students with expansion, and be the Wisconsin of the west. (This is independent of the need for greater control and oversight of the regents by the legislature ... which seems to be supported by almost all 120 members - not a Democrat or Republican issue, nor seen by anyone to be one). The second part of the solution is to loosen the CSU charter, or as I strongly advocate splitting off the six highest resource campuses into a new system with copious funds for on campus housing, and higher standards (closer to Cal Poly) than the current CSU admission rules. Without adding a single campus, you could effectively double the number of true residential seats, and elevate five or six CSU campuses to tier-2 instead of tier-3 and tier-4 status (Carnegie R2, PhD programs in more than one or two fields). This would take pressure off the UC systems and allow them to take a significant number of top 8-12% students who are now automatically turned down (really if you are not top 5 or 6% your admission is limited to lesser majors). The UC System's fear of internal competition is badly dated, from an era with a barely 60% of the number of qualified HS students applying. The system growth has not kept pace.

Anyway you sound like you'd support a platform of such reforms.

But as for Cal, I think the days of the non alumni fan support are long gone. Any athletics has to be based on alumni. Only in the South and parts of the Midwest, where the flagship University of the State is associated with identity of ordinary people in the State can you get much townee support. That just doesn't exist at any P12 school.

Want to know why the California system is increasingly hoovering high-tuition out of state students? Look no further than Cal's stadium renovation financial mismanagement:

"The school was going to take on a bonded debt of $445 million for the $474 million project, hoping to pay it back by selling 50-year rights to season tickets for hundreds of thousands of dollars. ... By June 2011, only 49 of the 3,000 long-term seats had been sold.

Cal tried to pivot away from the seat selling plan by 2013, but by that point, a gaping budget shortfall was staring them in the face, and that was just from paying off the debt.

The Bears now owe at least $18 million per year in interest-only payments on the stadium debt. Payments will increase to $37 million per year in 2039 ... Berkeley will owe $81 million in 2053."

http://deadspin.com/cal-is-******-becaus...1795896858

How is it anyone's fault there's no CSU's in the Pac? C'est la vie, life is not fair. FTR, if anyone had the potential, it was Fresno.

(06-09-2017 11:56 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  If we want the same kind of student that got into UCLA or Cal in the 1980's wouldn't the logical move be to add more UC campuses, not CSU schools?

The lack of available real estate and the prohibitive cost of overhead for the UC system says this is not the solution. Merced can grow, and Davis can grow massive. The rest are space constrained, and just as building a stadium requires land with multi-billion $ price tags, the same for a UC campus.

A second argument is California is paying for 6 AAU level research schools, and a 7th not far off that. Texas with 2/3rds the population is funding only 2 such campuses. Also by allowing their campuses to be large, Texas and A&M alone have more than half the capacity of the 9 campus UC system (these are Virginia sized campuses, so ). The UC system does not have the ability (except if Davis is grown to a capacity of 60,000+ with 50,000 undergrads) to take advantage of the economy of scale.

The solution has to come from existing campuses. The cheapest way to do that is to develop a half dozen CSU schools from R3 and "Masters" level schools to R2, and to build residential facilities and up the standards of those schools. This could solve the residency problem, and would take pressure off the UC admissions.

For the record, I am not advocating any CSU be in the Pac. But I do see a 50,000 student UC Davis in there at some point in the future.

(06-10-2017 12:07 AM)ColKurtz Wrote:  Want to know why the California system is increasingly hoovering high-tuition out of state students? Look no further than Cal's stadium renovation financial mismanagement:

"The school was going to take on a bonded debt of $445 million for the $474 million project, hoping to pay it back by selling 50-year rights to season tickets for hundreds of thousands of dollars. ... By June 2011, only 49 of the 3,000 long-term seats had been sold.

Cal tried to pivot away from the seat selling plan by 2013, but by that point, a gaping budget shortfall was staring them in the face, and that was just from paying off the debt.

The Bears now owe at least $18 million per year in interest-only payments on the stadium debt. Payments will increase to $37 million per year in 2039 ... Berkeley will owe $81 million in 2053."

http://deadspin.com/cal-is-******-becaus...1795896858

Maybe it's time to get those conditions changed and let the Raiders move in...too late...

(06-10-2017 12:17 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  For the record, I am not advocating any CSU be in the Pac. But I do see a 50,000 student UC Davis in there at some point in the future.

Davis has strong potential but that's a long ways away, if ever. Rice, BYU and even UCSD have better shots. If you're not on the edge of the power conferences already, chances are you aren't getting in. The Big 12 may add a couple but we're more likely to see schools (Washington State, half the Big 12, Oregon State, Wake Forest, Miami, BC) drop from the club than see schools added to it.

C2,

UC Davis problem is 100% politic. It is the self contained and insular nature of the regent system. UC is not responding to the needs of the State, and instead is focused on the internal politics. A big part of that s the pecking order where UCLA and Cal have to be the largest campuses to maintain flagship status. This is an inside the regents issue, not one the average Californian cares about. Weak leadership at UC Davis is as a result by design.

I think this is an example of where lack of oversight and control by the legislature has retarded the development of the UC system, and in particular UC Davis, in favor of regents office politics. That is just insane.

(06-10-2017 12:06 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Sactowndog,

There is no support in California from the general public for any University, excepting some from the Compton-Long Beach etc pipeline for athletes at USC. The reliance upon alumni for support is probably greater in the west than anywhere else.

The CSU problem is low graduation rates, small endowments and zero campus spirit outside of three or four campuses, as a result of commuter syndrome. Only Cal Poly, Chico State and San Diego State enjoy anything like a residential experience - the first two are in the middle of nowhere, so attendance is confined to students, hence FCS and D-II level. Fresno has a residue of "townee" support, but nothing like it had in the 80's and 90's.

The solution for the UC problem is to allow the Davis campus to explode to 50,000 students with expansion, and be the Wisconsin of the west. (This is independent of the need for greater control and oversight of the regents by the legislature ... which seems to be supported by almost all 120 members - not a Democrat or Republican issue, nor seen by anyone to be one). The second part of the solution is to loosen the CSU charter, or as I strongly advocate splitting off the six highest resource campuses into a new system with copious funds for on campus housing, and higher standards (closer to Cal Poly) than the current CSU admission rules. Without adding a single campus, you could effectively double the number of true residential seats, and elevate five or six CSU campuses to tier-2 instead of tier-3 and tier-4 status (Carnegie R2, PhD programs in more than one or two fields). This would take pressure off the UC systems and allow them to take a significant number of top 8-12% students who are now automatically turned down (really if you are not top 5 or 6% your admission is limited to lesser majors). The UC System's fear of internal competition is badly dated, from an era with a barely 60% of the number of qualified HS students applying. The system growth has not kept pace.

Anyway you sound like you'd support a platform of such reforms.

But as for Cal, I think the days of the non alumni fan support are long gone. Any athletics has to be based on alumni. Only in the South and parts of the Midwest, where the flagship University of the State is associated with identity of ordinary people in the State can you get much townee support. That just doesn't exist at any P12 school.

Yes I would agree for the good of the state, the CSU requirements should be changed. I think Fresno should be one of those schools to help economically revitalize the valley. Athletics be dammed.

That said it doesn't solve the affinity problem the PAC-12 has in CA.

(06-09-2017 11:56 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  If we want the same kind of student that got into UCLA or Cal in the 1980's wouldn't the logical move be to add more UC campuses, not CSU schools?

To the system or the PAC-12. If you are talking the system I would say no. We have too much overhead already. I would let the UC continue with its exclusive model but loosen restrictions on a number of Cal States and allow them to grow significantly in size.

(06-10-2017 12:07 AM)ColKurtz Wrote:  Want to know why the California system is increasingly hoovering high-tuition out of state students? Look no further than Cal's stadium renovation financial mismanagement:

"The school was going to take on a bonded debt of $445 million for the $474 million project, hoping to pay it back by selling 50-year rights to season tickets for hundreds of thousands of dollars. ... By June 2011, only 49 of the 3,000 long-term seats had been sold.

Cal tried to pivot away from the seat selling plan by 2013, but by that point, a gaping budget shortfall was staring them in the face, and that was just from paying off the debt.

The Bears now owe at least $18 million per year in interest-only payments on the stadium debt. Payments will increase to $37 million per year in 2039 ... Berkeley will owe $81 million in 2053."

http://deadspin.com/cal-is-******-becaus...1795896858

I think this demonstrates the lack of passionate fans for Cal sports more than anything.

(06-10-2017 12:10 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  How is it anyone's fault there's no CSU's in the Pac? C'est la vie, life is not fair. FTR, if anyone had the potential, it was Fresno.

Not arguing for or against a CSU. Just pointing out that unlike most states the P5 schools in CA are not major universities from an enrollment standpoint. This impacts engagement in the state as seen by Cals revenue problems.

(06-10-2017 12:16 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(06-09-2017 11:56 PM)GiveEmTheAxe Wrote:  If we want the same kind of student that got into UCLA or Cal in the 1980's wouldn't the logical move be to add more UC campuses, not CSU schools?

The lack of available real estate and the prohibitive cost of overhead for the UC system says this is not the solution. Merced can grow, and Davis can grow massive. The rest are space constrained, and just as building a stadium requires land with multi-billion $ price tags, the same for a UC campus.

A second argument is California is paying for 6 AAU level research schools, and a 7th not far off that. Texas with 2/3rds the population is funding only 2 such campuses. Also by allowing their campuses to be large, Texas and A&M alone have more than half the capacity of the 9 campus UC system (these are Virginia sized campuses, so ). The UC system does not have the ability (except if Davis is grown to a capacity of 60,000+ with 50,000 undergrads) to take advantage of the economy of scale.

The solution has to come from existing campuses. The cheapest way to do that is to develop a half dozen CSU schools from R3 and "Masters" level schools to R2, and to build residential facilities and up the standards of those schools. This could solve the residency problem, and would take pressure off the UC admissions.

I would agree with this approach. I think the State needs to be smart where they put such Universities however to grow undeveloped parts of the State. For example, while San Jose State by every measure should be part of the 5, packing more students and adding more pressure on an already over burdened Bay Area infrastructure makes no sense.

(06-10-2017 12:17 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  For the record, I am not advocating any CSU be in the Pac. But I do see a 50,000 student UC Davis in there at some point in the future.

That will be a big jump from the Big Sky to the PAC.

(06-10-2017 01:11 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  

(06-10-2017 12:17 AM)Stugray2 Wrote:  For the record, I am not advocating any CSU be in the Pac. But I do see a 50,000 student UC Davis in there at some point in the future.

That will be a big jump from the Big Sky to the PAC.

David State says it is doable!

Athletic affiliation based on enrollment works for high schools. It is not a factor at the college/university level.

(06-09-2017 11:41 PM)Sactowndog Wrote:  Unless the Pac-12 fixes it California problem it will continue to grow increasingly irrelevant in the world of major college sports.

You mean by inviting ... Fresno State?

The PAC has no "California Problem". It has four California schools, all of them highly regarded athletically and academically, and located in Los Angeles and San Francisco. California is by almost every measure one of the most economically successful parts of the globe, and the PAC has zero competition in it.

It's one reason the PAC is always in good position, always relevant.

(06-10-2017 12:07 AM)ColKurtz Wrote:  Want to know why the California system is increasingly hoovering high-tuition out of state students? Look no further than Cal's stadium renovation financial mismanagement:

"The school was going to take on a bonded debt of $445 million for the $474 million project, hoping to pay it back by selling 50-year rights to season tickets for hundreds of thousands of dollars. ... By June 2011, only 49 of the 3,000 long-term seats had been sold.

Cal tried to pivot away from the seat selling plan by 2013, but by that point, a gaping budget shortfall was staring them in the face, and that was just from paying off the debt.

The Bears now owe at least $18 million per year in interest-only payments on the stadium debt. Payments will increase to $37 million per year in 2039 ... Berkeley will owe $81 million in 2053."

http://deadspin.com/cal-is-******-becaus...1795896858

Wow! $81 million in 2053 is the equivalent of about $40 million in today's dollars (assuming a 2% inflation rate).

That's crippling.

Unless this new stadium transforms Cal football into a power soon, they're cooked. I know their donors have deep pockets, but that's a MASSIVE hole.