Sports and top law schools Forum

[sundance95]

Hail to the Victors baby.

This is a little much from a fan of a team that's gone 8-16 in the years since it's most historic moment: namely, when Appalachian State laid a big, steaming pile of upset-of-the-century right on the 50 yard line M of the Big House. I was pointing out the absurd fanboyism of a particular Cal fan, especially given the embarrassing loss this week to Nevada. It wasn't an open invitation for absurd fanboyism from a Michigan fan.

[takehold]

My issue was with the use of the term "nationally recognized sports program." A program is inclusive of all the sports. And if you believe that Cal does not have a nationally-recognized, competitive football and basketball program, then you are not a sports fan and this thread is irrelevant to you.

And using the "only football and basketball" barometer, let's analyze the recent trends of say, Michigan, and Cal. In the last couple years, Cal has outperformed Michigan in a combination of the two sports. It actually has outperformed any of the other programs on that list.

Cool story, bro. In the last couple of years? Who cares? I'm sorry, but how many championships does Cal have? How many Pac-10 championships, let alone national championships?

I'm a Cal fan too. I get it. But trust me, this is not an argument you want to have. On the collegiate sports landscape, Cal is somewhere in the T30 while Michigan is solidly T6.

Who cares you say? Shouldn't you be a little concerned with how the team has done in the last couple of years (and this year so far as well) if you're going to be there for the next three? Or would one be better off appealing to "tradition" and "how many national championships my team won in the 1950s"? And sorry man, it's not possible to be "T6" in collegiate sports when your basketball program is what Michigan's has been for the last decade.

Further, I am no "fanboy." I am not arguing what stadium atmosphere is more exciting or which athletics program is more "storied," but rather which program (or even "football and basketball team" if we want to use that barometer) I would rather root for based on what is likely the best predictor of a program/team's potential success in the immediate future: its recent performance.

I should also qualify that I have nothing against Michigan, but rather that I feel like Cal deserves to be considered right alongside Michigan in this debate; my initial response was to Cal's lack of inclusion in the original list.

[sundance95]

Further, I am no "fanboy." I am not arguing what stadium atmosphere is more exciting or which athletics program is more "storied," but rather which program (or even "football and basketball team" if we want to use that barometer) I would rather root for based on what is likely the best predictor of a program/team's potential success in the immediate future: its recent performance.

Dude, Cal just lost to Nevada. 51-32. AT HOME. Need I remind you that Nevada plays in the WAC and is NOT a team named Boise State? Srsly.

I should also qualify that I have nothing against Michigan, but rather that I feel like Cal deserves to be considered right alongside Michigan in this debate; my initial response was to Cal's lack of inclusion in the original list.

Right, I get that that is what you are saying. But the rub is that Cal doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Michigan. Really. Cal hasn't been to a Rose Bowl since 1959. Since then, Michigan has been to 17, including appearances in '04, '05, and '07. So stop, just stop.

PS: Outside of the ACC, no one cares about basketball. HTH.

[20160810]

Further, I am no "fanboy." I am not arguing what stadium atmosphere is more exciting or which athletics program is more "storied," but rather which program (or even "football and basketball team" if we want to use that barometer) I would rather root for based on what is likely the best predictor of a program/team's potential success in the immediate future: its recent performance.

Dude, Cal just lost to Nevada. 51-32. AT HOME. Need I remind you that Nevada plays in the WAC and is NOT a team named Boise State? Srsly.

I should also qualify that I have nothing against Michigan, but rather that I feel like Cal deserves to be considered right alongside Michigan in this debate; my initial response was to Cal's lack of inclusion in the original list.

Right, I get that that is what you are saying. But the rub is that Cal doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Michigan. Really. Cal hasn't been to a Rose Bowl since 1959. Since then, Michigan has been to 17, including appearances in '04, '05, and '07. So stop, just stop.

PS: Outside of the ACC, no one cares about basketball. HTH.

Not that it helps much, but the Nevada loss was not a home game for Cal.

[sundance95]

Not that it helps much, but the Nevada loss was not a home game for Cal.

Apologies, fixed. Odd that a BCS conference AD would agree to that game-I'm guessing Nevada comes to Cal next year?

Edit: They aren't, and Nevada didn't come in 2009 either. Bizarre choice for Cal to go on the road like that, but w/e.

[20160810]

Not that it helps much, but the Nevada loss was not a home game for Cal.

Apologies, fixed. Odd that a BCS conference AD would agree to that game-I'm guessing Nevada comes to Cal next year?

Edit: They aren't, and Nevada didn't come in 2009 either. Bizarre choice for Cal to go on the road like that, but w/e.

Eh, in theory it was a gimmie game for them. No need to hassle about scheduling minutia with a WAC cupcake. Whoops.