Barbour chat getting closer

Just a reminder that our live chat with Cal athletic director Sandy Barbour is this Thursday, June 2, from 2-3 p.m. Here is the link to participate.

Jonathan Okanes

Jonathan Okanes is in his fourth year covering Cal's football team. Previously, he covered Cal's men's basketball team for four years. He can also be followed on Twitter at twitter.com/OkanesonCal.

  • Cre8tivguy

    JO – Be honest. With these chats, do your guests go down the list and pick the easy softball questions or do you go one by one and make them give answers until time runs out? I think bear fans have some really great questions for people like Tedford and Sandy, but they never seem to get asked. You should try putting a list together of the 5 best questions voted by the fans and have your guests answer those first. Let’s not waste time with questions like: “Sandy, do you think the new SAHPC will help with recruiting?”. Duh.

  • LR

    If he asked the 5 best questions, he’d never have another guest.

    Unfortunately, if the hard questions aren’t asked and answered, the fans are left to form their own opinions about the subjects based on whatever information they can gather. JT and Sandy (and anyone else in a high-profile public position) should realize they’d be a lot better off if they discussed the hot button issues directly.

    I suppose the first question I’d have for Sandy is why she didn’t play a more prominent role in trying to save baseball and the other sports if it was merely a matter of raising more money. Isn’t the AD in a better position to mount a fundraising campaign than a disorganized group of alums? Apparently, in this case, the answer was ‘no’.

  • SteveNTexas

    I agree with Cre8tive, even though we are quite good at softball – going to the world series.

  • Bobby

    LR, the answer to your question is that Barbour DID play an prominent role behind-the-scenes, even if she didn’t get her name in the paper like Stu Gordon.

    Also, I’d hardly call the alumni groups disorganized. Rugby saved itself within a matter of weeks, and baseball did it within a few months of realizing the school meant business.

  • milo

    My guess is once Rugby saved itself and quickly raised $6m and (no schollies) while Baseball raised $2m of a needed $10m (with a full comp of schollies and the highest travel budget), Jack Clark probably got pissed and said something about the “all or none” option. He probably told Baseball to man up and take care of business and don’t coattail off Rugby.

    Perhaps it didn’t exactly roll that way but it does seem pretty unfair that Baseball has the largest non-revenue sport budget but didn’t do its share (at the time), that’s when it went on the chopping block. Consider the former MLB’ers, it was viewed as even more suspect and weak.

    Any way…Baseball raised the money and Larry Scott and the new P12 media package has eased things quite a bit.

  • LR


    Why did SB need to remain behind the scenes? Is the desire to save long-standing athletic programs something to be ashamed of? I neither get it nor buy it.

  • Bobby

    Just because someone stays behind the scenes doesn’t mean they’re ashamed. Weird logic. Also, don’t worry about buying the truth if you don’t want to

  • rollonubears

    i can’t make the chat. somebody please ask her if we’re going to get the colors right on the football field. this royal blue we’ve had to look at on the momentum turf was a disgrace. the bears wear a deep navy blue. it should be reflected on the field.

  • Cre8tivguy

    Roll – that’s exactly the kind a question we don’t need wasted on Sandy. She’s already stated that they will have the right color when the new field is installed. Besides, is that really your best question? That’s really all you care about? The color of the endzone?

  • Jim Davis

    Unfortunately I can’t join the chat with Sandy. Will someone please ask her why she hasn’t made a deal with the Oakland- Alameda ferry to go to AT&T park for the Cal games?

  • BlueNGold

    Anyone who has participated in these chats in the past with folks like Sandy and JTed knows that regardless of what questions are asked and whether or not they are ‘good’ or the ‘best’ questions, the answers tend to be the same: generalized, platitudinous and cliche ridden.

  • Cre8tivguy

    Good point BlueNGold. That is the truth. Sorry Roll, I’ll ask Sandy about the end zone color for you. At least I’ll probably get a straight answer…

  • Cre8tiv, this is their chat. I don’t tell them which questions to answer or not to answer. I simply do the typing. That being said, I can’t recall any of our guests skipping more than a couple questions. I distinctly remember the first one we did with Tedford, he didn’t skip a single question. I don’t believe Barbour did, either. But it’s up to them.

  • milo

    FYI: that color blue in the endzone use to be Cal’s jersey colors, like the Joe Roth throwback jerseys a few years back. Joe Kapp got the AD to change it to navy (which I like a lot better).

  • LR


    The “just because…” line of reasoning really falls flat. WHY did Sandy only work behind the scenes(assuming she did any work at all)? If it’s because her superiors really didn’t care and she was merely falling in line, it would be interesting to know. I think that would inform a lot of decisions about alumni giving and athletics giving in particular going forward. If she was just didn’t feel like devoting AD resources to a process she felt wouldn’t work, that would be interesting to know as well. Either way, she doesn’t look very good to me.

    Of course, she should be the last resource for information on any of this. Stu and the other folks involved in fundraising have good insights, but they appear to be too class to say anything negative at this point. If you recall, they made some pretty unflattering statements when the fate of their pet programs were in doubt. Maybe this is all the information we need.