• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

It happenin

Berkeley_Griz said:
You've only proven, once again, that your most consistent personality trait is being completely incapable of hearing that you're wrong without throwing a temper tantrum.

If you think not many PhDs run successful businesses, you've not spent nearly enough time on the Stanford or Berkeley campuses, or you spent your time entirely within the wrong departments.

Apparently you've never run a successful business. At this point it takes me all of about 15 hours per week. I pay people (well) to run the day to day.
Click to expand...
I was right on the possibility of Cal and Stanford possibility considering a return to a rebuilt PAC-12 if that occurred. You said no way and no one was even thinking or talking about that. I was right and then I found your Sept 14 post where you said the same thing. You were and are dishonest. I had also been with Stanford and Cal alums and big donors in the Bay Area who had been talking about it. Yes, older but some had been on those schools big advisory boards and are in first name based with the AD’s. I know lots of Stanford Biz School grads.

I was a partner in a successful business and worked with 100’s and 100’s of successful businesses. Helped a few founders make over half a billion dollars. I worked with many VC firms.

Something about you doesn’t ring true. And you are immature.
 
Berkeley_Griz said:
Please point out where I lied. And if you can't, stop lying.

I'm sorry you have bad contacts. You're old and not well-connected with the younger mover and shakers, so it's understandable.

Glad to see you've come around, flip-flopped on what you were saying, and chosen to agree with me.
Click to expand...
See my other recent post. No flip flop from me. Just lack of honesty from you.
 
Berkeley_Griz said:
Olympic sports are a priority at Berkeley, too. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I think at this prior Olympics Stanford and Berkeley were #1 and #2 most represented universities by the competitors. But to your question, yes, it was very much discussed. I don't think anyone is saying the travel is ideal. But neither institution wants those Olympic sports relegated to playing inferior competition in a rebuilt PAC/ new-name MWC, as that is not a good way to keep the strength of those programs alive either.
Click to expand...
The ACC travel is going to hurt these other sports. Note Stanford tried to cut 11 sports in recent years.

Stanford no. 1. Cal no. 8. Harvard more than Cal. UCLA and USC nis. 2 and 3.
 
Last edited:
HelenaHandBasket said:
Based on what...other than your opinion?
Click to expand...
Based on what hundreds of articles said and scores of my Stanford and Cal friends have told me. Where is your support for the position that Stanford and Cal will never consider coming back to strong reconstituted PAC-12? Give us your links. Make them recent now that the PAC-12 has shown it’s trying to make a comeback.
 
mthoopsfan said:
Based on what hundreds of articles said and scores of my Stanford and Cal friends have told me. Where is your support for the position that Stanford and Cal will never consider coming back to strong reconstituted PAC-12? Give us your links. Make them recent now that the PAC-12 has shown it’s trying to make a comeback.
Click to expand...
Can you provide any, and I mean any, post that I stated such?
 
Berkeley_Griz said:
Olympic sports are a priority at Berkeley, too. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I think at this prior Olympics Stanford and Berkeley were #1 and #2 most represented universities by the competitors. But to your question, yes, it was very much discussed. I don't think anyone is saying the travel is ideal. But neither institution wants those Olympic sports relegated to playing inferior competition in a rebuilt PAC/ new-name MWC, as that is not a good way to keep the strength of those programs alive either.
Click to expand...
I thought so but also think the reasoning is pretty faulty. And I don't care where they play. The ACC will pretty much be irrelevant football wise if FSU, Clemson and maybe Miami leave (no 45 million for media). In the most prominent women's team sports which to me are hoop, volleyball and softball there are some top tier programs (more so basketball) in that conference but the power in women's sports is shifting to the Ad's with the most money (hello SEC and BIG). Do they have more niche stuff like water polo or beach volleyball? I also would posit that in individual sports that can lead to the Olympics (swimming, etc.) that the travel will be disruptive to training and may be a negative for recruiting.

I have to admit I'm sad seeing all the traditional rivalries and history of college athletics get thrown out the door as to me it has been what made the whole thing fun. Plus the positives of sports and competition for their own sake which I see as valuable to society seem deemphasized in a mad rush to.....somewhere.
 
mthoopsfan said:
Can you provide any support for why you are challenging me on what I said? That is the point. You won’t give up, yet have no support for your apparent view. Now you say you don’t even disagree with me.
Click to expand...
What exactly is my view? I just found it weird that you declared yourself correct based on nothing more than opinion and hearsay. Not a single fact. My point of view was nothing more than Cal and Stanford are tied to the ACC in the short-term and lend nothing to the PACs current rebuild.
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
What exactly is my view? I just found it weird that you declared yourself correct based on nothing more than opinion and hearsay. Not a single fact. My point of view was nothing more than Cal and Stanford are tied to the ACC in the short-term and lend nothing to the PACs current rebuild.
Click to expand...
I declared myself right based on dozens of articles and conversations with many top donors at Stanford, and one donor family at Cal, as well as communications with former Stanford coaches and former players. I spent last week at an event in the Bay Area with a dozen Stanford friends, some of whom are big donors. I had said some all or most of that in multiple posts in this thread.

No, you made no point. You challenged mine. Yes, everyone knows that Stanford/Cal committed to the ACC in the last year. However, the ACC is heading towards likely big problems. You have no basis for saying that Stanford/Cal lend nothing to the Pac-12 rebuild. Yes, they are not returning now, but my point was that a strong and continuing rebuild, combined with problems at and with the ACC, could lead to Stanford/Cal considering a return to the Pac-12 in the future. I assume you have no connections to Stanford or Cal. I do. I went to Stanford. When I have gone with my friends to Cal games, they get my fancy club ticket directly from the AD. The last time I went, I met her. My friends' tailgate and parking spot, for decades, has been right against the Cal stadium. That's where longtime big donors have their spots, or at least did the last time I went to a game there (Goff was the Cal qb).

I await your apology.
 
mthoopsfan said:
I declared myself right based on dozens of articles and conversations with many top donors at Stanford, and one donor family at Cal, as well as communications with former Stanford coaches and former players. I spent last week at an event in the Bay Area with a dozen Stanford friends, some of whom are big donors. I had said some all or most of that in multiple posts in this thread.

No, you made no point. You challenged mine. Yes, everyone knows that Stanford/Cal committed to the ACC in the last year. However, the ACC is heading towards likely big problems. You have no basis for saying that Stanford/Cal lend nothing to the Pac-12 rebuild. Yes, they are not returning now, but my point was that a strong and continuing rebuild, combined with problems at and with the ACC, could lead to Stanford/Cal considering a return to the Pac-12 in the future. I assume you have no connections to Stanford or Cal. I do. I went to Stanford. When I have gone with my friends to Cal games, they get my fancy club ticket directly from the AD. The last time I went, I met her. My friends' tailgate and parking spot, for decades, has been right against the Cal stadium. That's where longtime big donors have their spots, or at least did the last time I went to a game there (Goff was the Cal qb).

I await your apology.
Click to expand...
Your senility is certainly hampering your comprehension.
 
mthoopsfan said:
I was right on the possibility of Cal and Stanford possibility considering a return to a rebuilt PAC-12 if that occurred. You said no way and no one was even thinking or talking about that. I was right and then I found your Sept 14 post where you said the same thing. You were and are dishonest. I had also been with Stanford and Cal alums and big donors in the Bay Area who had been talking about it. Yes, older but some had been on those schools big advisory boards and are in first name based with the AD’s. I know lots of Stanford Biz School grads.

I was a partner in a successful business and worked with 100’s and 100’s of successful businesses. Helped a few founders make over half a billion dollars. I worked with many VC firms.

Something about you doesn’t ring true. And you are immature.
Click to expand...
mthoopsfan said:
See my other recent post. No flip flop from me. Just lack of honesty from you.
Click to expand...
mthoopsfan said:
The ACC travel is going to hurt these other sports. Note Stanford tried to cut 11 sports in recent years.

Stanford no. 1. Cal no. 8. Harvard more than Cal. UCLA and USC nis. 2 and 3.
Click to expand...
Medals: I was speaking about the 2024 Olympics - I believe Stanford had the most medals and Cal #2. All time I believe Stanford is #2 and Cal #4. Feel free to disprove with links of you like - I very well could be wrong.

PAC: I said Cal and Stanford won't consider coming back. The subtext for that statement is so long as they have any other option. If you are incapable of inferring subtext, I will try to speak more simply for you, though given your line of work and decently successful career, I would think this wouldn't be an issue. IF you are discussing ONLY the situation where the ACC completely falls apart, the B1G never comes calling, etc., then YES, in that apocalyptic scenario, they would consider it.

That you are not chatting with more well-connected donors is not my problem and again, not sure why you're so worked up about it (who cares?).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top