Correct. They need more guys who love it enough to do everything it takes all week to win on Saturday, and fewer guys who mostly love the uniform and the gear and being worshipped in Austin.Big C said:
Texas always gets players with a lot of stars, but for the last while, they've been getting "guys who love being football players, not guys who love playing football".
Strong is improving the quality across the board. A 5 star in a sea of low/mod 3's won't do it.Cal Strong! said:
Cal Strong like to see Wilcox get a 5-star QB . . . or and 5-star football player. That would be strong.
We got a 4 star QB if I am not mistaken..okaydo said:
We should get a QB from Texas. Perhaps 4-star Brock Mansion Jr.
Devil's advocate response: if you can't recruit to the SF Bay Area you're incompetentchazzed said:
If you can't recruit to Texas, you're incompetent.
I think he means UoT. I think you mean UCB. I don't think the two are equally challenging. ;-)remb8888 said:Devil's advocate response: if you can't recruit to the SF Bay Area you're incompetentchazzed said:
If you can't recruit to Texas, you're incompetent.
I know what he meantGo!Bears said:I think he means UoT. I think you mean UCB. I don't think the two are equally challenging. ;-)remb8888 said:Devil's advocate response: if you can't recruit to the SF Bay Area you're incompetentchazzed said:
If you can't recruit to Texas, you're incompetent.
Yes, but do you think the two are equally challenging?remb8888 said:I know what he meantGo!Bears said:I think he means UoT. I think you mean UCB. I don't think the two are equally challenging. ;-)remb8888 said:Devil's advocate response: if you can't recruit to the SF Bay Area you're incompetentchazzed said:
If you can't recruit to Texas, you're incompetent.
Just throwing out there our supposed recruiting advantage as well.Go!Bears said:Yes, but do you think the two are equally challenging?remb8888 said:I know what he meantGo!Bears said:I think he means UoT. I think you mean UCB. I don't think the two are equally challenging. ;-)remb8888 said:Devil's advocate response: if you can't recruit to the SF Bay Area you're incompetentchazzed said:
If you can't recruit to Texas, you're incompetent.
Cal Strong strongly agree. Cal is best place on earth to go to school. Wilcox been here too long to not get 5 stars.remb8888 said:Just throwing out there our supposed recruiting advantage as well.Go!Bears said:Yes, but do you think the two are equally challenging?remb8888 said:I know what he meantGo!Bears said:I think he means UoT. I think you mean UCB. I don't think the two are equally challenging. ;-)remb8888 said:Devil's advocate response: if you can't recruit to the SF Bay Area you're incompetentchazzed said:
If you can't recruit to Texas, you're incompetent.
The Bay Area is beautiful, but the last year in Berkeley has been brutal and then there's all the other stuff (dead horses beaten many times on this site over the years). I think recruiting to Cal these days has to be harder than ever.remb8888 said:Just throwing out there our supposed recruiting advantage as well.Go!Bears said:Yes, but do you think the two are equally challenging?remb8888 said:I know what he meantGo!Bears said:I think he means UoT. I think you mean UCB. I don't think the two are equally challenging. ;-)remb8888 said:Devil's advocate response: if you can't recruit to the SF Bay Area you're incompetentchazzed said:
If you can't recruit to Texas, you're incompetent.
That is true. However, this particular conversation is directed towards college football. There are any number of other threads on which you can direct your NFL observations. In college, five stars are the foundation upon which national champions are built.burritos said:
What percentage of NFL qb's were 5* recruits. I'll give you a hint, it's not 100%
burritos said:
What percentage of NFL qb's were 5* recruits. I'll give you a hint, it's not 100%
remb8888 said:burritos said:
What percentage of NFL qb's were 5* recruits. I'll give you a hint, it's not 100%
Which NFL team are we rooting for on this Cal Bears football message board? I don't give a flying **** how many star recruits are on NFL teams. You're right many successful players in the NFL were not very highly ranked coming out of college.
But what we can say is that there is a very high correlation between the recruiting stars who have an impact and those college programs who are successful. Probably a chicken or the egg phenomenon but sometimes it comes down to the coach.
I can't remember the last time Cal had a head coach who had a reputation as an A+ recruiter. Tedford had a run but we learned that was because Tosh Lupoi caught that early social media wave. Now everyone's doing it. We've never had anyone like a sark, like a Cristobal, etc.
I mean it's all about how you sell the positives of each program. I mean if Oregon in the middle of fking nowhere Eugene can attract top tier recruits by selling their facilities and uniform why can't Cal sell its own strengths better? We haven't had anyone truly capitalize on it.
We've all heard this argument over and over and over again. Honestly I don't know how much merit it has in that I'm sure 'rigorous academics and eligibility criteria' play a role in decreasing the recruitment pool but honestly to what degree does it really do that?dimitrig said:remb8888 said:burritos said:
What percentage of NFL qb's were 5* recruits. I'll give you a hint, it's not 100%
Which NFL team are we rooting for on this Cal Bears football message board? I don't give a flying **** how many star recruits are on NFL teams. You're right many successful players in the NFL were not very highly ranked coming out of college.
But what we can say is that there is a very high correlation between the recruiting stars who have an impact and those college programs who are successful. Probably a chicken or the egg phenomenon but sometimes it comes down to the coach.
I can't remember the last time Cal had a head coach who had a reputation as an A+ recruiter. Tedford had a run but we learned that was because Tosh Lupoi caught that early social media wave. Now everyone's doing it. We've never had anyone like a sark, like a Cristobal, etc.
I mean it's all about how you sell the positives of each program. I mean if Oregon in the middle of fking nowhere Eugene can attract top tier recruits by selling their facilities and uniform why can't Cal sell its own strengths better? We haven't had anyone truly capitalize on it.
The problem, if you want to call it a problem, is that Cal has high admission standards and - unlike Stanford - it is difficult to stay eligible once admitted.
You can convince all kinds of kids to come to Cal, but they need to be able to make the grade here.
The pool of kids that can do that and also play football at a high level is pretty small and so that's where we are.
remb8888 said:
We've all heard this argument over and over and over again. Honestly I don't know how much merit it has in that I'm sure 'rigorous academics and eligibility criteria' play a role in decreasing the recruitment pool but honestly to what degree does it really do that?
How much longer do we put up with the 'he couldn't hack it academically' excuse? Granted some big recruits flamed out, during the Tosh Lupoi era, we were getting a lot of interest from a lot of highly ranked players without academic excuses. There's plenty of academically eligible recruits who we are just not attracting.
I think Cal gets in its own way. Pretty much every coach has said recruiting at Cal is not difficult, but then none of them (with the exception of the Tosh years) get the big classes. Texas has a bigger in-state talent and is the flagship of the state, so it has a better base of talent to work with, but Cal shouldn't be THIS far behind.Go!Bears said:Yes, but do you think the two are equally challenging?remb8888 said:I know what he meantGo!Bears said:I think he means UoT. I think you mean UCB. I don't think the two are equally challenging. ;-)remb8888 said:Devil's advocate response: if you can't recruit to the SF Bay Area you're incompetentchazzed said:
If you can't recruit to Texas, you're incompetent.
dimitrig said:remb8888 said:burritos said:
What percentage of NFL qb's were 5* recruits. I'll give you a hint, it's not 100%
Which NFL team are we rooting for on this Cal Bears football message board? I don't give a flying **** how many star recruits are on NFL teams. You're right many successful players in the NFL were not very highly ranked coming out of college.
But what we can say is that there is a very high correlation between the recruiting stars who have an impact and those college programs who are successful. Probably a chicken or the egg phenomenon but sometimes it comes down to the coach.
I can't remember the last time Cal had a head coach who had a reputation as an A+ recruiter. Tedford had a run but we learned that was because Tosh Lupoi caught that early social media wave. Now everyone's doing it. We've never had anyone like a sark, like a Cristobal, etc.
I mean it's all about how you sell the positives of each program. I mean if Oregon in the middle of fking nowhere Eugene can attract top tier recruits by selling their facilities and uniform why can't Cal sell its own strengths better? We haven't had anyone truly capitalize on it.
The problem, if you want to call it a problem, is that Cal has high admission standards and - unlike Stanford - it is difficult to stay eligible once admitted.
You can convince all kinds of kids to come to Cal, but they need to be able to make the grade here.
The pool of kids that can do that and also play football at a high level is pretty small and so that's where we are.
I tend to agree someone who frequently points out that Wilcox's conference record is not very stellar. Far many more losses than wins using that computation.Cal Strong! said:Cal Strong strongly agree. Cal is best place on earth to go to school. Wilcox been here too long to not get 5 stars.remb8888 said:Just throwing out there our supposed recruiting advantage as well.Go!Bears said:Yes, but do you think the two are equally challenging?remb8888 said:I know what he meantGo!Bears said:I think he means UoT. I think you mean UCB. I don't think the two are equally challenging. ;-)remb8888 said:Devil's advocate response: if you can't recruit to the SF Bay Area you're incompetentchazzed said:
If you can't recruit to Texas, you're incompetent.
Recruiting is not easy. Berkeley is a place not everyone is looking for. This has nothing to do with Cal but does play a role. I think Wilcox et al have started to figure it out and the last 2 classes have been increasing in quality. That will get us more wins and in turn better classes in the future. Do not be blinded by how good the school is. It is a myriad of things. And then there is the filled paper bag strategy some schools employ. The amounts that are rumored to be paid are staggering in some cases. I am not going to go into detail because they are rumors but 6 figures is not uncommon...These number rumors are talked about by both college and high school coachesHuaHin (fka Uthai) said:I think Cal gets in its own way. Pretty much every coach has said recruiting at Cal is not difficult, but then none of them (with the exception of the Tosh years) get the big classes. Texas has a bigger in-state talent and is the flagship of the state, so it has a better base of talent to work with, but Cal shouldn't be THIS far behind.Go!Bears said:Yes, but do you think the two are equally challenging?remb8888 said:I know what he meantGo!Bears said:I think he means UoT. I think you mean UCB. I don't think the two are equally challenging. ;-)remb8888 said:Devil's advocate response: if you can't recruit to the SF Bay Area you're incompetentchazzed said:
If you can't recruit to Texas, you're incompetent.
Then again, some of us have been saying this for decades.
Bearly Clad said:
First, and I can't believe I even have to say this, yes the academics are more challenging at The University of California which is #1 public university in the world vs. places like the University of Oregon or the SEC. Even with tutors and all the advantages given to athletes that regular students don't get our athletes still have to work hard academically
Second, recruiting is on a clear upswing the last couple years under Wilcox. According to 24/7 Sports, last year Wilcox signed his first top 25 recruiting class with 7 recruits who were 4*s and both our early '22 commits are 4*s
Third, finding the right guys is more important than getting 5*s just for the hell of it. Wilcox seems like he's building things the right way and signing talented players who are also good fits for the program, we'll have to wait a couple years to see but this feels nothing like '10 and '11 when we were landing 5* talent that wasn't right for the program
I've never seen anyone use academics as an excuse for on-field performance. Dykes rebuilt the APR scores but was just a bad HC and Wilcox rebuilt the program from the crater Dykes left it in. The reason Cal academics are relevant in recruiting is that, like it or not, there are much, much fewer academically qualified top athletes. There were only 32 athletes last cycle with 5* ratings and only 2 of them had Cal offers
burritos said:
It all went downhill when Holmoe failed to nab DJ Williams.
