Why is it so hard to fire football coaches at Cal?

4,909 Views | 93 Replies | Last: 2 mo ago by mbBear
remb8888
How long do you want to ignore this user?
heartofthebear said:

The HC is not the problem, per se, although he may be part of it. Without addressing the bigger problems first, Cal will continue to hire mediocre coaches. As long as the bigger problems aren't addressed, firing Cal HCs because they don't perform at a USC level will actually do the opposite by creating instability and whole new systems that the players have to adapt to. And that hurts recruiting.

Cal would have to hire a big name or big time recruiter to be able to transition quickly and effectively. Otherwise it is another 2-3 years waiting for the new system to show dividends.

The bigger problem is that Cal is not willing to pay for someone demonstrably better than Wilcox. And they certainly aren't paying for a big name.

I suppose many of you think we should fire HCs until we luck out on the next Tedford. Are you willing to risk a lot of losing seasons in the meantime? Wilcox is the first HC in over a decade to put together 3 consecutive winning seasons at Cal.

I would love to have the confidence that Cal would hire someone better than Wilcox but I think it will likely be the opposite.

USC doesn't have that problem, although I think they are going to have problems replacing Helton with someone who will be as successful.

It's a long process to get from where Cal is to where USC is. First of Cal has nowhere near the financial commitment to football that USC has. Additionally, the culture and values regarding team sports is such that football is not valued like it is down south.

I respect your standards
I understand your arguments and
I appreciate that patience is running thin.

I just don't think you understand the depth of the problem, the nature of the problem and the process of recovery.

Yes Wilcox should be repleced, but he won't be. We might get different name, but it will still be Wilcox.
I think we're in agreement.

He should be replaced. But he won't because we're Cal. The problem starts at the top with the commitment to competing for Rose Bowls and National Championships. We don't have that. We're in this state of perpetuity where we hire mid to low tier coaches that we can afford and then let them flounder with a few highlights for a few years and then it's on to the next.

I wish we had the ability to just cut bait and move on. Hence the thread title. Guess it all comes down to $$$ and commitment from the administration, both of which we lack compared to USC. So yeah. In that sense I'd like to be more like USC.
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
remb8888 said:

heartofthebear said:

The HC is not the problem, per se, although he may be part of it. Without addressing the bigger problems first, Cal will continue to hire mediocre coaches. As long as the bigger problems aren't addressed, firing Cal HCs because they don't perform at a USC level will actually do the opposite by creating instability and whole new systems that the players have to adapt to. And that hurts recruiting.

Cal would have to hire a big name or big time recruiter to be able to transition quickly and effectively. Otherwise it is another 2-3 years waiting for the new system to show dividends.

The bigger problem is that Cal is not willing to pay for someone demonstrably better than Wilcox. And they certainly aren't paying for a big name.

I suppose many of you think we should fire HCs until we luck out on the next Tedford. Are you willing to risk a lot of losing seasons in the meantime? Wilcox is the first HC in over a decade to put together 3 consecutive winning seasons at Cal.

I would love to have the confidence that Cal would hire someone better than Wilcox but I think it will likely be the opposite.

USC doesn't have that problem, although I think they are going to have problems replacing Helton with someone who will be as successful.

It's a long process to get from where Cal is to where USC is. First of Cal has nowhere near the financial commitment to football that USC has. Additionally, the culture and values regarding team sports is such that football is not valued like it is down south.

I respect your standards
I understand your arguments and
I appreciate that patience is running thin.

I just don't think you understand the depth of the problem, the nature of the problem and the process of recovery.

Yes Wilcox should be repleced, but he won't be. We might get different name, but it will still be Wilcox.
I think we're in agreement.

He should be replaced. But he won't because we're Cal. The problem starts at the top with the commitment to competing for Rose Bowls and National Championships. We don't have that. We're in this state of perpetuity where we hire mid to low tier coaches that we can afford and then let them flounder with a few highlights for a few years and then it's on to the next.

I wish we had the ability to just cut bait and move on. Hence the thread title. Guess it all comes down to $$$ and commitment from the administration, both of which we lack compared to USC. So yeah. In that sense I'd like to be more like USC.


I wouldn't mind sweater-wearing song girls. Berkeley's weather is more appropriate for that anyway.

oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Does Wilcox ever say that guys were flying around out there? That could be the missing link to the Rose Bowl, or at least the Holiday Bowl.
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dimitrig said:

remb8888 said:

heartofthebear said:

The HC is not the problem, per se, although he may be part of it. Without addressing the bigger problems first, Cal will continue to hire mediocre coaches. As long as the bigger problems aren't addressed, firing Cal HCs because they don't perform at a USC level will actually do the opposite by creating instability and whole new systems that the players have to adapt to. And that hurts recruiting.

Cal would have to hire a big name or big time recruiter to be able to transition quickly and effectively. Otherwise it is another 2-3 years waiting for the new system to show dividends.

The bigger problem is that Cal is not willing to pay for someone demonstrably better than Wilcox. And they certainly aren't paying for a big name.

I suppose many of you think we should fire HCs until we luck out on the next Tedford. Are you willing to risk a lot of losing seasons in the meantime? Wilcox is the first HC in over a decade to put together 3 consecutive winning seasons at Cal.

I would love to have the confidence that Cal would hire someone better than Wilcox but I think it will likely be the opposite.

USC doesn't have that problem, although I think they are going to have problems replacing Helton with someone who will be as successful.

It's a long process to get from where Cal is to where USC is. First of Cal has nowhere near the financial commitment to football that USC has. Additionally, the culture and values regarding team sports is such that football is not valued like it is down south.

I respect your standards
I understand your arguments and
I appreciate that patience is running thin.

I just don't think you understand the depth of the problem, the nature of the problem and the process of recovery.

Yes Wilcox should be repleced, but he won't be. We might get different name, but it will still be Wilcox.
I think we're in agreement.

He should be replaced. But he won't because we're Cal. The problem starts at the top with the commitment to competing for Rose Bowls and National Championships. We don't have that. We're in this state of perpetuity where we hire mid to low tier coaches that we can afford and then let them flounder with a few highlights for a few years and then it's on to the next.

I wish we had the ability to just cut bait and move on. Hence the thread title. Guess it all comes down to $$$ and commitment from the administration, both of which we lack compared to USC. So yeah. In that sense I'd like to be more like USC.


I wouldn't mind sweater-wearing song girls. Berkeley's weather is more appropriate for that anyway.


For a long time I really liked the USC song girls. But I finally got over it. And the dance team that Cal throws out there now rivals USC. The girls and unis are hot and the dancing is good. However I cannot argue that sweaters are definitely a norcal thing. I'm sure the USC gals don't appreciate having to wear them in LA.

I have to say that I have some resentment to the way the USC cheerleaders and band march through Berkeley streets as if they are a Nazi Blitzkrieg taking over the town. The dominance theme is tired, empty and class-less and should not be in the spirit of amateur sports in the pac-12. I don't know any other sport or school that does that, especially in the visiting town. Girls like that belie the demure look of the sweaters, underneath they carry whips and chains. It's kind of a schizo message that confuses me more than turns me on.

I do think it accurately represents the attitude of Socal which is kind of a sad obsession with winning and dominance that only thinly vails the insufferable insecurities they have.
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
remb8888 said:

heartofthebear said:

The HC is not the problem, per se, although he may be part of it. Without addressing the bigger problems first, Cal will continue to hire mediocre coaches. As long as the bigger problems aren't addressed, firing Cal HCs because they don't perform at a USC level will actually do the opposite by creating instability and whole new systems that the players have to adapt to. And that hurts recruiting.

Cal would have to hire a big name or big time recruiter to be able to transition quickly and effectively. Otherwise it is another 2-3 years waiting for the new system to show dividends.

The bigger problem is that Cal is not willing to pay for someone demonstrably better than Wilcox. And they certainly aren't paying for a big name.

I suppose many of you think we should fire HCs until we luck out on the next Tedford. Are you willing to risk a lot of losing seasons in the meantime? Wilcox is the first HC in over a decade to put together 3 consecutive winning seasons at Cal.

I would love to have the confidence that Cal would hire someone better than Wilcox but I think it will likely be the opposite.

USC doesn't have that problem, although I think they are going to have problems replacing Helton with someone who will be as successful.

It's a long process to get from where Cal is to where USC is. First of Cal has nowhere near the financial commitment to football that USC has. Additionally, the culture and values regarding team sports is such that football is not valued like it is down south.

I respect your standards
I understand your arguments and
I appreciate that patience is running thin.

I just don't think you understand the depth of the problem, the nature of the problem and the process of recovery.

Yes Wilcox should be repleced, but he won't be. We might get different name, but it will still be Wilcox.
I think we're in agreement.

He should be replaced. But he won't because we're Cal. The problem starts at the top with the commitment to competing for Rose Bowls and National Championships. We don't have that. We're in this state of perpetuity where we hire mid to low tier coaches that we can afford and then let them flounder with a few highlights for a few years and then it's on to the next.

I wish we had the ability to just cut bait and move on. Hence the thread title. Guess it all comes down to $$$ and commitment from the administration, both of which we lack compared to USC. So yeah. In that sense I'd like to be more like USC.
Someone mentioned earlier that the larger question is how and why we can afford to extend these HC contracts. Inevitably the coaches are fired before the end of their second contract and we have to eat the cost of the buy-out. If we can afford to buy-out these coaches, we should try to hire better to start with. Anyway, I agree that giving Wilcox the extension was the problem. BTW, you can appreciate that my mention of Wilcox having had 3 winning seasons in a row intentionally left out last season. Anybody that is taking on the failures this season to 2020 is unfairly conflating the 2 seasons. Last year was a mulligan. This year is not.

I am defending Wilcox only in the sense that he is probably the best we are going to get and we could get worse.

Another question is why it is so hard to fire assistant coaches mid-season. At this point I would fire Rags, recruiting acumen notwithstanding. Let the other coaches pull their weight with recruiting. And the Arizona connection is not essential for Cal's success anyway. The STs have not just been bad. They have been in need of intensive care for close to a year. Don't get me wrong. I like the man and he would motivate me to be a better player, but the performance of the kick/punt teams is high school level.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We need a practice field so that multiple units can practice at the same time. How much time do we spend on special teams? When we coach special teams, are other units practicing as well?
Golden One
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

We need a practice field so that multiple units can practice at the same time. How much time do we spend on special teams? When we coach special teams, are other units practicing as well?
We have Maxwell Field and Witter Field adjacent to Memorial Stadium, so we have plenty of practice field space if the will to use it were there.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Golden One said:

oski003 said:

We need a practice field so that multiple units can practice at the same time. How much time do we spend on special teams? When we coach special teams, are other units practicing as well?
We have Maxwell Field and Witter Field adjacent to Memorial Stadium, so we have plenty of practice field space if the will to use it were there.


I also think you want to have your best athletes, kickbreturners, rushers and blockers on special teams and they are mostly going to be starters on offense or defense or at least in your two deeps. So other than FG kickers and punters, ST practice is more an issue of time allocation than space requirements.

One of the disadvantages of running a complex offense is it cuts down on the time you can spend on special teams..
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
heartofthebear said:

remb8888 said:

heartofthebear said:

The HC is not the problem, per se, although he may be part of it. Without addressing the bigger problems first, Cal will continue to hire mediocre coaches. As long as the bigger problems aren't addressed, firing Cal HCs because they don't perform at a USC level will actually do the opposite by creating instability and whole new systems that the players have to adapt to. And that hurts recruiting.

Cal would have to hire a big name or big time recruiter to be able to transition quickly and effectively. Otherwise it is another 2-3 years waiting for the new system to show dividends.

The bigger problem is that Cal is not willing to pay for someone demonstrably better than Wilcox. And they certainly aren't paying for a big name.

I suppose many of you think we should fire HCs until we luck out on the next Tedford. Are you willing to risk a lot of losing seasons in the meantime? Wilcox is the first HC in over a decade to put together 3 consecutive winning seasons at Cal.

I would love to have the confidence that Cal would hire someone better than Wilcox but I think it will likely be the opposite.

USC doesn't have that problem, although I think they are going to have problems replacing Helton with someone who will be as successful.

It's a long process to get from where Cal is to where USC is. First of Cal has nowhere near the financial commitment to football that USC has. Additionally, the culture and values regarding team sports is such that football is not valued like it is down south.

I respect your standards
I understand your arguments and
I appreciate that patience is running thin.

I just don't think you understand the depth of the problem, the nature of the problem and the process of recovery.

Yes Wilcox should be repleced, but he won't be. We might get different name, but it will still be Wilcox.
I think we're in agreement.

He should be replaced. But he won't because we're Cal. The problem starts at the top with the commitment to competing for Rose Bowls and National Championships. We don't have that. We're in this state of perpetuity where we hire mid to low tier coaches that we can afford and then let them flounder with a few highlights for a few years and then it's on to the next.

I wish we had the ability to just cut bait and move on. Hence the thread title. Guess it all comes down to $$$ and commitment from the administration, both of which we lack compared to USC. So yeah. In that sense I'd like to be more like USC.
Someone mentioned earlier that the larger question is how and why we can afford to extend these HC contracts. Inevitably the coaches are fired before the end of their second contract and we have to eat the cost of the buy-out. If we can afford to buy-out these coaches, we should try to hire better to start with. Anyway, I agree that giving Wilcox the extension was the problem. BTW, you can appreciate that my mention of Wilcox having had 3 winning seasons in a row intentionally left out last season. Anybody that is taking on the failures this season to 2020 is unfairly conflating the 2 seasons. Last year was a mulligan. This year is not.

I am defending Wilcox only in the sense that he is probably the best we are going to get and we could get worse.

Another question is why it is so hard to fire assistant coaches mid-season. At this point I would fire Rags, recruiting acumen notwithstanding. Let the other coaches pull their weight with recruiting. And the Arizona connection is not essential for Cal's success anyway. The STs have not just been bad. They have been in need of intensive care for close to a year. Don't get me wrong. I like the man and he would motivate me to be a better player, but the performance of the kick/punt teams is high school level.

Up until two weeks ago, a lot of folks had the thought that Wilcox might be at Cal for a number of years (even if other schools were trying to hire him away). If that were the case -- okay, big "if", using 20/20 hind sight -- then we can't be low-balling him on the salary. If you have a coach you want to keep, you need to keep paying him market value based on his perceived present and future value. If you try saying, "Hey, you agreed to this contract." then, great, he probably starts looking elsewhere.

It's the cost of doing business. Unfortunately, it's factors like this that inflate coach's salaries (and CEO's, too).
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

heartofthebear said:

remb8888 said:

heartofthebear said:

The HC is not the problem, per se, although he may be part of it. Without addressing the bigger problems first, Cal will continue to hire mediocre coaches. As long as the bigger problems aren't addressed, firing Cal HCs because they don't perform at a USC level will actually do the opposite by creating instability and whole new systems that the players have to adapt to. And that hurts recruiting.

Cal would have to hire a big name or big time recruiter to be able to transition quickly and effectively. Otherwise it is another 2-3 years waiting for the new system to show dividends.

The bigger problem is that Cal is not willing to pay for someone demonstrably better than Wilcox. And they certainly aren't paying for a big name.

I suppose many of you think we should fire HCs until we luck out on the next Tedford. Are you willing to risk a lot of losing seasons in the meantime? Wilcox is the first HC in over a decade to put together 3 consecutive winning seasons at Cal.

I would love to have the confidence that Cal would hire someone better than Wilcox but I think it will likely be the opposite.

USC doesn't have that problem, although I think they are going to have problems replacing Helton with someone who will be as successful.

It's a long process to get from where Cal is to where USC is. First of Cal has nowhere near the financial commitment to football that USC has. Additionally, the culture and values regarding team sports is such that football is not valued like it is down south.

I respect your standards
I understand your arguments and
I appreciate that patience is running thin.

I just don't think you understand the depth of the problem, the nature of the problem and the process of recovery.

Yes Wilcox should be repleced, but he won't be. We might get different name, but it will still be Wilcox.
I think we're in agreement.

He should be replaced. But he won't because we're Cal. The problem starts at the top with the commitment to competing for Rose Bowls and National Championships. We don't have that. We're in this state of perpetuity where we hire mid to low tier coaches that we can afford and then let them flounder with a few highlights for a few years and then it's on to the next.

I wish we had the ability to just cut bait and move on. Hence the thread title. Guess it all comes down to $$$ and commitment from the administration, both of which we lack compared to USC. So yeah. In that sense I'd like to be more like USC.
Someone mentioned earlier that the larger question is how and why we can afford to extend these HC contracts. Inevitably the coaches are fired before the end of their second contract and we have to eat the cost of the buy-out. If we can afford to buy-out these coaches, we should try to hire better to start with. Anyway, I agree that giving Wilcox the extension was the problem. BTW, you can appreciate that my mention of Wilcox having had 3 winning seasons in a row intentionally left out last season. Anybody that is taking on the failures this season to 2020 is unfairly conflating the 2 seasons. Last year was a mulligan. This year is not.

I am defending Wilcox only in the sense that he is probably the best we are going to get and we could get worse.

Another question is why it is so hard to fire assistant coaches mid-season. At this point I would fire Rags, recruiting acumen notwithstanding. Let the other coaches pull their weight with recruiting. And the Arizona connection is not essential for Cal's success anyway. The STs have not just been bad. They have been in need of intensive care for close to a year. Don't get me wrong. I like the man and he would motivate me to be a better player, but the performance of the kick/punt teams is high school level.

Up until two weeks ago, a lot of folks had the thought that Wilcox might be at Cal for a number of years (even if other schools were trying to hire him away). If that were the case -- okay, big "if", using 20/20 hind sight -- then we can't be low-balling him on the salary. If you have a coach you want to keep, you need to keep paying him market value based on his perceived present and future value. If you try saying, "Hey, you agreed to this contract." then, great, he probably starts looking elsewhere.

It's the cost of doing business. Unfortunately, it's factors like this that inflate coach's salaries (and CEO's, too).
Our insecurities about coaches leaving for better jobs goes well beyond financial compensation and speaks volumes about the real problems with the program. The fact is that the job sucks because coaches don't get the kind of administrative support they can get other places. That is the real problem that gives birth to all the other problems that folks like to focus on.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

heartofthebear said:

remb8888 said:

heartofthebear said:

The HC is not the problem, per se, although he may be part of it. Without addressing the bigger problems first, Cal will continue to hire mediocre coaches. As long as the bigger problems aren't addressed, firing Cal HCs because they don't perform at a USC level will actually do the opposite by creating instability and whole new systems that the players have to adapt to. And that hurts recruiting.

Cal would have to hire a big name or big time recruiter to be able to transition quickly and effectively. Otherwise it is another 2-3 years waiting for the new system to show dividends.

The bigger problem is that Cal is not willing to pay for someone demonstrably better than Wilcox. And they certainly aren't paying for a big name.

I suppose many of you think we should fire HCs until we luck out on the next Tedford. Are you willing to risk a lot of losing seasons in the meantime? Wilcox is the first HC in over a decade to put together 3 consecutive winning seasons at Cal.

I would love to have the confidence that Cal would hire someone better than Wilcox but I think it will likely be the opposite.

USC doesn't have that problem, although I think they are going to have problems replacing Helton with someone who will be as successful.

It's a long process to get from where Cal is to where USC is. First of Cal has nowhere near the financial commitment to football that USC has. Additionally, the culture and values regarding team sports is such that football is not valued like it is down south.

I respect your standards
I understand your arguments and
I appreciate that patience is running thin.

I just don't think you understand the depth of the problem, the nature of the problem and the process of recovery.

Yes Wilcox should be repleced, but he won't be. We might get different name, but it will still be Wilcox.
I think we're in agreement.

He should be replaced. But he won't because we're Cal. The problem starts at the top with the commitment to competing for Rose Bowls and National Championships. We don't have that. We're in this state of perpetuity where we hire mid to low tier coaches that we can afford and then let them flounder with a few highlights for a few years and then it's on to the next.

I wish we had the ability to just cut bait and move on. Hence the thread title. Guess it all comes down to $$$ and commitment from the administration, both of which we lack compared to USC. So yeah. In that sense I'd like to be more like USC.
Someone mentioned earlier that the larger question is how and why we can afford to extend these HC contracts. Inevitably the coaches are fired before the end of their second contract and we have to eat the cost of the buy-out. If we can afford to buy-out these coaches, we should try to hire better to start with. Anyway, I agree that giving Wilcox the extension was the problem. BTW, you can appreciate that my mention of Wilcox having had 3 winning seasons in a row intentionally left out last season. Anybody that is taking on the failures this season to 2020 is unfairly conflating the 2 seasons. Last year was a mulligan. This year is not.

I am defending Wilcox only in the sense that he is probably the best we are going to get and we could get worse.

Another question is why it is so hard to fire assistant coaches mid-season. At this point I would fire Rags, recruiting acumen notwithstanding. Let the other coaches pull their weight with recruiting. And the Arizona connection is not essential for Cal's success anyway. The STs have not just been bad. They have been in need of intensive care for close to a year. Don't get me wrong. I like the man and he would motivate me to be a better player, but the performance of the kick/punt teams is high school level.

Up until two weeks ago, a lot of folks had the thought that Wilcox might be at Cal for a number of years (even if other schools were trying to hire him away). If that were the case -- okay, big "if", using 20/20 hind sight -- then we can't be low-balling him on the salary. If you have a coach you want to keep, you need to keep paying him market value based on his perceived present and future value. If you try saying, "Hey, you agreed to this contract." then, great, he probably starts looking elsewhere.

It's the cost of doing business. Unfortunately, it's factors like this that inflate coach's salaries (and CEO's, too).


If he starts looking elsewhere you fire him and pay him the $millions owed for the future years on his contract. At least that is what I have been told on this board.

I am also told Wilcox loves Cal and that Cal is the perfect place for him, that he is extremely honorable, different from other coaches and would never dream of looking elsewhere. Or is he a mercenary like 99% of coaches?

Unless the coach is an alum or is otherwise extremely loyal to your school he is a mercenary. Like most CEOs. If you have a contract, it has incentive bonuses built in for performance. If the coach gets an offer from another school (Snyder and ASU), he will usually give you the option of matching the offer or at least making up part of the difference. Then you counter or let him go with at least the other school buying out his remaining contract. I think that is the smart, professional and economical way to handle it. Trying to stay ahead of the market with a coach that has yet to prove himself is just a waste of money, money that we then complain we don't have.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Jadyn Ott just decommitted
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

Big C said:

heartofthebear said:

remb8888 said:

heartofthebear said:

The HC is not the problem, per se, although he may be part of it. Without addressing the bigger problems first, Cal will continue to hire mediocre coaches. As long as the bigger problems aren't addressed, firing Cal HCs because they don't perform at a USC level will actually do the opposite by creating instability and whole new systems that the players have to adapt to. And that hurts recruiting.

Cal would have to hire a big name or big time recruiter to be able to transition quickly and effectively. Otherwise it is another 2-3 years waiting for the new system to show dividends.

The bigger problem is that Cal is not willing to pay for someone demonstrably better than Wilcox. And they certainly aren't paying for a big name.

I suppose many of you think we should fire HCs until we luck out on the next Tedford. Are you willing to risk a lot of losing seasons in the meantime? Wilcox is the first HC in over a decade to put together 3 consecutive winning seasons at Cal.

I would love to have the confidence that Cal would hire someone better than Wilcox but I think it will likely be the opposite.

USC doesn't have that problem, although I think they are going to have problems replacing Helton with someone who will be as successful.

It's a long process to get from where Cal is to where USC is. First of Cal has nowhere near the financial commitment to football that USC has. Additionally, the culture and values regarding team sports is such that football is not valued like it is down south.

I respect your standards
I understand your arguments and
I appreciate that patience is running thin.

I just don't think you understand the depth of the problem, the nature of the problem and the process of recovery.

Yes Wilcox should be repleced, but he won't be. We might get different name, but it will still be Wilcox.
I think we're in agreement.

He should be replaced. But he won't because we're Cal. The problem starts at the top with the commitment to competing for Rose Bowls and National Championships. We don't have that. We're in this state of perpetuity where we hire mid to low tier coaches that we can afford and then let them flounder with a few highlights for a few years and then it's on to the next.

I wish we had the ability to just cut bait and move on. Hence the thread title. Guess it all comes down to $$$ and commitment from the administration, both of which we lack compared to USC. So yeah. In that sense I'd like to be more like USC.
Someone mentioned earlier that the larger question is how and why we can afford to extend these HC contracts. Inevitably the coaches are fired before the end of their second contract and we have to eat the cost of the buy-out. If we can afford to buy-out these coaches, we should try to hire better to start with. Anyway, I agree that giving Wilcox the extension was the problem. BTW, you can appreciate that my mention of Wilcox having had 3 winning seasons in a row intentionally left out last season. Anybody that is taking on the failures this season to 2020 is unfairly conflating the 2 seasons. Last year was a mulligan. This year is not.

I am defending Wilcox only in the sense that he is probably the best we are going to get and we could get worse.

Another question is why it is so hard to fire assistant coaches mid-season. At this point I would fire Rags, recruiting acumen notwithstanding. Let the other coaches pull their weight with recruiting. And the Arizona connection is not essential for Cal's success anyway. The STs have not just been bad. They have been in need of intensive care for close to a year. Don't get me wrong. I like the man and he would motivate me to be a better player, but the performance of the kick/punt teams is high school level.

Up until two weeks ago, a lot of folks had the thought that Wilcox might be at Cal for a number of years (even if other schools were trying to hire him away). If that were the case -- okay, big "if", using 20/20 hind sight -- then we can't be low-balling him on the salary. If you have a coach you want to keep, you need to keep paying him market value based on his perceived present and future value. If you try saying, "Hey, you agreed to this contract." then, great, he probably starts looking elsewhere.

It's the cost of doing business. Unfortunately, it's factors like this that inflate coach's salaries (and CEO's, too).


If he starts looking elsewhere you fire him and pay him the $millions owed for the future years on his contract. At least that is what I have been told on this board.

I am also told Wilcox loves Cal and that Cal is the perfect place for him, that he is extremely honorable, different from other coaches and would never dream of looking elsewhere. Or is he a mercenary like 99% of coaches?

Unless the coach is an alum or is otherwise extremely loyal to your school he is a mercenary. Like most CEOs. If you have a contract, it has incentive bonuses built in for performance. If the coach gets an offer from another school (Snyder and ASU), he will usually give you the option of matching the offer or at least making up part of the difference. Then you counter or let him go with at least the other school buying out his remaining contract. I think that is the smart, professional and economical way to handle it. Trying to stay ahead of the market with a coach that has yet to prove himself is just a waste of money, money that we then complain we don't have.

Huge hypothetical, let's say we were 2-0 right now and looking good...

B.I. conventional wisdom said there were two factors that could cause Wilcox to look elsewhere:

1. If he felt he was getting jerked around on salary (however he interpreted that, but basically us not willing to pay "market")
2. If he felt that there were serious institutional barriers at Cal that prevented him from winning (again, his interpretation)
kal kommie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

calumnus said:

heartofthebear said:

BTW, I don't know why the OP is using USC as a model. Ever since Carrol left for the NFL, USC has been hiring and firing coaches every few years with no resl improvement in the program. I'm sure that USC will actually be worse without Helton due to the lack of stability now created there. As is the case at Cal, the real problem at USC has nothing to do with the HC. I suspect it has more to do with the fact that too many 4 and 5 star players makes for a roster full of primadonnas. Of course that never stopped tOSU, Bama or Clemson but maybe LA factors into it as well somehow.


USC, Alabama, tOSU and every NFL team. The belief that you can have "Too many 5 and 4 star players" has long infected the Cal fan psyche. Too many people long for a lunch pail group of 3 stars and walk-ons that somehow get us to the Rose Bowl. Hoosiers. It is behind all the vitriol on this board that was spewed towards 5 star Cal greats and difference makers like DeSean Jackson and Keenan Allen, Or Shareef Adur Rahim and Jaylen Brown in basketball. People here even turned on Marshawn Lynch when he faced bogus accusations early in his NFL career.

The key in the NBA or NFL or a place like USC is having a coach like Pete Carroll, that embraces diverse personalities and let's kids be kids and stars be stars. Marshawn was lucky he landed in Seattle. A place like Cal and Berkeley has always embraced individual expression, that is our comparative advantage. That is why guys like Shareef, Jaylen Brown and Demirtis Robertson came here from Georgia. It is goiing to be even more important in the NIL world.
I can recall that the program with the best 10 year record in the Pac was Furd, which has a few 4 and 5 star guys sprinkled in with primarily a lot of 3 star and even 2 star dudes. Great recruiting can make it easier, but it isn't the end all. With the talent SC recruits, even Cal fans would be impatient as SC fans.


That is a Stanford myth. According to 247 they brought in 6 Five stars and 57 Four stars during that period who mostly played 4 years. That means they had 20-25 Four and Five Star players in any given year. That is far better than Cal under Tedford. They have had more 5 and 4 star talent than UCLA, UW, ASU, Utah….importantly they have brought in top QBs and RBs, even 5 star OL and TEs. Of course, bringing in skinny 3 stars who added 50 lbs of chiseled muscle in their first year "using The Glove" also helped.

Their decline coincides with the firing under a cloud of some scandal the S&C guy Harbaugh brought with him.
By Rivals rankings, Tedford brought in 66 five and four star recruits in the 10 classes of 2003-2012.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kal kommie said:

calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

calumnus said:

heartofthebear said:

BTW, I don't know why the OP is using USC as a model. Ever since Carrol left for the NFL, USC has been hiring and firing coaches every few years with no resl improvement in the program. I'm sure that USC will actually be worse without Helton due to the lack of stability now created there. As is the case at Cal, the real problem at USC has nothing to do with the HC. I suspect it has more to do with the fact that too many 4 and 5 star players makes for a roster full of primadonnas. Of course that never stopped tOSU, Bama or Clemson but maybe LA factors into it as well somehow.


USC, Alabama, tOSU and every NFL team. The belief that you can have "Too many 5 and 4 star players" has long infected the Cal fan psyche. Too many people long for a lunch pail group of 3 stars and walk-ons that somehow get us to the Rose Bowl. Hoosiers. It is behind all the vitriol on this board that was spewed towards 5 star Cal greats and difference makers like DeSean Jackson and Keenan Allen, Or Shareef Adur Rahim and Jaylen Brown in basketball. People here even turned on Marshawn Lynch when he faced bogus accusations early in his NFL career.

The key in the NBA or NFL or a place like USC is having a coach like Pete Carroll, that embraces diverse personalities and let's kids be kids and stars be stars. Marshawn was lucky he landed in Seattle. A place like Cal and Berkeley has always embraced individual expression, that is our comparative advantage. That is why guys like Shareef, Jaylen Brown and Demirtis Robertson came here from Georgia. It is goiing to be even more important in the NIL world.
I can recall that the program with the best 10 year record in the Pac was Furd, which has a few 4 and 5 star guys sprinkled in with primarily a lot of 3 star and even 2 star dudes. Great recruiting can make it easier, but it isn't the end all. With the talent SC recruits, even Cal fans would be impatient as SC fans.


That is a Stanford myth. According to 247 they brought in 6 Five stars and 57 Four stars during that period who mostly played 4 years. That means they had 20-25 Four and Five Star players in any given year. That is far better than Cal under Tedford. They have had more 5 and 4 star talent than UCLA, UW, ASU, Utah….importantly they have brought in top QBs and RBs, even 5 star OL and TEs. Of course, bringing in skinny 3 stars who added 50 lbs of chiseled muscle in their first year "using The Glove" also helped.

Their decline coincides with the firing under a cloud of some scandal the S&C guy Harbaugh brought with him.
By Rivals rankings, Tedford brought in 66 five and four star recruits in the 10 classes of 2003-2012.


How many 5 and how many 4 stars using 247, which I cited? Alternatively, how many 4 and 5 stars did Stanford have under Shaw according to Rivals?

The point being, "a few" 4 and 5 stars at Stanford is a myth.
kal kommie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

kal kommie said:

calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

calumnus said:

heartofthebear said:

BTW, I don't know why the OP is using USC as a model. Ever since Carrol left for the NFL, USC has been hiring and firing coaches every few years with no resl improvement in the program. I'm sure that USC will actually be worse without Helton due to the lack of stability now created there. As is the case at Cal, the real problem at USC has nothing to do with the HC. I suspect it has more to do with the fact that too many 4 and 5 star players makes for a roster full of primadonnas. Of course that never stopped tOSU, Bama or Clemson but maybe LA factors into it as well somehow.


USC, Alabama, tOSU and every NFL team. The belief that you can have "Too many 5 and 4 star players" has long infected the Cal fan psyche. Too many people long for a lunch pail group of 3 stars and walk-ons that somehow get us to the Rose Bowl. Hoosiers. It is behind all the vitriol on this board that was spewed towards 5 star Cal greats and difference makers like DeSean Jackson and Keenan Allen, Or Shareef Adur Rahim and Jaylen Brown in basketball. People here even turned on Marshawn Lynch when he faced bogus accusations early in his NFL career.

The key in the NBA or NFL or a place like USC is having a coach like Pete Carroll, that embraces diverse personalities and let's kids be kids and stars be stars. Marshawn was lucky he landed in Seattle. A place like Cal and Berkeley has always embraced individual expression, that is our comparative advantage. That is why guys like Shareef, Jaylen Brown and Demirtis Robertson came here from Georgia. It is goiing to be even more important in the NIL world.
I can recall that the program with the best 10 year record in the Pac was Furd, which has a few 4 and 5 star guys sprinkled in with primarily a lot of 3 star and even 2 star dudes. Great recruiting can make it easier, but it isn't the end all. With the talent SC recruits, even Cal fans would be impatient as SC fans.


That is a Stanford myth. According to 247 they brought in 6 Five stars and 57 Four stars during that period who mostly played 4 years. That means they had 20-25 Four and Five Star players in any given year. That is far better than Cal under Tedford. They have had more 5 and 4 star talent than UCLA, UW, ASU, Utah….importantly they have brought in top QBs and RBs, even 5 star OL and TEs. Of course, bringing in skinny 3 stars who added 50 lbs of chiseled muscle in their first year "using The Glove" also helped.

Their decline coincides with the firing under a cloud of some scandal the S&C guy Harbaugh brought with him.
By Rivals rankings, Tedford brought in 66 five and four star recruits in the 10 classes of 2003-2012.


How many 5 and how many 4 stars using 247, which I cited? Alternatively, how many 4 and 5 stars did Stanford have under Shaw according to Rivals?

The point being, "a few" 4 and 5 stars at Stanford is a myth.
Ah, I missed the 247 part. On that site he had 62 from 2003-2012, just one less than Stanford. Not that I should have needed to count the 247 ones after the Rivals count was so large. Over the course of 10 years they're not going to differ by a huge amount.

Well your point may have been about Stanford but you went out of your way to say he had way more 4/5 star recruits than Tedford and that simply isn't true, which was my point.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kal kommie said:

calumnus said:

kal kommie said:

calumnus said:

wifeisafurd said:

calumnus said:

heartofthebear said:

BTW, I don't know why the OP is using USC as a model. Ever since Carrol left for the NFL, USC has been hiring and firing coaches every few years with no resl improvement in the program. I'm sure that USC will actually be worse without Helton due to the lack of stability now created there. As is the case at Cal, the real problem at USC has nothing to do with the HC. I suspect it has more to do with the fact that too many 4 and 5 star players makes for a roster full of primadonnas. Of course that never stopped tOSU, Bama or Clemson but maybe LA factors into it as well somehow.


USC, Alabama, tOSU and every NFL team. The belief that you can have "Too many 5 and 4 star players" has long infected the Cal fan psyche. Too many people long for a lunch pail group of 3 stars and walk-ons that somehow get us to the Rose Bowl. Hoosiers. It is behind all the vitriol on this board that was spewed towards 5 star Cal greats and difference makers like DeSean Jackson and Keenan Allen, Or Shareef Adur Rahim and Jaylen Brown in basketball. People here even turned on Marshawn Lynch when he faced bogus accusations early in his NFL career.

The key in the NBA or NFL or a place like USC is having a coach like Pete Carroll, that embraces diverse personalities and let's kids be kids and stars be stars. Marshawn was lucky he landed in Seattle. A place like Cal and Berkeley has always embraced individual expression, that is our comparative advantage. That is why guys like Shareef, Jaylen Brown and Demirtis Robertson came here from Georgia. It is goiing to be even more important in the NIL world.
I can recall that the program with the best 10 year record in the Pac was Furd, which has a few 4 and 5 star guys sprinkled in with primarily a lot of 3 star and even 2 star dudes. Great recruiting can make it easier, but it isn't the end all. With the talent SC recruits, even Cal fans would be impatient as SC fans.


That is a Stanford myth. According to 247 they brought in 6 Five stars and 57 Four stars during that period who mostly played 4 years. That means they had 20-25 Four and Five Star players in any given year. That is far better than Cal under Tedford. They have had more 5 and 4 star talent than UCLA, UW, ASU, Utah….importantly they have brought in top QBs and RBs, even 5 star OL and TEs. Of course, bringing in skinny 3 stars who added 50 lbs of chiseled muscle in their first year "using The Glove" also helped.

Their decline coincides with the firing under a cloud of some scandal the S&C guy Harbaugh brought with him.
By Rivals rankings, Tedford brought in 66 five and four star recruits in the 10 classes of 2003-2012.


How many 5 and how many 4 stars using 247, which I cited? Alternatively, how many 4 and 5 stars did Stanford have under Shaw according to Rivals?

The point being, "a few" 4 and 5 stars at Stanford is a myth.
Ah, I missed the 247 part. On that site he had 62 from 2003-2012, just one less than Stanford. Not that I should have needed to count the 247 ones after the Rivals count was so large. Over the course of 10 years they're not going to differ by a huge amount.

Well your point may have been about Stanford but you went out of your way to say he had way more 4/5 star recruits than Tedford and that simply isn't true, which was my point.


Twice as many 5 stars, right?

But point taken, Cal used to land many 4 stars under Tedford and Stanford has under Shaw too. In both cases far more than Cal since 2012.
Fyght4Cal
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Fyght4Cal said:

oski003 said:

Fyght4Cal said:

oski003 said:

Fyght4Cal said:

dimitrig said:

Fyght4Cal said:

mbBear said:

maxer said:

Our donor base is significantly smaller, and our faculty is considerable more hostile to football. Mostly the first thing.
The faculty stuff/excuse is outdated. A post grad program was created to help the athletic program in terms of losing "grad" students. The chancellor has embraced athletics, and worked with the program to organize debt in a way favorable to the athletic dept. Faculty members have embraced the programs instituted under Knowlton which deal with life beyond football, et. al.
If you want to hunt for some engineering prof who isn't a big fan of sports, sure, you can find that if you want too...
First, Knowlton expends more effort trying to bring faculty around. But too many faculty are hostile to both athletes and Black students (esp those they assume are athletes). Of course this will bring reflexive defensiveness for many on this board. But anyone who has never been a Black student on campus, probably has lots of opinions, very little knowledge and absolutely no experience. Those fans, donors and coaches who have had this conversation with Black students on campus, excepted.

Is this a uniquely Cal problem? Don't Cal and UCLA (and Stanford) pretty much compete for the same faculty members?


It's a uniquely American problem, to the extent that the outsized role that intercollegiate sports play on American college campuses. Black students, athletes & non-, have voiced similar concerns across the country for many decades. Not to mention those decades that they couldn't participate in college sports, or had limited opportunities, outside of HBCUs.

UC Los Angeles is an interesting case. Unlike Cal, it began as a second school, both in the UC system and in Southern California. While building a leading academic profile takes a very long time, intercollegiate athletics is a shortcut to relevance and public acclaim.

Similar to Cal, the Los Angeles campus went through upheaval during the Civil Rights & anti-war movements. In some ways it was worse, as two young Black movement leaders were murdered on campus. Yet, the Bruins kept winning NCAA titles in men's basketball during the entire period & beyond. While Berkeley in the '60s & early '70s rejected sports as part of "the machine", Westwood embraced sports culture as a significant part of its identity and brand.

While Cal was choosing elitism and exceptionalism, UCLA was choosing populism.
And who knows, perhaps those opposite attitudes influenced a generation or two of scholars who applied for professorships at the two campuses. At Los Angeles, the serious pursuit of profitable/winning Athletics comes with the territory.

For at least 70 years, the Southern Branch has clearly asserted its support for big time college athletics from the top. In competition with SC for the hearts & minds of LA, it embraced bringing the region's wealth of highly talented black athletes to campus. During much of the same period, Cal Chancellors reject the modern model of college football & basketball built on the backs of Black athletes, choosing instead to shrink our athletic profile.

Even when I was on the Los Angeles campus years ago, they had 5 campus facilities named for African Americans, 3 athletes, and two non-. I believe that there are one or two more such buildings since that time. There is no question that the Southern Branch celebrated its Black alumni earlier and more enthusiastically than Cal.

So, perhaps over the same period UCLA's faculty accepted/tolerated the necessity of Black athletes on campus, more than its Berkeley counterparts. Certainly Black students/athletes encountered problems with individual LA faculty members. UCLA claims to have raised athlete admission requirements before Cal. But the push to abandon D-1 sports has, heretofore, been a marginal issue among LA faculty.

What will be interesting is what happens going forward, as the Southern Branch grapples with becoming widely-recognized as an elite university. Will the leadership turn their back on a hundred years of athletic excellence, similarly to Cal? As campus athletes begin to profit more and more from their athletic prowess, will the faculty reject this brave, new athletic model? It will be interesting how it all unfolds over the next decade or two on both campuses.

I can't speak specifically for 'furd, since I never attended that school. But it is public knowledge that significant portions of the 'furd campus community want to abandon D-1 sports and adopt an Ivy League model.
What is a typical example of a Berkeley professor being hostile to a Black non-athlete and what do you think is the professor's motivation?
Good questions that could best be answered directly by talking to the athletes and professors. Here's a relevant snippet I posted above from The Guardian:




Edited to add white space
This did not answer my question.
Better than giving you answers, it tells you where to find the answers for yourself. Give a man a fish etc…
"But too many faculty are hostile to both athletes and Black students (esp those they assume are athletes)."

My question was related to black nonathletes and you gave me a snippet about athletes and recommending I speak with athletes and professors. If you don't want to elaborate, just say so. You don't have to. This may be better in off-topic anyway. To me, making the accusation that professors are hostile to Black students is fairly bold. Are you just saying that they don't like the athletes and assume other Black students are athletes?
Fair enough. One of my fave examples of anti-blackness is from my road dog, CalRho, who shutdown a professor making farcical claims that Europeans created great civilizations before Africans knew how to brush their teeth. Which is seriously wrong on both counts. Not only does African civilization pre-date Europe's, but Africans taught European explorers and human traffickers how to take care of their teeth.

Of course of more consequence than hostility in class, Black Cal students faced indifference open questioning of their abiiities and place at Cal in office hours. The worst was grading discrepancies and blithe dismissal of any appeals.

Athletes and what I came to call "ethnic geniuses were often subjects of this behavior. "Ethnic geniuses" are brilliant students of color who refused or did not know how to code switch - make their speech more palatable to non-ethnic instructors.

Professorial hostility is not an accusation, but an observation. Anyone who's read "Caste" by Isabel Wilkerson, has familiarity with the frisson experienced by higher caste individuals finding those they consider lower, in high status environments, in any but a servile position.

This is my second pass at answering the questions. I lost the first into the ether. Which pisses me off so much that I often refuse to reconstruct my lost posts. But our gameday drive to Berkeley gives me the time and serenity to try again.

See y'all at Memorial. Go Bears! Beat the Hornets!
Fyght4Cal
How long do you want to ignore this user?
heartofthebear said:

dimitrig said:

remb8888 said:

heartofthebear said:

The HC is not the problem, per se, although he may be part of it. Without addressing the bigger problems first, Cal will continue to hire mediocre coaches. As long as the bigger problems aren't addressed, firing Cal HCs because they don't perform at a USC level will actually do the opposite by creating instability and whole new systems that the players have to adapt to. And that hurts recruiting.

Cal would have to hire a big name or big time recruiter to be able to transition quickly and effectively. Otherwise it is another 2-3 years waiting for the new system to show dividends.

The bigger problem is that Cal is not willing to pay for someone demonstrably better than Wilcox. And they certainly aren't paying for a big name.

I suppose many of you think we should fire HCs until we luck out on the next Tedford. Are you willing to risk a lot of losing seasons in the meantime? Wilcox is the first HC in over a decade to put together 3 consecutive winning seasons at Cal.

I would love to have the confidence that Cal would hire someone better than Wilcox but I think it will likely be the opposite.

USC doesn't have that problem, although I think they are going to have problems replacing Helton with someone who will be as successful.

It's a long process to get from where Cal is to where USC is. First of Cal has nowhere near the financial commitment to football that USC has. Additionally, the culture and values regarding team sports is such that football is not valued like it is down south.

I respect your standards
I understand your arguments and
I appreciate that patience is running thin.

I just don't think you understand the depth of the problem, the nature of the problem and the process of recovery.

Yes Wilcox should be repleced, but he won't be. We might get different name, but it will still be Wilcox.
I think we're in agreement.

He should be replaced. But he won't because we're Cal. The problem starts at the top with the commitment to competing for Rose Bowls and National Championships. We don't have that. We're in this state of perpetuity where we hire mid to low tier coaches that we can afford and then let them flounder with a few highlights for a few years and then it's on to the next.

I wish we had the ability to just cut bait and move on. Hence the thread title. Guess it all comes down to $$$ and commitment from the administration, both of which we lack compared to USC. So yeah. In that sense I'd like to be more like USC.


I wouldn't mind sweater-wearing song girls. Berkeley's weather is more appropriate for that anyway.


For a long time I really liked the USC song girls. But I finally got over it. And the dance team that Cal throws out there now rivals USC. The girls and unis are hot and the dancing is good. However I cannot argue that sweaters are definitely a norcal thing. I'm sure the USC gals don't appreciate having to wear them in LA.

I have to say that I have some resentment to the way the USC cheerleaders and band march through Berkeley streets as if they are a Nazi Blitzkrieg taking over the town. The dominance theme is tired, empty and class-less and should not be in the spirit of amateur sports in the pac-12. I don't know any other sport or school that does that, especially in the visiting town. Girls like that belie the demure look of the sweaters, underneath they carry whips and chains. It's kind of a schizo message that confuses me more than turns me on.

I do think it accurately represents the attitude of Socal which is kind of a sad obsession with winning and dominance that only thinly vails the insufferable insecurities they have.
LOL. At the LA watch party last week my fellow yell leader & Cal roommate, Joe T., reminded by that we wore sweaters in Florida's 95 heat and 95% humidity back in '80. And we lost the game. Ugh.

As for USC, remember that the Cal Band, Rally Comm et al, parade through Exposition Park on the way to the Coli. If the LA Alumni Chapter has anything to do with the tailgate at SC next year, you will love what we have planned. Stay tuned. #HighGround
PaulCali
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

We need a practice field so that multiple units can practice at the same time. How much time do we spend on special teams? When we coach special teams, are other units practicing as well?
This.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yogi Insider said:

calumnus said:


We pay Wilcox $5 million a year. If we had a HC who was an alum and accomplished what Shaw has we would think another $1.5 million is a bargain. We will probably pay Wilcox that if he just gets a winning conference record once and we extend him.
https://footballscoop.com/news/report-details-justin-wilcoxs-contract-extension-cal

I don't know how this notion that Wilcox gets paid $5 million a year got started, but he's only making $3M.



Yes, as the article says, he "only" makes $3.1 million in guaranteed salary, the $4.7 million is only with incentives, many of which he is unlikely to hit. Of course, if we fired him after this year he would get $15 million for two year's work.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PaulCali said:

oski003 said:

We need a practice field so that multiple units can practice at the same time. How much time do we spend on special teams? When we coach special teams, are other units practicing as well?
This.


If you use players on your defensive and offensive two or three deeps on special teams, they cannot be in two places at once. Special teams practice is more a mater of time allocation than having more practice fields.
helltopay1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Real reason?????Firing football and basketball coaches sooner rather would indicate care. Cal hasn't cared since around 1960. Will it ever care again???You never know, but, probably not. Too many other priorities. i.e. If Cal ever had the option of dropping Football or Telegraph Ave, I'd put my money on the old hippies, druggies, and lefties.
mbBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
helltopay1 said:

Real reason?????Firing football and basketball coaches sooner rather would indicate care. Cal hasn't cared since around 1960. Will it ever care again???You never know, but, probably not. Too many other priorities. i.e. If Cal ever had the option of dropping Football or Telegraph Ave, I'd put my money on the old hippies, druggies, and lefties.
yeah, if only they had cared in '75, '92, '08, or maybe when the money was spent on re-doing the stadium, press box and facilities. Or maybe when they don't care about having more involved and show off recruiting trips than most schools.
"If Cal ever had the option"-blah blah blah...that was really working way too hard to come up with some right wing bash....ridiculous.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.