There is a similar thread on the Insider board that has gone a remarkably different direction.
One hypothetical in this thread is we need to throw money at the football program. If it was simply that easy. For all the criticism leveled in this board at Knowlton, one is not his ability to fundraise and get money to the football program. There have been several large recent donations, another on the way, a substantial increase in the restricted football fund, the football field has new naming rights for over $17 million, and a decision that a good portion of the football revenue formally used to pay debt service is no longer required for that purpose. Sure there are teams in the SEC throwing around bigger coin, but Cal is playing programs in the Pac 12, and the Nevadas and the TCUs of the world, and if it purely a dollars game, it is not reflected in the team's record so far. Cal may evolving from doing more with less, to doing less with more if the season doesn't turn around for the Travers Family Director of Football and company.
Another is that somehow privates like Furd and SC lean on the faculty better than publics to pass on dumb players. I'm not sure how to even begin to address this notion when you talk about a school like Furd, where the average undergrad GPA is above 3.7, you are not allowed to get a D in a course, there is no academic attrition, and candidly, with close to 1 out of 7 undergrads being athletes, the school's reputation doesn't seem to be suffering. The least of USC's problems right now would be if student-athletes were getting preferential treatment. In any event, the top teams in the football in both divisions happen to be public schools. SC's program is grossly underperforming and Furd has been pretty mediocre as of late. This seems like whining, rather than a substantive argument.
But the OP makes some interesting points. You need a HOF QB. Maybe not all of that, but Furd's recent glory years came under two NFL QBs, Luck and Hogan. Oregon hit the playoffs with Mariota. Examine who was QB during USC's most recent Rose Bowl visits. Invest those bucks in a great QB coach and recruiter. Sounds a lot like a young Jeff Tedford
Another comment is that being mediocre doesn't cut it, and the better program pulls the plug quickly when the program underperforms. I'm not sure that aquatics really fits the definition of chaining coaches. Let's look at football. Helfrich was a great OC, an all around great guy, and with a great QB got his team to the NCAA championship game. But his last two years at Oregon his teams had some horrible games, and in has fourth and final season went 4-8, and was gone. Several coaches later, maybe Oregon has caught lighting in a bottle with Cristobal. Maybe. SC takes the same approach. They are a total sheet show, but at some point maybe they get it right. Don't hold your breath I'm not sure this strategy really works in Pac football. The top Pac coaches in everyone's polls are Whitt and Shaw, and they have had pretty mediocre results as of late. I don't see them getting fired.
Let's face it, without structural change the Pac is not going to compete win football on a national basis. Simply not sufficient talent being attracted, not to mention fan interest. What works elsewhere may not apply in the Pac conference. The strangeness of Pac football is the top Pac programs over the last 10 years are Oregon and Stanford, which could not be opposite in approach. I'm not sure what it is Cal needs to succeed, other than a NFL QB, but Cal probably should look at what Cal does well and try to exploit that. I think that was Wilcox's approach, but something may have been lost in the execution. We shall see.
