A team like this, loaded with pre-season all stars, could easily wins a Natty.

Garbers is our best player.

heartofthebear said:

---

How do explain this data?:
• I did a study of final rankings during the last decade as it compares to recruiting ranking. All the data was taken off the web: Cal's average recruiting ranking was 40th. Cal's average final ranking in the polls was 61st.
• How do explain the ongoing success compared to Cal of Wisconsin (virtually tied with Cal at 39.7 average recruiting ranking), Utah (41st), Iowa (44th), Boise St. (60th), BYU (69th) and San Diego St (78th)?
• How do explain these disparities:

RECRUITING RANKING FROM 2010-2019 / FINAL RANKING AVERAGE FROM 2010-2019
Florida St. (8.4)/ 25.7
Texas (9.6)/ 39.4
Florida (10.2) / 30.1
USC (12.8) / 26.5
Tennesse (14.4) / 50.6!
Miami FL (18) / 42.8
UCLA (19) / 51.9
Ole Miss (23.2) / 51.7
Arkansas (27) / 56.2
Kentucky (34) / 64.7
Maryland (37.8) / 74.7!!


How do explain the fact that Cal's average seasonal winning percentage has actually increased since Tedford's best recruiting years (2010-2012)? From 2010-2012 Tedford recruited a ton of 4 star and some 5 star players. His win total average in those years was 5 wins. Those recruits matured mostly in 2012-2016 and, in those years, Cal's average win total actually dropped below 5. Cal's average win total since then is the same, even if you include 2020 when they only played 4 games and won only once. So, despite changes in recruiting, the performance needle has hardly moved at all and, if anything, has actually improved as recruiting has declined.

Also, if you look at the above chart, UCLA is essentially recruiting where you would like Cal to be, rankings wise (top 25), but they are really not performing that much better than Cal (51st vs. 61st). Since UCLA is probably the most comparable institution to Cal, this should be taken seriously.

I know what your are going to say. I am cherry picking. But show me any era where great recruiting at Cal related to wins. Cal had 4 elite 11 QBs on the 2011-12 roster and none of them could QB well enough to get playing time. Tedford's best performance span (late 2003-early 2007) were mostly staffed with 3 star recruits, although we did have some top notch skill guys. But, if you want to argue that 2003-2007 is the example, fine. That was one time. Cal was set to do it again at the end of JTs career and didn't.

So, with all of these examples, to me it has to be more than that. I think Cal needs something else. Maybe it's better leadership inside the ADs office. Maybe it's better coaching. Maybe it's better financial commitment to coaches. I don't really know.

Sure recruits help, but minus that, why can't we be Utah, Wisconsin or Boise St? That is my question above all.

---

Because it's about player development within the systems (offense and defense) that you are using. Maybe a 4 or 5 star is closer to their full potential, and/or ready to play sooner but they have to take a step up too. You want those guys because of the large percentage of those have pushed themselves to get better at every level they have played. In addition, they are likely to be, at a minimum, good depth early on. And you have to factor in that besides advancing their skill level, 3 stars, especially along the lines, excel after they have had physical development.
The high expectations of most was based on the assumption of a lot of guys taking it to the next level, and that hasn't happened.

mbBear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

How do explain this data?:

• I did a study of final rankings during the last decade as it compares to recruiting ranking. All the data was taken off the web: Cal's average recruiting ranking was 40th. Cal's average final ranking in the polls was 61st.
• How do explain the ongoing success compared to Cal of Wisconsin (virtually tied with Cal at 39.7 average recruiting ranking), Utah (41st), Iowa (44th), Boise St. (60th), BYU (69th) and San Diego St (78th)?
• How do explain these disparities:

RECRUITING RANKING FROM 2010-2019 / FINAL RANKING AVERAGE FROM 2010-2019
Florida St. (8.4)/ 25.7
Texas (9.6)/ 39.4
Florida (10.2) / 30.1
USC (12.8) / 26.5
Tennesse (14.4) / 50.6!
Miami FL (18) / 42.8
UCLA (19) / 51.9
Ole Miss (23.2) / 51.7
Arkansas (27) / 56.2
Kentucky (34) / 64.7
Maryland (37.8) / 74.7!!


How do explain the fact that Cal's average seasonal winning percentage has actually increased since Tedford's best recruiting years (2010-2012)? From 2010-2012 Tedford recruited a ton of 4 star and some 5 star players. His win total average in those years was 5 wins. Those recruits matured mostly in 2012-2016 and, in those years, Cal's average win total actually dropped below 5. Cal's average win total since then is the same, even if you include 2020 when they only played 4 games and won only once. So, despite changes in recruiting, the performance needle has hardly moved at all and, if anything, has actually improved as recruiting has declined.

Also, if you look at the above chart, UCLA is essentially recruiting where you would like Cal to be, rankings wise (top 25), but they are really not performing that much better than Cal (51st vs. 61st). Since UCLA is probably the most comparable institution to Cal, this should be taken seriously.

I know what your are going to say. I am cherry picking. But show me any era where great recruiting at Cal related to wins. Cal had 4 elite 11 QBs on the 2011-12 roster and none of them could QB well enough to get playing time. Tedford's best performance span (late 2003-early 2007) were mostly staffed with 3 star recruits, although we did have some top notch skill guys. But, if you want to argue that 2003-2007 is the example, fine. That was one time. Cal was set to do it again at the end of JTs career and didn't.

So, with all of these examples, to me it has to be more than that. I think Cal needs something else. Maybe it's better leadership inside the ADs office. Maybe it's better coaching. Maybe it's better financial commitment to coaches. I don't really know.

Sure recruits help, but minus that, why can't we be Utah, Wisconsin or Boise St? That is my question above all.

---

Because it's about player development within the systems (offense and defense) that you are using. Maybe a 4 or 5 star is closer to their full potential, and/or ready to play sooner but they have to take a step up too. You want those guys because of the large percentage of those have pushed themselves to get better at every level they have played. In addition, they are likely to be, at a minimum, good depth early on. And you have to factor in that besides advancing their skill level, 3 stars, especially along the lines, excel after they have had physical development.
The high expectations of most was based on the assumption of a lot of guys taking it to the next level, and that hasn't happened.

---

"He'll take his'n and beat your'n and then take your'n and beat his'n" Said of Bear Bryant by another coach.

"It isn't the X's and O's. It's the Johnnie's and Joe's." Said by Shug Jordan, Auburn coach?

"It's not who you didn't get. It's who you got who couldn't play." Said by?

To stay in the top 10, you've got to pick the players who most fit your system and can play. That means you have an excess of kids who want you from whom to choose. And, your system has to work. And, you've got to get your kids into the League, at least, if not "get them their second contract." (Saban)

Comparatively, top 10 teams who stay there have it all, or most all of it. That's why they're top 10. You don't get there and stay there overnight. It takes long term commitment and $$$. We have some of each, but not enough.

How about rankings are wildly inaccurate? Start with the fact that half of all Elite Eleven QBs do little or nothing in college. Factor in that a good portion of 300 pound HS linemen have topped out at that level and fail at the next. Consider the weight given to schools pulling prospects, e.g., Texas or Alabama interest is worth a bump in a kid's rating. But, yes, coaching and motivational factor in significantly.

59bear said:

---

How about rankings are wildly inaccurate? Start with the fact that half of all Elite Eleven QBs do little or nothing in college. Factor in that a good portion of 300 pound HS linemen have topped out at that level and fail at the next. Consider the weight given to schools pulling prospects, e.g., Texas or Alabama interest is worth a bump in a kid's rating. But, yes, coaching and motivational factor in significantly.

---

You are making my point for me because essentially what you are saying is that you can't rely on the ratings of players (3 or 4 star) because they are partly affected by politics. So then how do we know that we aren't recruiting well?

socaltownie said:

---

Ratings are hoccum. Do you really think that any of these "services" is going out and individually grading kids, watching them practice and play? No. MAYBE they get tapes. They definately have a lemming bias. They upgrade based on "offers" and thus you inflate "stars" as programs offer and sign kids ("Tennessee would never sign a "2" star....give that kid a bump.") and, in part, because the business model is about eyeballs and engagement rather than actually a scouting service that you are "paying" for.

That said, can anyone with a straight face watch Cal over the past 3-4 years and not see GLARING talent gaps with the top of the conference - especially at key skill positions like WR, DE, and OG? Boy I can and that is what it comes down to.

---

This.

socaltownie said:

---

Ratings are hoccum. Do you really think that any of these "services" is going out and individually grading kids, watching them practice and play? No. MAYBE they get tapes. They definately have a lemming bias. They upgrade based on "offers" and thus you inflate "stars" as programs offer and sign kids ("Tennessee would never sign a "2" star....give that kid a bump.") and, in part, because the business model is about eyeballs and engagement rather than actually a scouting service that you are "paying" for.

That said, can anyone with a straight face watch Cal over the past 3-4 years and not see GLARING talent gaps with the top of the conference - especially at key skill positions like WR, DE, and OG? Boy I can and that is what it comes down to.

---

If you can't rely on the ratings, and I agree that you can't, then how do you know that Cal isn't recruiting 4 star talent but just failing to develop it?

You say that it is glaringly obvious on the field vs. other pac-12 teams that we lack talent. Some of us see that as a lack of player development. Take our defensive secondary for example. Hicks, Aneuseum, Scott, Waddle are all 4 star (or upper 3 star) talent but most of them are no better now than they were a few years ago (exception Scott). Take Garbers (4 star), who is essentially the same QB he was as a sophomore. He still can't throw deep. Take Remigio (4 star WR) who is probably worse than he was as a sophomore, is he lacking talent? or how about Brooks (formerly Brown upper 3 star) who is essentially the same back he was as a sophomore, you don't think he would be lighting it playing for Wisconsin or Utah? No, instead he got passed by a true frosh last year, Damian Moore.

A lot of these guys who you say lack talent were recruited by the Utahs and Wisconsins I mention above. You don't think these guys would be providing enough talent to be successful there?

The fact is that guys aren't developing. We have a ton of super seniors on our team. And it should show. But it doesn't.

I agree with your comments, including about OLs. That may explain all of the rest. The RB at OSU, for example, is benefitting from his OL. That happens a-lot in Utah too. The offense in general won't look good without a good OL. But OLs are a prime example of my point. There are very few successful programs that rely on 4 or 5 star recruits at OL. Mostly they get 3 star and even 2 star guys with the size and frame to develop. And then they develop them. The OL has to work like a synchronized swimming team. It isn't so much about individual talent as it is about teamwork and footwork. It is also about scheme. Guys have to be able to execute their blocking assignments. The more complicated their assignments, the more sophisticated the offense. What I see at Cal is that they run basic blocking schemes compared to even Nevada. The Nevada OL was running all the way towards the sideline and blocking downfield in concert with the play design. Cal's play designs seem limited because the Cal OL does not seem to have the speed or ability to work together to get downfield or onto the edge. This partly explains our difficulty in the redzone.

But here's the rub. We have a 4 star at OT and a bunch of experienced guys. Mettauer was actually doing really well as a freshmen when he came in for an injured played. The same thing has been the case with Cindric. And Coleman is ahead of schedule and should be reliable down the line. We don't have bad OL personnel. But they don't really work well together and the blocking schemes are so vanilla that they limit our offense. For example, there is very little OL blocking downfield and on screens. When I look at the film, the lions share of our problems are coming from #61 Valentino Daltoso. Daltoso is a super senior but is probably playing out of position as a OT rather than an OG.

If folks that argue for better recruiting were specifically arguing for better recruiting at OT, I might agree. But here's the other issue. We have 2 highly rated OTs (Swinney and Johnson are high 3 stars) waiting in the wings. They should be playing. Maybe they are. But, in any case we rarely recruit OTs rated much higher than Swinney and Johnson so I'm not sure what folks want when it comes to recruiting.

Guys aren't developing or they are transferring out or they are hurt or not playing for some other reason (academics). Whatever it is, we have the players for the most part. I'd like to see us get more talent at interior DL, but so would most of the pac-12 teams. Interior DLs accumulate at places like Alabama and Ohio St. They don't stick around, if they are from California. Maybe they go to Oregon. And the one's that stay go to SC.

We are a long way from winning recruiting battles with Oregon, SC, Ohio St. and Alabama. We need to improve the program first.

heartofthebear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Ratings are hoccum. Do you really think that any of these "services" is going out and individually grading kids, watching them practice and play? No. MAYBE they get tapes. They definately have a lemming bias. They upgrade based on "offers" and thus you inflate "stars" as programs offer and sign kids ("Tennessee would never sign a "2" star....give that kid a bump.") and, in part, because the business model is about eyeballs and engagement rather than actually a scouting service that you are "paying" for.

That said, can anyone with a straight face watch Cal over the past 3-4 years and not see GLARING talent gaps with the top of the conference - especially at key skill positions like WR, DE, and OG? Boy I can and that is what it comes down to.

---

If you can't rely on the ratings, and I agree that you can't, then how do you know that Cal isn't recruiting 4 star talent but just failing to develop it?

You say that it is glaringly obvious on the field vs. other pac-12 teams that we lack talent. Some of us see that as a lack of player development. Take our defensive secondary for example. Hicks, Aneuseum, Scott, Waddle are all 4 star (or upper 3 star) talent but most of them are no better now than they were a few years ago (exception Scott). Take Garbers (4 star), who is essentially the same QB he was as a sophomore. He still can't throw deep. Take Remigio (4 star WR) who is probably worse than he was as a sophomore, is he lacking talent? or how about Brooks (formerly Brown upper 3 star) who is essentially the same back he was as a sophomore, you don't think he would be lighting it playing for Wisconsin or Utah? No, instead he got passed by a true frosh last year, Damian Moore.

A lot of these guys who you say lack talent were recruited by the Utahs and Wisconsins I mention above. You don't think these guys would be providing enough talent to be successful there?

The fact is that guys aren't developing. We have a ton of super seniors on our team. And it should show. But it doesn't.

I agree with your comments, including about OLs. That may explain all of the rest. The RB at OSU, for example, is benefitting from his OL. That happens a-lot in Utah too. The offense in general won't look good without a good OL. But OLs are a prime example of my point. There are very few successful programs that rely on 4 or 5 star recruits at OL. Mostly they get 3 star and even 2 star guys with the size and frame to develop. And then they develop them. The OL has to work like a synchronized swimming team. It isn't so much about individual talent as it is about teamwork and footwork. It is also about scheme. Guys have to be able to execute their blocking assignments. The more complicated their assignments, the more sophisticated the offense. What I see at Cal is that they run basic blocking schemes compared to even Nevada. The Nevada OL was running all the way towards the sideline and blocking downfield in concert with the play design. Cal's play designs seem limited because the Cal OL does not seem to have the speed or ability to work together to get downfield or onto the edge. This partly explains our difficulty in the redzone.

But here's the rub. We have a 4 star at OT and a bunch of experienced guys. Mettauer was actually doing really well as a freshmen when he came in for an injured played. The same thing has been the case with Cindric. And Coleman is ahead of schedule and should be reliable down the line. We don't have bad OL personnel. But they don't really work well together and the blocking schemes are so vanilla that they limit our offense. For example, there is very little OL blocking downfield and on screens. When I look at the film, the lions share of our problems are coming from #61 Valentino Daltoso. Daltoso is a super senior but is probably playing out of position as a OT rather than an OG.

If folks that argue for better recruiting were specifically arguing for better recruiting at OT, I might agree. But here's the other issue. We have 2 highly rated OTs (Swinney and Johnson are high 3 stars) waiting in the wings. They should be playing. Maybe they are. But, in any case we rarely recruit OTs rated much higher than Swinney and Johnson so I'm not sure what folks want when it comes to recruiting.

Guys aren't developing or they are transferring out or they are hurt or not playing for some other reason (academics). Whatever it is, we have the players for the most part. I'd like to see us get more talent at interior DL, but so would most of the pac-12 teams. Interior DLs accumulate at places like Alabama and Ohio St. They don't stick around, if they are from California. Maybe they go to Oregon. And the one's that stay go to SC.

We are a long way from winning recruiting battles with Oregon, SC, Ohio St. and Alabama. We need to improve the program first.

---

There's more to recruiting than films, and that's just the fb talent, but if you can't look at films and see the difference between a 3* and a 4*, even in the highlight films, you need to look harder. Speed, agility, power, quickness differences are obvious. Even OL's - that kind of power in a hs kid cannot be created in the weight room. You can create weightlifting strength, but it doesn't equate to playing strength.Same with speed, quickness, agility.

Throw in hs acad requirements, studying/grade requirements, once in Cal, personality type/match, our w/l records, and wanna, and you've got a smaller population from which to recruit than our competition. We play schools where the last thing the coach wants a kid to think about is 40 years from now. They want kids who lay it on the line every play - every play is a win/lose proposition, the play that could be THE ONE that the League scouts see and say, "If he did it once, he could do it again."

Rushinbear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

Ratings are hoccum. Do you really think that any of these "services" is going out and individually grading kids, watching them practice and play? No. MAYBE they get tapes. They definately have a lemming bias. They upgrade based on "offers" and thus you inflate "stars" as programs offer and sign kids ("Tennessee would never sign a "2" star....give that kid a bump.") and, in part, because the business model is about eyeballs and engagement rather than actually a scouting service that you are "paying" for.

That said, can anyone with a straight face watch Cal over the past 3-4 years and not see GLARING talent gaps with the top of the conference - especially at key skill positions like WR, DE, and OG? Boy I can and that is what it comes down to.

---

If you can't rely on the ratings, and I agree that you can't, then how do you know that Cal isn't recruiting 4 star talent but just failing to develop it?

You say that it is glaringly obvious on the field vs. other pac-12 teams that we lack talent. Some of us see that as a lack of player development. Take our defensive secondary for example. Hicks, Aneuseum, Scott, Waddle are all 4 star (or upper 3 star) talent but most of them are no better now than they were a few years ago (exception Scott). Take Garbers (4 star), who is essentially the same QB he was as a sophomore. He still can't throw deep. Take Remigio (4 star WR) who is probably worse than he was as a sophomore, is he lacking talent? or how about Brooks (formerly Brown upper 3 star) who is essentially the same back he was as a sophomore, you don't think he would be lighting it playing for Wisconsin or Utah? No, instead he got passed by a true frosh last year, Damian Moore.

A lot of these guys who you say lack talent were recruited by the Utahs and Wisconsins I mention above. You don't think these guys would be providing enough talent to be successful there?

The fact is that guys aren't developing. We have a ton of super seniors on our team. And it should show. But it doesn't.

I agree with your comments, including about OLs. That may explain all of the rest. The RB at OSU, for example, is benefitting from his OL. That happens a-lot in Utah too. The offense in general won't look good without a good OL. But OLs are a prime example of my point. There are very few successful programs that rely on 4 or 5 star recruits at OL. Mostly they get 3 star and even 2 star guys with the size and frame to develop. And then they develop them. The OL has to work like a synchronized swimming team. It isn't so much about individual talent as it is about teamwork and footwork. It is also about scheme. Guys have to be able to execute their blocking assignments. The more complicated their assignments, the more sophisticated the offense. What I see at Cal is that they run basic blocking schemes compared to even Nevada. The Nevada OL was running all the way towards the sideline and blocking downfield in concert with the play design. Cal's play designs seem limited because the Cal OL does not seem to have the speed or ability to work together to get downfield or onto the edge. This partly explains our difficulty in the redzone.

But here's the rub. We have a 4 star at OT and a bunch of experienced guys. Mettauer was actually doing really well as a freshmen when he came in for an injured played. The same thing has been the case with Cindric. And Coleman is ahead of schedule and should be reliable down the line. We don't have bad OL personnel. But they don't really work well together and the blocking schemes are so vanilla that they limit our offense. For example, there is very little OL blocking downfield and on screens. When I look at the film, the lions share of our problems are coming from #61 Valentino Daltoso. Daltoso is a super senior but is probably playing out of position as a OT rather than an OG.

If folks that argue for better recruiting were specifically arguing for better recruiting at OT, I might agree. But here's the other issue. We have 2 highly rated OTs (Swinney and Johnson are high 3 stars) waiting in the wings. They should be playing. Maybe they are. But, in any case we rarely recruit OTs rated much higher than Swinney and Johnson so I'm not sure what folks want when it comes to recruiting.

Guys aren't developing or they are transferring out or they are hurt or not playing for some other reason (academics). Whatever it is, we have the players for the most part. I'd like to see us get more talent at interior DL, but so would most of the pac-12 teams. Interior DLs accumulate at places like Alabama and Ohio St. They don't stick around, if they are from California. Maybe they go to Oregon. And the one's that stay go to SC.

We are a long way from winning recruiting battles with Oregon, SC, Ohio St. and Alabama. We need to improve the program first.

---

There's more to recruiting than films, and that's just the fb talent, but if you can't look at films and see the difference between a 3* and a 4*, even in the highlight films, you need to look harder. Speed, agility, power, quickness differences are obvious. Even OL's - that kind of power in a hs kid cannot be created in the weight room. You can create weightlifting strength, but it doesn't equate to playing strength.Same with speed, quickness, agility.

Throw in hs acad requirements, studying/grade requirements, once in Cal, personality type/match, our w/l records, and wanna, and you've got a smaller population from which to recruit than our competition. We play schools where the last thing the coach wants a kid to think about is 40 years from now. They want kids who lay it on the line every play - every play is a win/lose proposition, the play that could be THE ONE that the League scouts see and say, "If he did it once, he could do it again."

---

I agree but I don't this impeaches my points. Somehow Utah and Wisconsin are taking what is essentially the guys you say aren't talented enough and creating winning programs with them. Oregon St. has had very little change in the quality of their recruits but they changed their HC and now they look like Utah and Wisconsin. It may be true that, at Cal, it is harder to get these guys to perform the same way because of academic load and a more conservative approach to how much they risk injury to win a game. I am willing to accept that. But that just goes to my point. Because, you can recruit 4 star guys and they will still be subject to the same load and end up playing more like a 3 star.

I will say this again. We had 4 and 5 star guys from 2010-2012 and it did not matter. If you are saying that those recruits weren't really 4 and 5 star talent, then what you are saying is that the Cal coaches don't know how to recruit beyond the ratings and that includes Tosh Lupoi and JT, who have been pretty successful finding talent otherwise. Tosh was so successful that...well you know what happened in 2012.

heartofthebear, thanks for presenting this topic in a much more nuanced way that "Stars matter" or "Stars don't matter".

You mentioned some schools such as Utah, but I would be interested in seeing a list (like in your OP in this thread) of schools who have outperformed their recruiting rankings.

Big C said:

---

heartofthebear, thanks for presenting this topic in a much more nuanced way that "Stars matter" or "Stars don't matter".

You mentioned some schools such as Utah, but I would be interested in seeing a list (like in your OP in this thread) of schools who have outperformed their recruiting rankings.

---

Same here. I would suspect that, in most years, schools like Wisconsin would do better than their recruiting ranking would indicate since they used to have a clear philosophy and recruited players that fit the plan. Oregon under Kelly was like that as well. For us, not sure what our philosophy is.

calbear93 said:

---

Big C said:

---

heartofthebear, thanks for presenting this topic in a much more nuanced way that "Stars matter" or "Stars don't matter".

You mentioned some schools such as Utah, but I would be interested in seeing a list (like in your OP in this thread) of schools who have outperformed their recruiting rankings.

---

Same here. I would suspect that, in most years, schools like Wisconsin would do better than their recruiting ranking would indicate since they used to have a clear philosophy and recruited players that fit the plan. Oregon under Kelly was like that as well. For us, not sure what our philosophy is.

---

40 year decision.

Wisconsin example of how they do it: On the road from the airport to the campus is the main operation for Oscar Meyer. It is huge - corp hdqtrs and manufacturing plant. You can't miss it as you drive by. Then, scattered around the athletic bldgs., etc. are O-M donations/contributions. OM Foundation. The recruiters don't have to say a thing - any recruit that didn't get the message wouldn't be able to do the course work anyway. Also, lotsa big, strong linemen grow up in WI.

Same as Eugene. Other places have different environs - some corp, some small business (Tenn), some religious. There was a time when the Bishop told every great player in Chicago Catholic Schools that God wanted them to go to Notre Dame, and they obeyed. I don't know if that's still true, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Something not mentioned here: long-term coaches.

• Utah - Kyle Wittingham, 2005-present (been at Utah since 1994!)
• Wisconsin - Barry Alvarez 1990-2005, Bret Bielema 2006-2012, some brief Gary Anderson/Alvarez being interim, Paul Chryst 2015 to present (Alvarez also has been AD since 2004)
• Boise State - Chris Peterson 2006-2013 (he had been OC since 2001), Bryan Harsin 2014-2020
• SDSU - Brady Hoke 2009-10, Rocky Long 2010-2019, Brady Hoke returns and barring egregious errors, will be there a long time (also note Steve Fisher was there nearly 20 years in hoops, interesting...)

It's a combination of finding the right coach for the school, building an identity, recruiting to that identity, and sticking with it. Tedford was the guy...until he wasn't.

sandiegobears said:

---

Something not mentioned here: long-term coaches.

• Utah - Kyle Wittingham, 2005-present (been at Utah since 1994!)
• Wisconsin - Barry Alvarez 1990-2005, Bret Bielema 2006-2012, some brief Gary Anderson/Alvarez being interim, Paul Chryst 2015 to present (Alvarez also has been AD since 2004)
• Boise State - Chris Peterson 2006-2013 (he had been OC since 2001), Bryan Harsin 2014-2020
• SDSU - Brady Hoke 2009-10, Rocky Long 2010-2019, Brady Hoke returns and barring egregious errors, will be there a long time (also note Steve Fisher was there nearly 20 years in hoops, interesting...)

It's a combination of finding the right coach for the school, building an identity, recruiting to that identity, and sticking with it. Tedford was the guy...until he wasn't.

---

Tedford was a guy who founded a company that achieved great early success, but never made the transition to being a good CEO. He remained a workaholic control freak and kept most of the salary pool for himself. No stability in the organization. He also changed the teams' identity in 2006, going spread then "multiple" despite RB being the team's strength. Despite having great success with QBs as an OC, most of his success was with guys he inherited, Rodgers the JC transfer exception that proves the rule.

heartofthebear said:

---

59bear said:

---

How about rankings are wildly inaccurate? Start with the fact that half of all Elite Eleven QBs do little or nothing in college. Factor in that a good portion of 300 pound HS linemen have topped out at that level and fail at the next. Consider the weight given to schools pulling prospects, e.g., Texas or Alabama interest is worth a bump in a kid's rating. But, yes, coaching and motivational factor in significantly.

---

You are making my point for me because essentially what you are saying is that you can't rely on the ratings of players (3 or 4 star) because they are partly affected by politics. So then how do we know that we aren't recruiting well?

---

Saying ratings are inaccurate is not the same as saying they don't matter. If Alabama fills up on 4/5* guys, half of which are bogus, they still end up with a bunch of good material. When cal gets a 5* who doesn't pan out, we're left with a roster of 3* guys, many of whom also will not pan out. It's a basic exercise in the laws of probability: the more highly ranked prospects you can attract. the more likely you are to land some players. The flip side of the rating inaccuracy issue is the occasional diamond in. the rough 2* or walk-on who becomes an all-conference or all-American player

Stars matter as does coaching. Alabama may pay Saban 10 million or whatever - but he also has 10 coaches who make well above average as well as a support staff that in handling all sorts of things. 23 students in his recruiting center cutting up tape from every kid in the country trying to find the diamonds in the rough of the 4 stars...getting any edge that they can, strength 4 or 5 strength coaches, offensive and defensive former head coaches as analysts, etc.

The Giants did this this year with more coaches than any other major league team - creating individual training modules for each player, each game, each at bat. They took a decent team to their best record ever.

On a one on one basis - the best athlete (biggest, fastest, strongest) will generally win in football. You can create additional strength by working out and even additional quickness in processing and movement by coaching, however. Putting the athlete where they need to be first will give the edge in most sports.

I do believe that Cal has made strides with that in the program. Under Tedford, the support was virtually non-existent and he tried and almost killed himself to make it happen - the stadium, the recruiting, the academics - and he clearly ended up not having the bandwidth to do it all. Dykes just started looking around as soon as possible, and was lucky to inherit a bunch of quality receivers and a good QB. Under Wilcox and this chancellor, and with the help of a lot of donors, there has been some help given to the quality of the support staff - the new academic support center, new locker rooms and rest areas, improvements in the food that recruits are getting when they get on campus, etc. But those small strides while necessary do not automatically translate into points on the board on Saturday. For Cal - this is a big lift. USC, Stanford and Oregon all have that ready and waiting for their players. UCLA does not quite have that but there is no doubt that the jokes about Chip Kelly's food budget are no joke to the players there.

Unless you give all the coaches an equal platform to coach on...some are going to do better with those three stars than others who are just trying to get them fed and housed. Cal is not in that last category. But we are also not in the Alabama category. That is why the TV contracts matter, the money into the athletic department matters. And also - of course - that you do have coaches who can make a difference and are smart and good motivators.

I think it is difficult to make a judgement about a lot of this stuff if you are sitting at home and just watching the games on the weekends. We do have kids who have risen above their ranking and done well under all of our coaches - Alex Mack, Ashton Davis, etc. We also have had kids who failed to come close to their rankings. 5 stars who flunked out, or just did not want to work.

At the end of the day the Coaches get fired. But the University sets the standard for the culture that they are willing to endure in their efforts. If Cal truly decided to win the football National Championship - I have no doubt that could happen. It happened before at Cal. It is a budget and a will decision and it will always be. The coaches can help and the AD can help, but it is an institutional mindset.

In my mind there are two places that can come from. One is from an outside influencer - a Phil Knight, for example. Any University worth it's salt knows that kowtowing to a multi-billionaire alum is only good business. The second way is to invest with the idea that this is how you grow your university - a la Oregon as well. They have now made a mint in getting California kids up there paying out of state tuition.

Anyway - hard to say why Cal underperforms our star rating. All of it matters.

Big C said:

---

heartofthebear, thanks for presenting this topic in a much more nuanced way that "Stars matter" or "Stars don't matter".

You mentioned some schools such as Utah, but I would be interested in seeing a list (like in your OP in this thread) of schools who have outperformed their recruiting rankings.

---

Off the top of my head Furd joins Utah in the conference. BTW those 2 schools get the benefit of the officiating also. I will provide more for you.

59bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

59bear said:

---

How about rankings are wildly inaccurate? Start with the fact that half of all Elite Eleven QBs do little or nothing in college. Factor in that a good portion of 300 pound HS linemen have topped out at that level and fail at the next. Consider the weight given to schools pulling prospects, e.g., Texas or Alabama interest is worth a bump in a kid's rating. But, yes, coaching and motivational factor in significantly.

---

You are making my point for me because essentially what you are saying is that you can't rely on the ratings of players (3 or 4 star) because they are partly affected by politics. So then how do we know that we aren't recruiting well?

---

Saying ratings are inaccurate is not the same as saying they don't matter. If Alabama fills up on 4/5* guys, half of which are bogus, they still end up with a bunch of good material. When cal gets a 5* who doesn't pan out, we're left with a roster of 3* guys, many of whom also will not pan out. It's a basic exercise in the laws of probability: the more highly ranked prospects you can attract. the more likely you are to land some players. The flip side of the rating inaccuracy issue is the occasional diamond in. the rough 2* or walk-on who becomes an all-conference or all-American player

---

So UCLA recruits closer to what you would like but performs only slightly better on average. They also have had slightly better HCs generally.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

A team like this, loaded with pre-season all stars, could easily wins a Natty.

Garbers is our best player.

---

I'll tell you what the problem is.

It's the fans.

Fans with too much sarcasm.
Fans with too little sense of humor.
Fans with too much time on their hands.
And fans who can't find their checkbook.

Cal is but an ember, smoldering in the college landscape, just waiting for the fans to ignite a wild fire of a season. That is California - just burned out.

Whisky in basketball is much more on point here. I am not sure the FB program is THAT great - though they clearly have been better than CAL.

But one thing that Wisconsin has done over the years really well has been to develop relationships down through Wisconsin HS football programs.

But cal has never really focused on this - building really deep ties especially to the SOCal HS and Youth football community. You know who does? Oregon.

There are a lot of variables. Conference membership for one. A whole bunch of SEC teams on the list. They play each other. Ole Miss has had some pretty strong on paper classes. But they play Alabama, Auburn, LSU and Texas A&M every year.

Who does the rating matters. The top 100 or so players are pretty universal. But after that a lot of regional bias comes into play. Southern recruits are almost always rated higher all things being equal. Additionally not every position has the same value or impact. You cannot win without good OL play but OL represent the one of the harder groups to project. Skill players dominate the ratings. RBs, WRs, DBs and pass rushers are easier to project. TEs and QBs have a higher miss rate, but often are plentiful in the ratings.

Cal has had a lot of trouble recruiting the top drawer skill players. Oh sure they have had some over the years and when they do they often have better on field records. Not always but more than not. The skill (athletic) positions make game changing plays. They create explosive plays. Long TD runs and catches. Sacks and TFLs. Ints and pass breakups and often make big ST plays.

To win without these sorts of players is very difficult. You need to really hit home runs along both lines and be good enough at QB and the details to win. Cal has very ordinary skill players presently. The OL while not awful is not elite. The QB stats look decent, but he often fails to make numerous makeable plays every game. Even some of his completions are poor throws turned into catches by the receiver. The RBs are ok, but none possess homerun speed. Same at WR. The frosh may turn into players ultimately, but the current group is average. TE has a ton of bodies, but no really top guys. Terry may become that and Latu looks like he could become a nice flex TE. Cal needs better athleticism on offense.

The defense has some nice players. But not sure they have any dynamic ones. Goode is a very solid player. Hicks is as well. But neither project as top NFL type guys. The rest of the defense is ok. The frosh along the DL may end up as pretty good players. Both CBs look like keepers but really are smaller than ideal. Oladejo at ILB is a unicorn physically, but needs to develop. Iosefa is just now starting to play closer to his potential. But team speed on defense is average at best. Marqez Bimage has been a very nice addition. Again he is a nice college player, but his NFL prospects are not great.

STs are routinely below average. So close games turn into losses rather than wins. Coaching is a part of the problem IMO as well. But the current roster is very ordinary. Few NFL prospects. And not one that is a day 1 or day 2 type. The overall athleticism needs to improve. A lot frankly.

Recruiting rankings are subjective, but the top 10 generally are quite accurate. Those teams win more often and play in the CFP and NY6 games. After that the miss rate jumps and regional bias takes over. In recent years the top 10 programs generally take approximately 50% of the top 100 prospects. They have rosters dotted by high level NFL prospects. They truly reload and seldom if ever rebuild. Clemson is down (for them ) this season. Do not expect that to last. After the top 10 numbers 11-30 are really quite similar. Same with 31-45. Not much difference. The gap is at the top.

You need impact players to win big. Those players are in abundance at Alabama, Ohio St, Oklahoma, Clemson, Texas A&M, Etc. Even a single player if they are at a important position can change a game. Thibodeaux in a half totally changed the Oregon defense against Cal. The Bears had no answer. Lamar Jackson when at Louisville completely changed their teams outlook. They could beat almost anyone with him. Now they are back to being just another program.

Want to win? You absolutely must have multiple impact players. By win I mean 10+ wins. Good coaching and average players can get you to 6-8 wins. An occasional breakthrough season when the schedule and injuries go their way. Cal's current record is reflective of the relative lack of impact players and mediocre coaching and development.