The NFL stands for "Not For Long" if you don't win. No GM would ever draft or sign a free agent from his Alma Mater if there was a better player available.calumnus said:eabandit said:
I think Cal should offer a top tier sports business degree. kids want to go to the NFL, yes. but they're also largely not dumb. many understand that your career chances in the NFL are slim and even when you get in you have a shelf life.
cal would have a real competitive edge if it offered a sports business degree tailored to student athletes. it could complement their time in the court and on the field and allow them to focus their studies on a topic related to their preferred career, versus a major they may not have professional interest in
if we did that and promoted it properly to recruits and within the community, it'd be an excellent way to use a competitive advantage (academics) over our recruiting competitors
Moreover, we would stock the professional leagues with coaches, general managers, agents, union heads, all of which would then benefit Cal athletes trying to get into the leagues.
Our own athletics administration would be filled with smart Cal athletes in internships. Our marketing to students in particular would improve immensely.
Wilner predicts Wilcox to Washington
15,730 Views |
111 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by 82gradDLSdad
71Bear said:The NFL stands for "Not For Long" if you don't win. No GM would ever draft or sign a free agent from his Alma Mater if there was a better player available.calumnus said:eabandit said:
I think Cal should offer a top tier sports business degree. kids want to go to the NFL, yes. but they're also largely not dumb. many understand that your career chances in the NFL are slim and even when you get in you have a shelf life.
cal would have a real competitive edge if it offered a sports business degree tailored to student athletes. it could complement their time in the court and on the field and allow them to focus their studies on a topic related to their preferred career, versus a major they may not have professional interest in
if we did that and promoted it properly to recruits and within the community, it'd be an excellent way to use a competitive advantage (academics) over our recruiting competitors
Moreover, we would stock the professional leagues with coaches, general managers, agents, union heads, all of which would then benefit Cal athletes trying to get into the leagues.
Our own athletics administration would be filled with smart Cal athletes in internships. Our marketing to students in particular would improve immensely.
It isn't always so clear cut. And I'm not just talking about players. I for one will admit I give preference to fellow Cal grads when hiring employees or for contracting.
There are a lot of people (athletes and non-athletes) who also like that culture and who also like those academics. Our culture can be a net positive. It ignorant to think (as some weaker posters do) that all athletes are repelled by Berkeley.71Bear said:I chose to attend Cal because of the culture and academics. I did not attend Cal because of the athletics.Cal Strong! said:When we had a good program (not all that long ago), we signed great players -- including a good number of elite five stars.HateRed said:
CAL is NOT a good coaches destination. Telegraph is part of it. The city of Berkeley is another part. Not many coaches want to end up there. If there were lots of $$$, then maybe. It's a long term problem. Berkeley just isn't that desirable to MANY people.
The idea that Berkeley is so horrible that no one wants to come here is pathetic. Especially from a bunch of excuse-making weaklings who seem to forget how much they wanted to come to Berkeley when they were younger. It is a fantastic and vibrant place. Yes -- there are a bunch of kooks who make life interesting and challenging. But if you can't deal with that, how can you deal with an opposing offense or a blitzing linebacker?
Tony Franklin loved the culture of Berkeley. He specifically wanted to live downtown and walk to work. Cal Strong can't see how interacting with Berkeley eccentrics would not make his offense more innovative.
You all came to Cal. Why? Were you losers who couldn't get in anywhere else? Of course not. It because Cal STRONG and you used to be STRONG. Now it time for you to take hard look in the mirror. Stop being weak. Stop making excuses. Be more like Cal, less like you!
True, Tosh was a great recruiter. We need great recruiters. But he also had a good product to sell. Cal had been doing well on the field under Tedford. And not all the 4 and 5 star guys he recruited were terrible students. Indeed, those guys who bolted when he left went on to great athletic careers (typically without any academic difficulties) at other places. So they weren't dummies.
Back when weak posters were strong, they chose Cal. They weren't stupid or weak. They were strong and made strong decision. Strong student athletes also choose strong academic programs in funky college towns -- just not ours. There no problem with the culture that can't be overcome by a strong recruiter and a winning conference record.
Cal Strong recalls Cal putting a lot of points on the board under TF.Goobear said:
Tony Franklin did not set the world on fire. Does not sound like a coach Strong would hire based on results. The problem with Strong is that he lives in the past. You have to adjust as time progresses. Nowadays the game is much more national and players are way more prone to leave their home state for more greener pastures. Most of all, recruits want to go to the NFL and see education as a nuisance. So given that Strong how do you propose Cal adjusts? It has standards education wise and most kids don't want to live up to it. Also Cal communication is very mediocre and needs a vast improvement. I know from family experience how other programs support football. Cal needs to be doing that but is not going far enough. Institutionally Cal has to make a decision to be 110% in on football and not just 90%. How do you propose that is change? It is not a coaching issue but an institutional issue.
Cal Strong not living in the past. He using the recent past to figure out how to move forward. Get a good recruiter and a coach who can beat California schools and earn a winning conference record. When this happens, recruits come here. Berkeley is attractive to a lot of strong young student athletes if you get the right coach.
Cal Strong no cry in his beer like weak posters. There unique challenges in Berkeley. But there also unique opportunities. Tedford won share of Pac-10 title with facilities worse than any Middle School in the country and with a bunch of idiots living in trees. Could Cal communications be a bit better? Sure. But if Tedford could win under those conditions, a good coach can win with what we have now -- which is infinitely stronger.
No one is going to want to coach here after this
AXLBear said:
No one is going to want to coach here after this
Any coach who no want to coach at Cal is WEAK!!!!!!!!!!
how did we get Tedford to begin with? can we just find a guy like him again that can bring us to #2 using facilities no better than my garage
Well stated. I would have had to spend an hour at the keyboard to even approach your eloquence here.GivemTheAxe said:72CalBear said:
Nope. He's not going. Much of this mess is institutional and of course there is no support from Berkeley for sports in general, but he's not leaving as a "loser." Remember when we suggested he was going to get plucked by a better program? Funny.
What I find "funny" is how fickle so many posters on this his board are.
In 2019 so many of the posters who want Wilcox gone were on the Wilcox bandwagon wringing their hands that some team was going to lure Wilcox away. To many (most) fans Cal finally was on the way to better days. (Except for those fans who expected JW to spin draw into gold overnight.)
Last year was a horror all it's own.
This year began terribly. But at the beginning of the season I said that JW's Defense would take a while to get going. It did and Deng's loss in the first game only made things worse.
Secondly as I and several others predicted Musgrave was responsible for the early season losses since he did not know how to take advantage of CG's ability to scramble and wanted to keep CG bottled up in the pocket.
Third Musgrave failed to understand how to make best use of the TE's.
But except for the WSU game, all the losses were close losses. Cal was not getting blown out. With one or two more good plays or one or two fewer mistakes, Cal would have won every one of those games.
eventually during the Bye week JW appears to have righted the ship and Cal came within 2 yards of beating the #9 team in the nation (now the #3 Team in the nation). We appeared to be on the right track until the chaos created when Covid reared its ugly head.
So now once again Cal's fickle fans want to clean house. They blame the Administration, the AD, JW and the Cal fans themselves. But if things are really as bad as those posters contend, what self respecting coach would want to come to Cal. And if any decent coach should accept the job, we would be required to endure another 2-3 rebuilding years.
Personally I think that those fans are selling Wilcox short. I think he a better coach than he is being given credit. At a minimum I would would give JW another year to see if he performs as the JW of 2019 or the JW of 2021.
I Find it easier to spout off lame one liners.
The first thing you need is an AD who doesn't farm the decision out to the "Retreads R Us Agency". You need an AD who has courage to put together a group of individuals who clearly understand the personality traits that are needed to succeed at Cal and trust them to identify coaches who meet that criteria and are interested in coaching at Cal. Once a short list has been developed by the group, the AD must be willing to exercise some risk in the selection process. Fortune favors the bold.eabandit said:
how did we get Tedford to begin with? can we just find a guy like him again that can bring us to #2 using facilities no better than my garage
In other words, the best type of AD is a Steve Gladstone. The worst is a Jim Knowlton.
Guess who will be making the call this time?
I used to think so also, in my day.calumnus said:71Bear said:The NFL stands for "Not For Long" if you don't win. No GM would ever draft or sign a free agent from his Alma Mater if there was a better player available.calumnus said:eabandit said:
I think Cal should offer a top tier sports business degree. kids want to go to the NFL, yes. but they're also largely not dumb. many understand that your career chances in the NFL are slim and even when you get in you have a shelf life.
cal would have a real competitive edge if it offered a sports business degree tailored to student athletes. it could complement their time in the court and on the field and allow them to focus their studies on a topic related to their preferred career, versus a major they may not have professional interest in
if we did that and promoted it properly to recruits and within the community, it'd be an excellent way to use a competitive advantage (academics) over our recruiting competitors
Moreover, we would stock the professional leagues with coaches, general managers, agents, union heads, all of which would then benefit Cal athletes trying to get into the leagues.
Our own athletics administration would be filled with smart Cal athletes in internships. Our marketing to students in particular would improve immensely.
It isn't always so clear cut. And I'm not just talking about players. I for one will admit I give preference to fellow Cal grads when hiring employees or for contracting.
After 20 years on this site, I would reconsider.
It's easy to talk about loving/enjoying Berkeley when you're employed elsewhere but that doesn't equate to wanting to coach there.calumnus said:HateRed said:
CAL is NOT a good coaches destination. Telegraph is part of it. The city of Berkeley is another part. Not many coaches want to end up there. If there were lots of $$$, then maybe. It's a long term problem. Berkeley just isn't that desirable to MANY people.
It is a GREAT destination for the right coach. Pete Carroll, John Madden, Ron Rivera, Tony Franklin and Herm Edwards are just 5 good/great coaches coaches that I have heard talk about their love and enjoyment of Berkeley.
That is why "fit" is so important. We don't need every coach to like Berkeley, we just need to find a good coach who does, because that is the only way you can be sincere and sell the place to recruits. That is one reason to give a long look at alums, because most love the place, even if there are things to laugh about.
The Washington Football Team is 2-6, any chance Rivera gets canned? It would be great to bring Rivera and Rodgers home.
During my career, part of which was spent identifying management talent for my department, I never gave any preference to a candidate based on where they went to college. It was all about finding people who would be successful in the job for which they were applying. Had I given preference to anyone based on their Alma Mater, I suspect I would have been Not For Long.Bobodeluxe said:I used to think so also, in my day.calumnus said:71Bear said:The NFL stands for "Not For Long" if you don't win. No GM would ever draft or sign a free agent from his Alma Mater if there was a better player available.calumnus said:eabandit said:
I think Cal should offer a top tier sports business degree. kids want to go to the NFL, yes. but they're also largely not dumb. many understand that your career chances in the NFL are slim and even when you get in you have a shelf life.
cal would have a real competitive edge if it offered a sports business degree tailored to student athletes. it could complement their time in the court and on the field and allow them to focus their studies on a topic related to their preferred career, versus a major they may not have professional interest in
if we did that and promoted it properly to recruits and within the community, it'd be an excellent way to use a competitive advantage (academics) over our recruiting competitors
Moreover, we would stock the professional leagues with coaches, general managers, agents, union heads, all of which would then benefit Cal athletes trying to get into the leagues.
Our own athletics administration would be filled with smart Cal athletes in internships. Our marketing to students in particular would improve immensely.
It isn't always so clear cut. And I'm not just talking about players. I for one will admit I give preference to fellow Cal grads when hiring employees or for contracting.
After 20 years on this site, I would reconsider.
Is it possible that was mostly luck?eabandit said:
how did we get Tedford to begin with? can we just find a guy like him again that can bring us to #2 using facilities no better than my garage
Ah if it were only that easy. Tedford was a bit like hitting the lottery. The head coaching graveyard is filled with the remains of storied coordinators who flopped when given a shot at the top job. Gilby, as OC at UW looked like a sure thing, How did he work out for us? Charlie Weiss (Patriots/ND). Norm Chow (USC/UH), Tom Herman (tOSU/TX) are other "can't miss" guys who did miss. Lane Kiffin and Steve Sarkisian have been hit/miss since working for Carroll in LA. Throw in the fact that Cal admins are just giving lip service to the notion of fielding competitive major sports programs and you have an environment where even Nick Saban or Urban Meyer, assuming we could lure one of them to Berkeley, would be hard pressed to win big. I'm not saying it's impossible to win at Cal, but there's not an obvious answer to our issues.eabandit said:
how did we get Tedford to begin with? can we just find a guy like him again that can bring us to #2 using facilities no better than my garage
Only a Cal person would take this on. Troy Taylor? Someone mentioned Ron Rivera if he becomes available but that seems unrealistic to me.AXLBear said:
No one is going to want to coach here after this
I don't see that it takes courage "to put together a group of individuals who clearly understand the personality traits that are needed to succeed at Cal and trust them to identify coaches who meet that criteria and are interested in coaching at Cal." It takes a wee bit of intelligence, but courage?71Bear said:The first thing you need is an AD who doesn't farm the decision out to the "Retreads R Us Agency". You need an AD who has courage to put together a group of individuals who clearly understand the personality traits that are needed to succeed at Cal and trust them to identify coaches who meet that criteria and are interested in coaching at Cal. Once a short list has been developed by the group, the AD must be willing to exercise some risk in the selection process. Fortune favors the bold.eabandit said:
how did we get Tedford to begin with? can we just find a guy like him again that can bring us to #2 using facilities no better than my garage
In other words, the best type of AD is a Steve Gladstone. The worst is a Jim Knowlton.
Guess who will be making the call this time?
The decision should NEVER be farmed out to an agency, but there are practical reasons to USE one. It can be useful to have a third party between (at least some) candidates and the university in communications, and for the agency to do certain portions of the vetting process. It can be easier for potential candidates to express interest to the agency rather than the university. If the agency suggests a potential candidate that the university has not thought of, OK, and that may be in part because in certain instances, the university didn't imagine that the candidate would have any interest, and the candidate contacted an agency when he would be reticent to contact the university directly. The decision ABSOLUTELY should not be farmed out, however, and only a foolish AD will do that. Courage not required, just a lack of idiocy.
I'm not quite sure how Gladstone showed he was willing to exercise some risk in the selection process. He (correctly, IMO) avoided the risk of hiring someone with clear NFL ambitions (Marvin Lewis). He (incorrectly, IMO) avoided the risk of hiring someone with the perfect personality traits needed to succeed at Cal and was interested in coaching at Cal forever, because Gladstone didn't want to take the risk of hiring someone without much experience (Ron Rivera). Gladstone made a "safe" call in hiring Tedford.
But I absolutely would rather have a Gladstone doing the hiring than a Knowlton, at least if the Fox hire is any sign of what we get. IMO, that was neither bold nor particularly safe.
Fair enough…Cal8285 said:I don't see that it takes courage "to put together a group of individuals who clearly understand the personality traits that are needed to succeed at Cal and trust them to identify coaches who meet that criteria and are interested in coaching at Cal." It takes a wee bit of intelligence, but courage?71Bear said:The first thing you need is an AD who doesn't farm the decision out to the "Retreads R Us Agency". You need an AD who has courage to put together a group of individuals who clearly understand the personality traits that are needed to succeed at Cal and trust them to identify coaches who meet that criteria and are interested in coaching at Cal. Once a short list has been developed by the group, the AD must be willing to exercise some risk in the selection process. Fortune favors the bold.eabandit said:
how did we get Tedford to begin with? can we just find a guy like him again that can bring us to #2 using facilities no better than my garage
In other words, the best type of AD is a Steve Gladstone. The worst is a Jim Knowlton.
Guess who will be making the call this time?
The decision should NEVER be farmed out to an agency, but there are practical reasons to USE one. It can be useful to have a third party between (at least some) candidates and the university in communications, and for the agency to do certain portions of the vetting process. It can be easier for potential candidates to express interest to the agency rather than the university. If the agency suggests a potential candidate that the university has not thought of, OK, and that may be in part because in certain instances, the university didn't imagine that the candidate would have any interest, and the candidate contacted an agency when he would be reticent to contact the university directly. The decision ABSOLUTELY should not be farmed out, however, and only a foolish AD will do that. Courage not required, just a lack of idiocy.
I'm not quite sure how Gladstone showed he was willing to exercise some risk in the selection process. He (correctly, IMO) avoided the risk of hiring someone with clear NFL ambitions (Marvin Lewis). He (incorrectly, IMO) avoided the risk of hiring someone with the perfect personality traits needed to succeed at Cal and was interested in coaching at Cal forever, because Gladstone didn't want to take the risk of hiring someone without much experience (Ron Rivera). Gladstone made a "safe" call in hiring Tedford.
But I absolutely would rather have a Gladstone doing the hiring than a Knowlton, at least if the Fox hire is any sign of what we get. IMO, that was neither bold nor particularly safe.
I used the word courage because of the potential blowback if the wrong choice is made. Hiring an agency takes no courage because you just dump the responsibility for the screwup on the agency.
There was nothing to recommend Fox. He was a long-time head coach with a track record of mediocrity in a major conference. That's not what you want at Cal.Cal8285 said:I don't see that it takes courage "to put together a group of individuals who clearly understand the personality traits that are needed to succeed at Cal and trust them to identify coaches who meet that criteria and are interested in coaching at Cal." It takes a wee bit of intelligence, but courage?71Bear said:The first thing you need is an AD who doesn't farm the decision out to the "Retreads R Us Agency". You need an AD who has courage to put together a group of individuals who clearly understand the personality traits that are needed to succeed at Cal and trust them to identify coaches who meet that criteria and are interested in coaching at Cal. Once a short list has been developed by the group, the AD must be willing to exercise some risk in the selection process. Fortune favors the bold.eabandit said:
how did we get Tedford to begin with? can we just find a guy like him again that can bring us to #2 using facilities no better than my garage
In other words, the best type of AD is a Steve Gladstone. The worst is a Jim Knowlton.
Guess who will be making the call this time?
The decision should NEVER be farmed out to an agency, but there are practical reasons to USE one. It can be useful to have a third party between (at least some) candidates and the university in communications, and for the agency to do certain portions of the vetting process. It can be easier for potential candidates to express interest to the agency rather than the university. If the agency suggests a potential candidate that the university has not thought of, OK, and that may be in part because in certain instances, the university didn't imagine that the candidate would have any interest, and the candidate contacted an agency when he would be reticent to contact the university directly. The decision ABSOLUTELY should not be farmed out, however, and only a foolish AD will do that. Courage not required, just a lack of idiocy.
I'm not quite sure how Gladstone showed he was willing to exercise some risk in the selection process. He (correctly, IMO) avoided the risk of hiring someone with clear NFL ambitions (Marvin Lewis). He (incorrectly, IMO) avoided the risk of hiring someone with the perfect personality traits needed to succeed at Cal and was interested in coaching at Cal forever, because Gladstone didn't want to take the risk of hiring someone without much experience (Ron Rivera). Gladstone made a "safe" call in hiring Tedford.
But I absolutely would rather have a Gladstone doing the hiring than a Knowlton, at least if the Fox hire is any sign of what we get. IMO, that was neither bold nor particularly safe.
Tedford was a good hire: up-and-coming assistant with strong west-coast ties. By the same logic, so was Wilcox. Of course, just being a good candidate doesn't guarantee success (see Gilbertson) but at least there's a good thought process there.
Another way to do it is to get a former head coach with a proven track record at this level. Cal can't usually get those guys, but we did with Mike Montgomery, another good hire. Maybe if someone like Ron Rivera ever became available he'd be another one like that.
The problem with Dykes was that his head coaching success in smaller conferences was a bit of a mirage, but more importantly he had no ties to the west coast and thus was always looking to bolt. Not a great fit at Cal.
Gilby's problem was that he never let go of his love for UW. Emotionally, he never "committed" to Cal. He was the wrong guy at the wrong school.sycasey said:There was nothing to recommend Fox. He was a long-time head coach with a track record of mediocrity in a major conference. That's not what you want at Cal.Cal8285 said:I don't see that it takes courage "to put together a group of individuals who clearly understand the personality traits that are needed to succeed at Cal and trust them to identify coaches who meet that criteria and are interested in coaching at Cal." It takes a wee bit of intelligence, but courage?71Bear said:The first thing you need is an AD who doesn't farm the decision out to the "Retreads R Us Agency". You need an AD who has courage to put together a group of individuals who clearly understand the personality traits that are needed to succeed at Cal and trust them to identify coaches who meet that criteria and are interested in coaching at Cal. Once a short list has been developed by the group, the AD must be willing to exercise some risk in the selection process. Fortune favors the bold.eabandit said:
how did we get Tedford to begin with? can we just find a guy like him again that can bring us to #2 using facilities no better than my garage
In other words, the best type of AD is a Steve Gladstone. The worst is a Jim Knowlton.
Guess who will be making the call this time?
The decision should NEVER be farmed out to an agency, but there are practical reasons to USE one. It can be useful to have a third party between (at least some) candidates and the university in communications, and for the agency to do certain portions of the vetting process. It can be easier for potential candidates to express interest to the agency rather than the university. If the agency suggests a potential candidate that the university has not thought of, OK, and that may be in part because in certain instances, the university didn't imagine that the candidate would have any interest, and the candidate contacted an agency when he would be reticent to contact the university directly. The decision ABSOLUTELY should not be farmed out, however, and only a foolish AD will do that. Courage not required, just a lack of idiocy.
I'm not quite sure how Gladstone showed he was willing to exercise some risk in the selection process. He (correctly, IMO) avoided the risk of hiring someone with clear NFL ambitions (Marvin Lewis). He (incorrectly, IMO) avoided the risk of hiring someone with the perfect personality traits needed to succeed at Cal and was interested in coaching at Cal forever, because Gladstone didn't want to take the risk of hiring someone without much experience (Ron Rivera). Gladstone made a "safe" call in hiring Tedford.
But I absolutely would rather have a Gladstone doing the hiring than a Knowlton, at least if the Fox hire is any sign of what we get. IMO, that was neither bold nor particularly safe.
Tedford was a good hire: up-and-coming assistant with strong west-coast ties. By the same logic, so was Wilcox. Of course, just being a good candidate doesn't guarantee success (see Gilbertson) but at least there's a good thought process there.
Another way to do it is to get a former head coach with a proven track record at this level. Cal can't usually get those guys, but we did with Mike Montgomery, another good hire. Maybe if someone like Ron Rivera ever became available he'd be another one like that.
The problem with Dykes was that his head coaching success in smaller conferences was a bit of a mirage, but more importantly he had no ties to the west coast and thus was always looking to bolt. Not a great fit at Cal.
I think digging further into why he wanted the Cal job during the interview process might have uncovered this "dark" secret.
I suspect the group that nominated him was blinded by the success UW had experienced during his tenure there and did not go far enough in the interview to really get into the "why" question.
Of course, the other side of the coin is that he later flopped as the HC at UDub so maybe he was just a bad head coach……..
I think that's basically it. I don't really blame Cal for hiring him (I would blame them for letting Snyder go, but not for the subsequent replacement choice); it just didn't work out.71Bear said:
Of course, the other side of the coin is that he later flopped as the HC at UDub so maybe he was just a bad head coach……..
Re: the "close losses" argument.
This one seems to be further proof that Wilcox needs to be fired. In every loss this year, we had the talent to win. In each loss (except WSU), we had every chance to pull out a W in the end. But in every single instance, the coach of the other team was able to beat Wilcox. Not once did Wilcox pull it off.
So how are these "close losses" an argument for keeping him? Doesn't it just eliminate the excuse that he didn't have enough to win? The Cal communications team wasn't in the huddle. The City of Berkeley wasn't responsible for picking up the blitz. Knowlton didn't miss the tackle. UHS didn't tell Wilcox not to fire up his guys against Nevada like Norvell was able to do on the other side.
All the excuses go out the door in a close game. In all of those losses (save WSU), either team could have won. But Wilcox lost each and every one of those games.
This one seems to be further proof that Wilcox needs to be fired. In every loss this year, we had the talent to win. In each loss (except WSU), we had every chance to pull out a W in the end. But in every single instance, the coach of the other team was able to beat Wilcox. Not once did Wilcox pull it off.
So how are these "close losses" an argument for keeping him? Doesn't it just eliminate the excuse that he didn't have enough to win? The Cal communications team wasn't in the huddle. The City of Berkeley wasn't responsible for picking up the blitz. Knowlton didn't miss the tackle. UHS didn't tell Wilcox not to fire up his guys against Nevada like Norvell was able to do on the other side.
All the excuses go out the door in a close game. In all of those losses (save WSU), either team could have won. But Wilcox lost each and every one of those games.
I do blame Cal for hiring him. I blame Bob Bockrath for hiring him, because the buck stops with the AD (unless the AD is getting overruled by the chancellor, in which case the AD should quit).sycasey said:I think that's basically it. I don't really blame Cal for hiring him (I would blame them for letting Snyder go, but not for the subsequent replacement choice); it just didn't work out.71Bear said:
Of course, the other side of the coin is that he later flopped as the HC at UDub so maybe he was just a bad head coach……..
Mooch was the right hire in January 1992 for a lot of reasons. Who knows, maybe if he doesn't go to the Packers after failing to get the Cal job, he isn't so anxious for an NFL job (and certainly Eddie D. isn't salivating over Mooch because Mooch was part of the Packers staff for 4 years), and maybe he stays with Cal for awhile. And Mooch keeps a lot of the Snyder recruiting class if he's hired, and doesn't piss off the existing players, leading to a 4-7 season in spite of a lot of talent.
But honestly, I don't know how anyone could see in Gilby the leadership qualities you want in a HC. Since Bockrath was an idiot, it doesn't surprise me he thought Gilby was the guy.
Be honest. We tell ourselves that on a weekly basis for years already and yet here we are.calbear93 said:2 or 3 year period is a long time in college football.GivemTheAxe said:72CalBear said:
Nope. He's not going. Much of this mess is institutional and of course there is no support from Berkeley for sports in general, but he's not leaving as a "loser." Remember when we suggested he was going to get plucked by a better program? Funny.
What I find "funny" is how fickle so many posters on this his board are.
In 2019 so many of the posters who want Wilcox gone were on the Wilcox bandwagon wringing their hands that some team was going to lure Wilcox away. To many (most) fans Cal finally was on the way to better days. (Except for those fans who expected JW to spin draw into gold overnight.)
Last year was a horror all it's own.
This year began terribly. But at the beginning of the season I said that JW's Defense would take a while to get going. It did and Deng's loss in the first game only made things worse.
Secondly as I and several others predicted Musgrave was responsible for the early season losses since he did not know how to take advantage of CG's ability to scramble and wanted to keep CG bottled up in the pocket.
Third Musgrave failed to understand how to make best use of the TE's.
But except for the WSU game, all the losses were close losses. Cal was not getting blown out. With one or two more good plays or one or two fewer mistakes, Cal would have won every one of those games.
eventually during the Bye week JW appears to have righted the ship and Cal came within 2 yards of beating the #9 team in the nation (now the #3 Team in the nation). We appeared to be on the right track until the chaos created when Covid reared its ugly head.
So now once again Cal's fickle fans want to clean house. They blame the Administration, the AD, JW and the Cal fans themselves. But if things are really as bad as those posters contend, what self respecting coach would want to come to Cal. And if any decent coach should accept the job, we would be required to endure another 2-3 rebuilding years.
Personally I think that those fans are selling Wilcox short. I think he a better coach than he is being given credit. At a minimum I would would give JW another year to see if he performs as the JW of 2019 or the JW of 2021.
And it isn't as if our assessment of Wilcox fell off a cliff after being on a plateau. It has been on a downward trend during that period. With how long he has been here, we can judge him based on actual results and not just on promise or potential.
However, I would have to say that it is not all or mostly Wilcox. I am not thinking that a new coach will fix the rot deep in our program. Otherwise, we would not be having these same discussions with every coach.
So, I would say that I am not looking to clean house. I just vacillate from frustration to resignation and apathy. I was pretty much at apathy this year until this COVID-19 cluster and Aaron Rodgers made me realize that this is the only program or investment that i willingly follow knowing that it is a clear loser. And this may be my last bit of storm before the end, and I just realize Cal sports or even discussing Cal sports bring me very little joy relative to even the little time I spend on it now. In fact, UC Berkeley overall brings me very little joy and more frustration.
Maybe that's it. It isn't Wilcox who should quit. I should just quit Cal. Almost 30 years of frustration sprinkled with brief periods of joy has been a bad investment.
Strong Recommendationrafterfan180 said:Be honest. We tell ourselves that on a weekly basis for years already and yet here we are.calbear93 said:2 or 3 year period is a long time in college football.GivemTheAxe said:72CalBear said:
Nope. He's not going. Much of this mess is institutional and of course there is no support from Berkeley for sports in general, but he's not leaving as a "loser." Remember when we suggested he was going to get plucked by a better program? Funny.
What I find "funny" is how fickle so many posters on this his board are.
In 2019 so many of the posters who want Wilcox gone were on the Wilcox bandwagon wringing their hands that some team was going to lure Wilcox away. To many (most) fans Cal finally was on the way to better days. (Except for those fans who expected JW to spin draw into gold overnight.)
Last year was a horror all it's own.
This year began terribly. But at the beginning of the season I said that JW's Defense would take a while to get going. It did and Deng's loss in the first game only made things worse.
Secondly as I and several others predicted Musgrave was responsible for the early season losses since he did not know how to take advantage of CG's ability to scramble and wanted to keep CG bottled up in the pocket.
Third Musgrave failed to understand how to make best use of the TE's.
But except for the WSU game, all the losses were close losses. Cal was not getting blown out. With one or two more good plays or one or two fewer mistakes, Cal would have won every one of those games.
eventually during the Bye week JW appears to have righted the ship and Cal came within 2 yards of beating the #9 team in the nation (now the #3 Team in the nation). We appeared to be on the right track until the chaos created when Covid reared its ugly head.
So now once again Cal's fickle fans want to clean house. They blame the Administration, the AD, JW and the Cal fans themselves. But if things are really as bad as those posters contend, what self respecting coach would want to come to Cal. And if any decent coach should accept the job, we would be required to endure another 2-3 rebuilding years.
Personally I think that those fans are selling Wilcox short. I think he a better coach than he is being given credit. At a minimum I would would give JW another year to see if he performs as the JW of 2019 or the JW of 2021.
And it isn't as if our assessment of Wilcox fell off a cliff after being on a plateau. It has been on a downward trend during that period. With how long he has been here, we can judge him based on actual results and not just on promise or potential.
However, I would have to say that it is not all or mostly Wilcox. I am not thinking that a new coach will fix the rot deep in our program. Otherwise, we would not be having these same discussions with every coach.
So, I would say that I am not looking to clean house. I just vacillate from frustration to resignation and apathy. I was pretty much at apathy this year until this COVID-19 cluster and Aaron Rodgers made me realize that this is the only program or investment that i willingly follow knowing that it is a clear loser. And this may be my last bit of storm before the end, and I just realize Cal sports or even discussing Cal sports bring me very little joy relative to even the little time I spend on it now. In fact, UC Berkeley overall brings me very little joy and more frustration.
Maybe that's it. It isn't Wilcox who should quit. I should just quit Cal. Almost 30 years of frustration sprinkled with brief periods of joy has been a bad investment.
Cal8285 said:I do blame Cal for hiring him. I blame Bob Bockrath for hiring him, because the buck stops with the AD (unless the AD is getting overruled by the chancellor, in which case the AD should quit).sycasey said:I think that's basically it. I don't really blame Cal for hiring him (I would blame them for letting Snyder go, but not for the subsequent replacement choice); it just didn't work out.71Bear said:
Of course, the other side of the coin is that he later flopped as the HC at UDub so maybe he was just a bad head coach……..
Mooch was the right hire in January 1992 for a lot of reasons. Who knows, maybe if he doesn't go to the Packers after failing to get the Cal job, he isn't so anxious for an NFL job (and certainly Eddie D. isn't salivating over Mooch because Mooch was part of the Packers staff for 4 years), and maybe he stays with Cal for awhile. And Mooch keeps a lot of the Snyder recruiting class if he's hired, and doesn't piss off the existing players, leading to a 4-7 season in spite of a lot of talent.
But honestly, I don't know how anyone could see in Gilby the leadership qualities you want in a HC. Since Bockrath was an idiot, it doesn't surprise me he thought Gilby was the guy.
That's a good point, I forgot Mooch was one of the options at the time. He certainly would have been better.
Cal8285 said:I do blame Cal for hiring him. I blame Bob Bockrath for hiring him, because the buck stops with the AD (unless the AD is getting overruled by the chancellor, in which case the AD should quit).sycasey said:I think that's basically it. I don't really blame Cal for hiring him (I would blame them for letting Snyder go, but not for the subsequent replacement choice); it just didn't work out.71Bear said:
Of course, the other side of the coin is that he later flopped as the HC at UDub so maybe he was just a bad head coach……..
Mooch was the right hire in January 1992 for a lot of reasons. Who knows, maybe if he doesn't go to the Packers after failing to get the Cal job, he isn't so anxious for an NFL job (and certainly Eddie D. isn't salivating over Mooch because Mooch was part of the Packers staff for 4 years), and maybe he stays with Cal for awhile. And Mooch keeps a lot of the Snyder recruiting class if he's hired, and doesn't piss off the existing players, leading to a 4-7 season in spite of a lot of talent.
But honestly, I don't know how anyone could see in Gilby the leadership qualities you want in a HC. Since Bockrath was an idiot, it doesn't surprise me he thought Gilby was the guy.
THANK YOU! Nailed it.
I truly believe that Mooch would have only improved our strong recruiting and we would have dominated the PAC-10 of the early to mid 90s. Rose Bowl for sure.
My God, Gilby? How could anyone interview him and think he'd be a competent HC?
Bockrath.calumnus said:My God, Gilby? How could anyone interview him and think he'd be a competent HC?Cal8285 said:I do blame Cal for hiring him. I blame Bob Bockrath for hiring him, because the buck stops with the AD (unless the AD is getting overruled by the chancellor, in which case the AD should quit).sycasey said:I think that's basically it. I don't really blame Cal for hiring him (I would blame them for letting Snyder go, but not for the subsequent replacement choice); it just didn't work out.71Bear said:
Of course, the other side of the coin is that he later flopped as the HC at UDub so maybe he was just a bad head coach……..
Mooch was the right hire in January 1992 for a lot of reasons. Who knows, maybe if he doesn't go to the Packers after failing to get the Cal job, he isn't so anxious for an NFL job (and certainly Eddie D. isn't salivating over Mooch because Mooch was part of the Packers staff for 4 years), and maybe he stays with Cal for awhile. And Mooch keeps a lot of the Snyder recruiting class if he's hired, and doesn't piss off the existing players, leading to a 4-7 season in spite of a lot of talent.
But honestly, I don't know how anyone could see in Gilby the leadership qualities you want in a HC. Since Bockrath was an idiot, it doesn't surprise me he thought Gilby was the guy.
calumnus said:Cal8285 said:I do blame Cal for hiring him. I blame Bob Bockrath for hiring him, because the buck stops with the AD (unless the AD is getting overruled by the chancellor, in which case the AD should quit).sycasey said:I think that's basically it. I don't really blame Cal for hiring him (I would blame them for letting Snyder go, but not for the subsequent replacement choice); it just didn't work out.71Bear said:
Of course, the other side of the coin is that he later flopped as the HC at UDub so maybe he was just a bad head coach……..
Mooch was the right hire in January 1992 for a lot of reasons. Who knows, maybe if he doesn't go to the Packers after failing to get the Cal job, he isn't so anxious for an NFL job (and certainly Eddie D. isn't salivating over Mooch because Mooch was part of the Packers staff for 4 years), and maybe he stays with Cal for awhile. And Mooch keeps a lot of the Snyder recruiting class if he's hired, and doesn't piss off the existing players, leading to a 4-7 season in spite of a lot of talent.
But honestly, I don't know how anyone could see in Gilby the leadership qualities you want in a HC. Since Bockrath was an idiot, it doesn't surprise me he thought Gilby was the guy.
THANK YOU! Nailed it.
I truly believe that Mooch would have only improved our strong recruiting and we would have dominated the PAC-10 of the early to mid 90s. Rose Bowl for sure.
My God, Gilby? How could anyone interview him and think he'd be a competent HC?
He was the OC for one of the top teams in the nation and it was on the west coast. Other than that he was unimpressive. I don't think many ADs have a great feel for picking leaders. And first and foremost that's what a HC is. I guess Gladstone showed he could do it but the sample size is small. I have no confidence that Knowlton can do it.
82gradDLSdad said:calumnus said:Cal8285 said:I do blame Cal for hiring him. I blame Bob Bockrath for hiring him, because the buck stops with the AD (unless the AD is getting overruled by the chancellor, in which case the AD should quit).sycasey said:I think that's basically it. I don't really blame Cal for hiring him (I would blame them for letting Snyder go, but not for the subsequent replacement choice); it just didn't work out.71Bear said:
Of course, the other side of the coin is that he later flopped as the HC at UDub so maybe he was just a bad head coach……..
Mooch was the right hire in January 1992 for a lot of reasons. Who knows, maybe if he doesn't go to the Packers after failing to get the Cal job, he isn't so anxious for an NFL job (and certainly Eddie D. isn't salivating over Mooch because Mooch was part of the Packers staff for 4 years), and maybe he stays with Cal for awhile. And Mooch keeps a lot of the Snyder recruiting class if he's hired, and doesn't piss off the existing players, leading to a 4-7 season in spite of a lot of talent.
But honestly, I don't know how anyone could see in Gilby the leadership qualities you want in a HC. Since Bockrath was an idiot, it doesn't surprise me he thought Gilby was the guy.
THANK YOU! Nailed it.
I truly believe that Mooch would have only improved our strong recruiting and we would have dominated the PAC-10 of the early to mid 90s. Rose Bowl for sure.
My God, Gilby? How could anyone interview him and think he'd be a competent HC?
He was the OC for one of the top teams in the nation and it was on the west coast. Other than that he was unimpressive. I don't think many ADs have a great feel for picking leaders. And first and foremost that's what a HC is. I guess Gladstone showed he could do it but the sample size is small. I have no confidence that Knowlton can do it.
Gladstone recognizes good coaches because he is one.
calumnus said:82gradDLSdad said:calumnus said:Cal8285 said:I do blame Cal for hiring him. I blame Bob Bockrath for hiring him, because the buck stops with the AD (unless the AD is getting overruled by the chancellor, in which case the AD should quit).sycasey said:I think that's basically it. I don't really blame Cal for hiring him (I would blame them for letting Snyder go, but not for the subsequent replacement choice); it just didn't work out.71Bear said:
Of course, the other side of the coin is that he later flopped as the HC at UDub so maybe he was just a bad head coach……..
Mooch was the right hire in January 1992 for a lot of reasons. Who knows, maybe if he doesn't go to the Packers after failing to get the Cal job, he isn't so anxious for an NFL job (and certainly Eddie D. isn't salivating over Mooch because Mooch was part of the Packers staff for 4 years), and maybe he stays with Cal for awhile. And Mooch keeps a lot of the Snyder recruiting class if he's hired, and doesn't piss off the existing players, leading to a 4-7 season in spite of a lot of talent.
But honestly, I don't know how anyone could see in Gilby the leadership qualities you want in a HC. Since Bockrath was an idiot, it doesn't surprise me he thought Gilby was the guy.
THANK YOU! Nailed it.
I truly believe that Mooch would have only improved our strong recruiting and we would have dominated the PAC-10 of the early to mid 90s. Rose Bowl for sure.
My God, Gilby? How could anyone interview him and think he'd be a competent HC?
He was the OC for one of the top teams in the nation and it was on the west coast. Other than that he was unimpressive. I don't think many ADs have a great feel for picking leaders. And first and foremost that's what a HC is. I guess Gladstone showed he could do it but the sample size is small. I have no confidence that Knowlton can do it.
Gladstone recognizes good coaches because he is one.
Maybe. Lots of good coaches hire or recommend bad coaches when given the opportunity.
"This is a tremendous choice for the University of California," said former 49er coach Bill Walsh. "Tom Holmoe is so far above any other candidate I could think of for the head coaching position at Cal, that it must have been an easy decision. He has an outstanding football mind, he's extremely intelligent and he's well organized. He just exudes class and he'll be a great asset to the University of California."
Or Mike White, those were great years. How many people got suckered into being life-long Cal fans just because of those 1974 and 1975 teams?calbear93 said:Snyder and Tedford were not just OK.eastbayyoungbear said:I'm seriously questioning whether anyone at this point is a good fit for Cal. Every hire we've made in the last 50 years has either been terrible or in the three cases where they were okay, one was forced out, one left for a better job, and one flamed out hard. And the best of those still couldn't get us to a Rose Bowl.HuaHin (fka Uthai) said:No they won't. UW doesn't fare any better than Cal when they have bad coaches.diva1 said:
Wilcox will leave and be a success Cal will hire someone else and be mediocre
The problem at Cal is institutional and will never change
If Wilcox goes to UW they will rise again
See Gilbertson, Willingham, and Lake. Even Sark didn't do very well there. Sure, Petersen did well, but he's one of the best coaches around.
People look at Dykes at SMU and say "See? The problem is Cal." Yes, the problem for Dykes was Cal. It was a terrible fit for both sides. That doesn't mean "Cal is a problem for every coach," it means Cal needs to do a MUCH better job at finding a good coach who is a good fit. (Just like everyone else who hires people, this is Human Resources 101.)You mean the guy who flamed out with superior talent and location at UCLA? How would that work for us in any way?Quote:
If Cal wants to take a fired UW coach, the only one I'd feel remotely okay about would be Neuheisel. And that's because he was actually a good coach at UW.
This. The risk in hiring a "hot" assistant coach is that their "success" is actually attributable to the guy they work for, e.g., Don James, Nick Saban, Chris Peteson et al. Gilby's strongest recommendation was his chops as a recruiter and he did bring in some decent talent but underperformed with it.71Bear said:Gilby's problem was that he never let go of his love for UW. Emotionally, he never "committed" to Cal. He was the wrong guy at the wrong school.sycasey said:There was nothing to recommend Fox. He was a long-time head coach with a track record of mediocrity in a major conference. That's not what you want at Cal.Cal8285 said:I don't see that it takes courage "to put together a group of individuals who clearly understand the personality traits that are needed to succeed at Cal and trust them to identify coaches who meet that criteria and are interested in coaching at Cal." It takes a wee bit of intelligence, but courage?71Bear said:The first thing you need is an AD who doesn't farm the decision out to the "Retreads R Us Agency". You need an AD who has courage to put together a group of individuals who clearly understand the personality traits that are needed to succeed at Cal and trust them to identify coaches who meet that criteria and are interested in coaching at Cal. Once a short list has been developed by the group, the AD must be willing to exercise some risk in the selection process. Fortune favors the bold.eabandit said:
how did we get Tedford to begin with? can we just find a guy like him again that can bring us to #2 using facilities no better than my garage
In other words, the best type of AD is a Steve Gladstone. The worst is a Jim Knowlton.
Guess who will be making the call this time?
The decision should NEVER be farmed out to an agency, but there are practical reasons to USE one. It can be useful to have a third party between (at least some) candidates and the university in communications, and for the agency to do certain portions of the vetting process. It can be easier for potential candidates to express interest to the agency rather than the university. If the agency suggests a potential candidate that the university has not thought of, OK, and that may be in part because in certain instances, the university didn't imagine that the candidate would have any interest, and the candidate contacted an agency when he would be reticent to contact the university directly. The decision ABSOLUTELY should not be farmed out, however, and only a foolish AD will do that. Courage not required, just a lack of idiocy.
I'm not quite sure how Gladstone showed he was willing to exercise some risk in the selection process. He (correctly, IMO) avoided the risk of hiring someone with clear NFL ambitions (Marvin Lewis). He (incorrectly, IMO) avoided the risk of hiring someone with the perfect personality traits needed to succeed at Cal and was interested in coaching at Cal forever, because Gladstone didn't want to take the risk of hiring someone without much experience (Ron Rivera). Gladstone made a "safe" call in hiring Tedford.
But I absolutely would rather have a Gladstone doing the hiring than a Knowlton, at least if the Fox hire is any sign of what we get. IMO, that was neither bold nor particularly safe.
Tedford was a good hire: up-and-coming assistant with strong west-coast ties. By the same logic, so was Wilcox. Of course, just being a good candidate doesn't guarantee success (see Gilbertson) but at least there's a good thought process there.
Another way to do it is to get a former head coach with a proven track record at this level. Cal can't usually get those guys, but we did with Mike Montgomery, another good hire. Maybe if someone like Ron Rivera ever became available he'd be another one like that.
The problem with Dykes was that his head coaching success in smaller conferences was a bit of a mirage, but more importantly he had no ties to the west coast and thus was always looking to bolt. Not a great fit at Cal.
I think digging further into why he wanted the Cal job during the interview process might have uncovered this "dark" secret.
I suspect the group that nominated him was blinded by the success UW had experienced during his tenure there and did not go far enough in the interview to really get into the "why" question.
Of course, the other side of the coin is that he later flopped as the HC at UDub so maybe he was just a bad head coach……..
Ax, well expressed. Wilcox leaving will be the worst possible result for the Program. He has established a solid defense in each year he has been here. The offense was on its way up until we lost three of our top recruits to a dismal start. I attribute that start to Musgrave and if anyone needs replacing it is him.GivemTheAxe said:72CalBear said:
Nope. He's not going. Much of this mess is institutional and of course there is no support from Berkeley for sports in general, but he's not leaving as a "loser." Remember when we suggested he was going to get plucked by a better program? Funny.
What I find "funny" is how fickle so many posters on this his board are.
In 2019 so many of the posters who want Wilcox gone were on the Wilcox bandwagon wringing their hands that some team was going to lure Wilcox away. To many (most) fans Cal finally was on the way to better days. (Except for those fans who expected JW to spin draw into gold overnight.)
Last year was a horror all it's own.
This year began terribly. But at the beginning of the season I said that JW's Defense would take a while to get going. It did and Deng's loss in the first game only made things worse.
Secondly as I and several others predicted Musgrave was responsible for the early season losses since he did not know how to take advantage of CG's ability to scramble and wanted to keep CG bottled up in the pocket.
Third Musgrave failed to understand how to make best use of the TE's.
But except for the WSU game, all the losses were close losses. Cal was not getting blown out. With one or two more good plays or one or two fewer mistakes, Cal would have won every one of those games.
eventually during the Bye week JW appears to have righted the ship and Cal came within 2 yards of beating the #9 team in the nation (now the #3 Team in the nation). We appeared to be on the right track until the chaos created when Covid reared its ugly head.
So now once again Cal's fickle fans want to clean house. They blame the Administration, the AD, JW and the Cal fans themselves. But if things are really as bad as those posters contend, what self respecting coach would want to come to Cal. And if any decent coach should accept the job, we would be required to endure another 2-3 rebuilding years.
Personally I think that those fans are selling Wilcox short. I think he a better coach than he is being given credit. At a minimum I would would give JW another year to see if he performs as the JW of 2019 or the JW of 2021.
kal kommie said:Or Mike White, those were great years. How many people got suckered into being life-long Cal fans just because of those 1974 and 1975 teams?calbear93 said:Snyder and Tedford were not just OK.eastbayyoungbear said:I'm seriously questioning whether anyone at this point is a good fit for Cal. Every hire we've made in the last 50 years has either been terrible or in the three cases where they were okay, one was forced out, one left for a better job, and one flamed out hard. And the best of those still couldn't get us to a Rose Bowl.HuaHin (fka Uthai) said:No they won't. UW doesn't fare any better than Cal when they have bad coaches.diva1 said:
Wilcox will leave and be a success Cal will hire someone else and be mediocre
The problem at Cal is institutional and will never change
If Wilcox goes to UW they will rise again
See Gilbertson, Willingham, and Lake. Even Sark didn't do very well there. Sure, Petersen did well, but he's one of the best coaches around.
People look at Dykes at SMU and say "See? The problem is Cal." Yes, the problem for Dykes was Cal. It was a terrible fit for both sides. That doesn't mean "Cal is a problem for every coach," it means Cal needs to do a MUCH better job at finding a good coach who is a good fit. (Just like everyone else who hires people, this is Human Resources 101.)You mean the guy who flamed out with superior talent and location at UCLA? How would that work for us in any way?Quote:
If Cal wants to take a fired UW coach, the only one I'd feel remotely okay about would be Neuheisel. And that's because he was actually a good coach at UW.
Lots, I bet. Me for sure, so that's at least one.
1975 -- (co) Pac Champions. Beat then #4 'SC, adn demolished then #13 Stanford in the Big Game.Big C said:kal kommie said:Or Mike White, those were great years. How many people got suckered into being life-long Cal fans just because of those 1974 and 1975 teams?calbear93 said:Snyder and Tedford were not just OK.eastbayyoungbear said:I'm seriously questioning whether anyone at this point is a good fit for Cal. Every hire we've made in the last 50 years has either been terrible or in the three cases where they were okay, one was forced out, one left for a better job, and one flamed out hard. And the best of those still couldn't get us to a Rose Bowl.HuaHin (fka Uthai) said:No they won't. UW doesn't fare any better than Cal when they have bad coaches.diva1 said:
Wilcox will leave and be a success Cal will hire someone else and be mediocre
The problem at Cal is institutional and will never change
If Wilcox goes to UW they will rise again
See Gilbertson, Willingham, and Lake. Even Sark didn't do very well there. Sure, Petersen did well, but he's one of the best coaches around.
People look at Dykes at SMU and say "See? The problem is Cal." Yes, the problem for Dykes was Cal. It was a terrible fit for both sides. That doesn't mean "Cal is a problem for every coach," it means Cal needs to do a MUCH better job at finding a good coach who is a good fit. (Just like everyone else who hires people, this is Human Resources 101.)You mean the guy who flamed out with superior talent and location at UCLA? How would that work for us in any way?Quote:
If Cal wants to take a fired UW coach, the only one I'd feel remotely okay about would be Neuheisel. And that's because he was actually a good coach at UW.
Lots, I bet. Me for sure, so that's at least one.
Featured Stories
See All
AJ Tuitele, In His Words - Why I Chose Cal
by Bear Insider
Bears Offer Spree Continues, 28 New Offers Since Mid May
by Ian Firstenberg
Cal Signs Gabe Sularski As Newcomer For 2026-27
by Cal Athletics