Strykur said:

---

calumnus said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

Coaching trade or is Cal job too toxic?

---

Oh God. Lake = Wilcox.

---

Except Lake was fired for hitting a player.

UW buying out Wilcox's contract is far better than us having to fire him and buy out his contract. I just don't see UW doing that. Lake just beat Wilcox a few weeks ago.

---

Wilcox has familiarity with the program and would be obviously an unremarkable but stable hire. Of course the Husky fanbase will howl when it happens.

---

How "stable" does the Cal Football program seem these days?

calbear93 said:

---

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

HuaHin (fka Uthai) said:

---

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

---

No they won't. UW doesn't fare any better than Cal when they have bad coaches.
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.)

---

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.

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.

---

You mean the guy who flamed out with superior talent and location at UCLA? How would that work for us in any way?

---

Snyder and Tedford were not just OK.

---

I think my point stands that if exceptional is really what it takes to get us to 9-3, then our available pool is going to be really damn small.

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

---

What one earth gives diva1 this WEAK opinion? What about his tenure as a HC or as a coordinator makes you think he will ever be a successful HC? We hired him just one year after he was fired from USC as a coordinator. And we only hired him bc Sonny was fired very late in the coaching carousel calendar. No one else was left for us. He was a mediocre coordinator (at best). And he has been a bad HC. Other teams beat him more than he beats other teams.

So why on earth would another program want him?

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

HuaHin (fka Uthai) said:

---

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

---

No they won't. UW doesn't fare any better than Cal when they have bad coaches.
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.)

---

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.

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.

---

You mean the guy who flamed out with superior talent and location at UCLA? How would that work for us in any way?

---

I'll always love Neuheisel because he was UW coach when Cal finally broke the 19 game/26 year losing streak to UW.

Neuheisel told various lies (including lying about interviewing for the 49ers job and lying about the March Madness pool), and let players get away with some pretty awful stuff with little or no discipline. But hey, he was able to take the NCAA and UW to court and pretty well establish that the NCAA violated its own rules in the betting pool investigation, and the UW compliance officer screwed up by saying the pool was OK, and he forced them to pony up a $4.5M settlement. And best yet, when he was fired he left UW where their best option was hiring Gilby!!

Yeah, that's the coach I want at Cal!! (Or maybe not).

59bear said:

---

Strykur said:

---

calumnus said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

Coaching trade or is Cal job too toxic?

---

Oh God. Lake = Wilcox.

---

Except Lake was fired for hitting a player.

UW buying out Wilcox's contract is far better than us having to fire him and buy out his contract. I just don't see UW doing that. Lake just beat Wilcox a few weeks ago.

---

Wilcox has familiarity with the program and would be obviously an unremarkable but stable hire. Of course the Husky fanbase will howl when it happens.

---

Absolutely! There is nothing in Wilcox's resume, even the 2 razor thin wins over the Dawgs, that would justify this hire for the fan base. Delusional Husky fans see the job as a career goal on the order of USC, 'Bama, ND, OK, tOSU! That said, Lake's record and recruiting failures are far more likely to bring him down than the player abuse incident.

---

Of course, if they were in the playoff hunt it would be exccused and defended. "Player abuse" is the best shot at claiming the firing is "for cause" and reducing the buyout to get a winning coach. Which is why I don't see them going after Wilcox.

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.

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.

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.

---

When we had a good program (not all that long ago), we signed great players -- including a good number of elite five stars.

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!

Cal Strong! 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.

---

When we had a good program (not all that long ago), we signed great players -- including a good number of elite five stars.

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!

---

What happened to your stupid half ass stereotypical accent?

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

HuaHin (fka Uthai) said:

---

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

---

No they won't. UW doesn't fare any better than Cal when they have bad coaches.
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.)

---

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.

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.

---

You mean the guy who flamed out with superior talent and location at UCLA? How would that work for us in any way?

---

Snyder and Tedford were not just OK.

---

I think my point stands that if exceptional is really what it takes to get us to 9-3, then our available pool is going to be really damn small.

---

It always takes exceptional to turn around a morbid program.

Tedford took basically the same program that was basically winless and brought energy and belief even during his first year. Then the energy translated to better recruits and better talent. We were on the cusp of a program changing recruiting class that could have created momentum for years. But then we did the Cal thing and acquiesced to the pathetic conference leaders that we would shame our best and most energetic coach who loved Cal to appease what would now be viewed as the "woke" crowd in the conference. Oh my goodness, a player may have pretended to fall down with a leg injury because he was so out of breath and would have actually hurt himself if he didn't take himself out. Then it all went to hell and we went from awesome recruiters/coaches and recruits to someone who had never coached WRs before other than in an after school program and a DL coach who was teaching seminars and was pulling zero star recruits that had no offer. And Tedford lost his creativity, swagger, and ability to even do a mediocre job of recruiting and developing even an average QB. Then we fired him and ended up with as bad of a defense as I have seen.

And now we are here.

It does take an exceptional coach to turn a program like our current program. And we have had a few exceptional coaches. Not from hiring retreads and hoping that after 20 years of failure, they will discover the magic they never had. But from hiring a smart and talented assistant coach who wants to prove he can lead his own program. And we will have to get to 9-3 before we turn the final corner. But we also have to make sure that we don't do the Cal thing when we get there.

Cal Strong! 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.

---

When we had a good program (not all that long ago), we signed great players -- including a good number of elite five stars.

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!

---

Yes, a top football recruit with NFL dreams and minimum admission requirements are motivated by the same things as a Valedictorian with perfect SAT scores.

And an athlete growing up playing football with conservative coaches, most likely Christian background and jock mentality will really choose a losing program because of the psychedelic 60's vibe at Cal.

I love UC Berkeley but what the **** are you talking about?

calbear93 said:

---

Yes, a top football recruit with NFL dreams and minimum admission requirements are motivated by the same things as a Valedictorian with perfect SAT scores.

And an athlete growing up playing football with conservative coaches, most likely Christian background and jock mentality will really choose a losing program because of the psychedelic 60's vibe at Cal.

I love UC Berkeley but what the **** are you talking about?

---

We had recruiting classes chocked-full with four and five star players not that long ago. They came to Cal from a variety of backgrounds. Calbears93 need to stop stereotyping athletes. They diverse. And many of them are not entirely different than you.

Cal Strong not a weakling like you. He still strong like Cal, not weak like stanfurd. He know what it like to lift weights all day. He hang out with athletes all the time. Cal Strong still loves visiting Berkeley.

Cal Strong not saying too many athletes come to Cal solely because of vibe. But that vibe no turn away too many either. Overall, it not a deficit. It something that attractive to a lot of people if there is also some other reason to come (great academics, good coaches, etc.).

calbear93 said:

---

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

HuaHin (fka Uthai) said:

---

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

---

No they won't. UW doesn't fare any better than Cal when they have bad coaches.
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.)

---

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.

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.

---

You mean the guy who flamed out with superior talent and location at UCLA? How would that work for us in any way?

---

Snyder and Tedford were not just OK.

---

I think my point stands that if exceptional is really what it takes to get us to 9-3, then our available pool is going to be really damn small.

---

But then we did the Cal thing and acquiesced to the pathetic conference leaders that we would shame our best and most energetic coach who loved Cal to appease what would now be viewed as the "woke" crowd in the conference.

---

Woke?

Tedford scapegoated Tosh and failed as a leader. Seems a bit forced to tie that to appeasing any crowd.

Cal Strong! said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Yes, a top football recruit with NFL dreams and minimum admission requirements are motivated by the same things as a Valedictorian with perfect SAT scores.

And an athlete growing up playing football with conservative coaches, most likely Christian background and jock mentality will really choose a losing program because of the psychedelic 60's vibe at Cal.

I love UC Berkeley but what the **** are you talking about?

---

We had recruiting classes chocked-full with four and five star players not that long ago. They came to Cal from a variety of backgrounds. Stop stereotyping athletes. They are diverse. And many of them are not entirely different than you.

Cal Strong not a weakling like you. He still strong like Cal, not weak like stanfurd. He know what it like to lift weights all day. He hang out with athletes all the time. Cal Strong still loves visiting Berkeley.

---

What are you, a first year follower?

We had a chocked-full of five star recruits not because of the academic prestige but because we had a winning program with one of the best recruiters. What the **** happened after the two coaches left for Washington? Did we lose that great 60's vibe and our claim as the "#1 public school" disappear? Is that why the recruits left and we ended up with replacement players with no offers?

You may love Berkeley and feel like you are strong. I love Berkeley. But quite frankly, recruiting *******s like me and you will not lead to a winning program.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

HuaHin (fka Uthai) said:

---

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

---

No they won't. UW doesn't fare any better than Cal when they have bad coaches.
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.)

---

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.

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.

---

You mean the guy who flamed out with superior talent and location at UCLA? How would that work for us in any way?

---

Snyder and Tedford were not just OK.

---

I think my point stands that if exceptional is really what it takes to get us to 9-3, then our available pool is going to be really damn small.

---

But then we did the Cal thing and acquiesced to the pathetic conference leaders that we would shame our best and most energetic coach who loved Cal to appease what would now be viewed as the "woke" crowd in the conference.

---

Woke?

Tedford scapegoated Tosh and failed as a leader. Seems a bit forced to tie that to appeasing any crowd.

---

Re-read the full sentence. The "woke" crowd at the conference leadership who acted all horrified that an athlete faked a leg injury because he was out of breath. Stupid ass bull***** Tedford should have told the Pac-12 commissioner what we all should tell self-righteous non-value adding idiots who moralize on meaningless things - go **** yourself.

The "woke" crowd at conference leadership…

Gawd, this site is absolutely hilarious.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

The "woke" crowd at conference leadership…

Gawd, this site is absolutely hilarious.

---

Yes, it was intentional equating of the flaccid, useless woke crowd in all of its pejorative sense with the meandering morons at the conference who thought what we did warranted public shaming of one of our coaches.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

HuaHin (fka Uthai) said:

---

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

---

No they won't. UW doesn't fare any better than Cal when they have bad coaches.
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.)

---

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.

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.

---

You mean the guy who flamed out with superior talent and location at UCLA? How would that work for us in any way?

---

Snyder and Tedford were not just OK.

---

I think my point stands that if exceptional is really what it takes to get us to 9-3, then our available pool is going to be really damn small.

---

But then we did the Cal thing and acquiesced to the pathetic conference leaders that we would shame our best and most energetic coach who loved Cal to appease what would now be viewed as the "woke" crowd in the conference.

---

Woke?

Tedford scapegoated Tosh and failed as a leader. Seems a bit forced to tie that to appeasing any crowd.

---

Re-read the full sentence. The "woke" crowd at the conference leadership who acted all horrified that an athlete faked a leg injury because he was out of breath. Stupid ass bull***** Tedford should have told the Pac-12 commissioner what we all should tell self-righteous non-value adding idiots who moralize on meaningless things - go **** yourself.

---

I read the whole sentence - it's a bad take all around. You obviously have some unresolved issues here but I think if you looked at it dispassionately you would see that the public shaming of Tosh and Cal has more to do with America's puritanical traditions than any modern woke movement.

calbear93 said:

---

I love Berkeley. But quite frankly, recruiting *******s like me and you will not lead to a winning program.

---

I dunno. Can you throw or catch? More importantly, can you shoot a basketball?

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

HuaHin (fka Uthai) said:

---

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

---

No they won't. UW doesn't fare any better than Cal when they have bad coaches.
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.)

---

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.

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.

---

You mean the guy who flamed out with superior talent and location at UCLA? How would that work for us in any way?

---

Snyder and Tedford were not just OK.

---

I think my point stands that if exceptional is really what it takes to get us to 9-3, then our available pool is going to be really damn small.

---

But then we did the Cal thing and acquiesced to the pathetic conference leaders that we would shame our best and most energetic coach who loved Cal to appease what would now be viewed as the "woke" crowd in the conference.

---

Woke?

Tedford scapegoated Tosh and failed as a leader. Seems a bit forced to tie that to appeasing any crowd.

---

Re-read the full sentence. The "woke" crowd at the conference leadership who acted all horrified that an athlete faked a leg injury because he was out of breath. Stupid ass bull***** Tedford should have told the Pac-12 commissioner what we all should tell self-righteous non-value adding idiots who moralize on meaningless things - go **** yourself.

---

You obviously have some unresolved issues here.

---

This is why conversations with you die. It is your arrogance that you somehow have some insight into strangers. Thankfully you and I will never meet, and you and I will never know each other. So, just shut up on things like this. I see you doing this all the time. Hopefully you are not this much of a presumptuous ******* in real life. Just a reminder of why you are so unpleasant here.

GoOskie said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

I love Berkeley. But quite frankly, recruiting *******s like me and you will not lead to a winning program.

---

I dunno. Can you throw or catch? More importantly, can you shoot a basketball?

---

I can, and it couldn't be worse than what we saw this week.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

HuaHin (fka Uthai) said:

---

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

---

No they won't. UW doesn't fare any better than Cal when they have bad coaches.
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.)

---

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.

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.

---

You mean the guy who flamed out with superior talent and location at UCLA? How would that work for us in any way?

---

Snyder and Tedford were not just OK.

---

I think my point stands that if exceptional is really what it takes to get us to 9-3, then our available pool is going to be really damn small.

---

But then we did the Cal thing and acquiesced to the pathetic conference leaders that we would shame our best and most energetic coach who loved Cal to appease what would now be viewed as the "woke" crowd in the conference.

---

Woke?

Tedford scapegoated Tosh and failed as a leader. Seems a bit forced to tie that to appeasing any crowd.

---

Re-read the full sentence. The "woke" crowd at the conference leadership who acted all horrified that an athlete faked a leg injury because he was out of breath. Stupid ass bull***** Tedford should have told the Pac-12 commissioner what we all should tell self-righteous non-value adding idiots who moralize on meaningless things - go **** yourself.

---

You obviously have some unresolved issues here.

---

This is why conversations with you die. It is your arrogance that you somehow have some insight into strangers. Thankfully you and I will never meet, and you and I will never know each other. So, just shut up on things like this. I see you doing this all the time. Hopefully you are not this much of a presumptuous ******* in real life. Just a reminder of why you are so unpleasant here.

---

Are you this pompous in person? Get some help.

calpoly said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

HuaHin (fka Uthai) said:

---

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

---

No they won't. UW doesn't fare any better than Cal when they have bad coaches.
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.)

---

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.

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.

---

You mean the guy who flamed out with superior talent and location at UCLA? How would that work for us in any way?

---

Snyder and Tedford were not just OK.

---

I think my point stands that if exceptional is really what it takes to get us to 9-3, then our available pool is going to be really damn small.

---

But then we did the Cal thing and acquiesced to the pathetic conference leaders that we would shame our best and most energetic coach who loved Cal to appease what would now be viewed as the "woke" crowd in the conference.

---

Woke?

Tedford scapegoated Tosh and failed as a leader. Seems a bit forced to tie that to appeasing any crowd.

---

Re-read the full sentence. The "woke" crowd at the conference leadership who acted all horrified that an athlete faked a leg injury because he was out of breath. Stupid ass bull***** Tedford should have told the Pac-12 commissioner what we all should tell self-righteous non-value adding idiots who moralize on meaningless things - go **** yourself.

---

You obviously have some unresolved issues here.

---

This is why conversations with you die. It is your arrogance that you somehow have some insight into strangers. Thankfully you and I will never meet, and you and I will never know each other. So, just shut up on things like this. I see you doing this all the time. Hopefully you are not this much of a presumptuous ******* in real life. Just a reminder of why you are so unpleasant here.

---

Are you this pompous in person? Get some help.

---

Are you this lame in person? You are beyond help.

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.

Cal Strong! 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.

---

When we had a good program (not all that long ago), we signed great players -- including a good number of elite five stars.

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!

---

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.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

HuaHin (fka Uthai) said:

---

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

---

No they won't. UW doesn't fare any better than Cal when they have bad coaches.
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.)

---

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.

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.

---

You mean the guy who flamed out with superior talent and location at UCLA? How would that work for us in any way?

---

Snyder and Tedford were not just OK.

---

I think my point stands that if exceptional is really what it takes to get us to 9-3, then our available pool is going to be really damn small.

---

But then we did the Cal thing and acquiesced to the pathetic conference leaders that we would shame our best and most energetic coach who loved Cal to appease what would now be viewed as the "woke" crowd in the conference.

---

Woke?

Tedford scapegoated Tosh and failed as a leader. Seems a bit forced to tie that to appeasing any crowd.

---

And let's be honest, things were going downhill before that happened.

Goobear said:

---

Cal Strong! 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.

---

When we had a good program (not all that long ago), we signed great players -- including a good number of elite five stars.

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!

---

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.

---

You are correct that in JT's tenure we had some spectacular recruits. But I ask how many made it onto for longer than a season (if that)?
Answer: Not that many.

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.

---

2 or 3 year period is a long time in college football.

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.

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

HuaHin (fka Uthai) said:

---

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

---

No they won't. UW doesn't fare any better than Cal when they have bad coaches.
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.)

---

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.

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.

---

You mean the guy who flamed out with superior talent and location at UCLA? How would that work for us in any way?

---

Snyder and Tedford were not just OK.

---

I think my point stands that if exceptional is really what it takes to get us to 9-3, then our available pool is going to be really damn small.

---

But then we did the Cal thing and acquiesced to the pathetic conference leaders that we would shame our best and most energetic coach who loved Cal to appease what would now be viewed as the "woke" crowd in the conference.

---

Woke?

Tedford scapegoated Tosh and failed as a leader. Seems a bit forced to tie that to appeasing any crowd.

---

Re-read the full sentence. The "woke" crowd at the conference leadership who acted all horrified that an athlete faked a leg injury because he was out of breath. Stupid ass bull***** Tedford should have told the Pac-12 commissioner what we all should tell self-righteous non-value adding idiots who moralize on meaningless things - go **** yourself.

---

You obviously have some unresolved issues here.

---

This is why conversations with you die. It is your arrogance that you somehow have some insight into strangers. Thankfully you and I will never meet, and you and I will never know each other. So, just shut up on things like this. I see you doing this all the time. Hopefully you are not this much of a presumptuous ******* in real life. Just a reminder of why you are so unpleasant here.

---

You are right, I was way off base accusing you of having unresolved issues. Your responses have been completely rational and dispassionate.

By the way, for the benefit of the thread I've taken a screenshot of your responses from the reply box which shows the unredacted versions.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

HuaHin (fka Uthai) said:

---

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

---

No they won't. UW doesn't fare any better than Cal when they have bad coaches.
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.)

---

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.

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.

---

You mean the guy who flamed out with superior talent and location at UCLA? How would that work for us in any way?

---

Snyder and Tedford were not just OK.

---

I think my point stands that if exceptional is really what it takes to get us to 9-3, then our available pool is going to be really damn small.

---

But then we did the Cal thing and acquiesced to the pathetic conference leaders that we would shame our best and most energetic coach who loved Cal to appease what would now be viewed as the "woke" crowd in the conference.

---

Woke?

Tedford scapegoated Tosh and failed as a leader. Seems a bit forced to tie that to appeasing any crowd.

---

Re-read the full sentence. The "woke" crowd at the conference leadership who acted all horrified that an athlete faked a leg injury because he was out of breath. Stupid ass bull***** Tedford should have told the Pac-12 commissioner what we all should tell self-righteous non-value adding idiots who moralize on meaningless things - go **** yourself.

---

You obviously have some unresolved issues here.

---

This is why conversations with you die. It is your arrogance that you somehow have some insight into strangers. Thankfully you and I will never meet, and you and I will never know each other. So, just shut up on things like this. I see you doing this all the time. Hopefully you are not this much of a presumptuous ******* in real life. Just a reminder of why you are so unpleasant here.

---

You are right, I was way off base accusing you of having unresolved issues. Your responses have been completely rational and dispassionate.

By the way, for the benefit of the thread I've taken a screenshot of your responses from the reply box which shows the unredacted versions.

---

No, you clearly have no unresolved issues. You win nothing from fighting these fights non-stop. Go spend some time with your family. Good to see that you got out from the OT waters a bit, but I am done here anyway. Get some sleep.

Goobear said:

---

Cal Strong! 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.

---

When we had a good program (not all that long ago), we signed great players -- including a good number of elite five stars.

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!

---

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.

---

Quite frankly, i believe it is both a coaching and an institutional issue.

Wilcox is in over his head. He is not head coaching material. A great guy but not a great head coach.

As an institution, Cal has never supported athletics to the same level as their competitors. Do not expect that to change……

Cal Strong! 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.

---

When we had a good program (not all that long ago), we signed great players -- including a good number of elite five stars.

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!

---

I chose to attend Cal because of the culture and academics. I did not attend Cal because of the athletics.

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

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.