It will be interesting to see what Knowlton does. I expect there will be an extension using Covid as the excuse for the bad record. There just was no excuse losing to Nevada. Worst play calling of the year sealed our fate.

panda said:

---

The sad part in all of this is we realistically cannot fire him thanks to that stupid ass extension he got. Unless anyone can raise the money, we are so screwed. This f*king sucks by all measures.

---

Can't fire him? The University has raised almost 8 BILLION recently! If they had a commitment to football, it's NO PROBLEM!

Bruce Jenkins responds to me commenting about Wilcox going to UW:

"You're dead wrong. They'd love to have him. Nobody could win at Cal with NO skill players (save perhaps Garbers) year after year.

And learn some manners -- Bruce J."

DiabloWags said:

---

Bruce Jenkins responds to me commenting about Wilcox going to UW:

"You're dead wrong. They'd love to have him. Nobody could win at Cal with NO skill players (save perhaps Garbers) year after year.

And learn some manners -- Bruce J."

---

Who does Bruce thinks recruits players if not the staff Wilcox handpicked?

okaydo said:

---

CaliforniaEternal said:

---

5 years of losing conference records says it all. Can only pray UW hires him, they would be dumber than nails.

---

I'm not defending having losing conference records, but .... the last time Cal had a winning conference record was in 2009, the first year of Obama's presidency.

In fact, Cal has had only 5 seasons with winning conference records in the last 30 seasons. (Yes, all 5 happened under Tedford.)

---

A 5-4 conference record should be the absolute minimum baseline. That's not even a good season. That's enough to go to some dumpster bowl no one even cares about. Anything below the playoffs and New Year's Day bowls is just filler for TV ad inventory. If a coach can't even achieve that in 5 years, you might as well take a chance on someone else and hope to get lucky.

Clearly, Cal is unwilling to make the commitment to even get to a bare minimum of respectability. What I see is that Cal is satisfied with the Ivy League model where football is basically a glorified club sport. They don't care about football to connect with alumni, serve as marketing for the university. etc. That's not the strategy most of us would follow but they see that donations and large gifts are at record levels even with a lousy football team so they don't care.

Grigsby said:

---

Troll On You Bears said:

---

Strykur said:

---

Many options available this off-season.

---

Who are the realistic options? And are any of them exciting enough to generate buzz rather than start from scratch? As has been said before there seem to be a higher-than-usual number of openings this year and I don't see Cal as a frontrunner for anyone with obvious upside.

---

Miramonte Alum Ken Dorsey

Alex Grinch

Marcus Freeman

Brian Johnson

Tommy Rees

Gino Guidugli

Vince Kehres

---

You forgot Ted Lasso.

I like the idea put forth by someone yesterday arguing since the university does not depend on SAT or ACT any longer there is wiggle room to admit top athletes who do not have 3.0. I believe Jim McGill mentioned some time ago that players who dreamed of coming to Cal were denied based on SAT score. We might be able to pull some great athletes to the school if we can convince the faculty that the athletes can "make it" at Cal even without a "B" average. There are so few that would qualify with a 2.75+ it wouldn't harm our precious reputation.

I agree that some calls made by the OC were baffling and led to defeat. It might be coaching or the talent level or both. We just don't know. However, if you want to see where all the talent is going just take a gander at 247 list of the best players. It is overwhelming to the SEC. Where it is not the SEC, it is tOSU, Michigan, Oregon, etc. Alabama, Georgia, LSU, SC all devour 5 stars and plenty of 4 stars. Our talent level is clearly less than these football factories. What does this mean? Poorer tackling, less of a pass rush, QBs who aren't accurate or quick with their release, fewer all-star RBs, WRs that aren't as adept or fast as those 5 stars. All in all, Cal has to be satisfied the lesser athlete. I conclude it is both coaching and talent that places Cal where it is.

It has been obvious for some time as to what it takes to develop and maintain a winning college fb program and, since we have rarely done that, it's clear that we are only willing to invest enough to maintain mediocrity.

It has been a noble experiment - win with the best academically oriented kids we can recruit, using a theme that emphasizes experience, ala Wiscy. It hasn't worked any better than other regimes have. Nonetheless, JW will not be fired this year. Maybe next year ..or when his buyout drops to a manageable level.

Will he be hired away? By whom?

It's ok Justin, she probably isn't reading this board.
Go Bears!

For the first time ever, Florida State, Texas, Nebraska and USC will all finish the season with losing records.
-Axios

A 4-7 coach gets an extension?…

Fired ? Won't happen but a parting ways of both parties maybe

We shall see

going4roses said:

---

Fired ? Won't happen but a parting ways of both parties maybe

We shall see

---

Well there must have been a reason the contract was not xtended. The question I guess is what progress needed to be seen to extend it. Is 4 wins enough. Probably. Covid will once again be the excuse.

going4roses said:

---

Fired ? Won't happen but a parting ways of both parties maybe

We shall see

---

We can only hope!

oskidunker said:

---

A 4-7 coach gets an extension?…

---

Only at Cal is that even a possiblity. We strive for mediocrity and celebrate when it's achieved.

Nothing will change no matter who wins this Saturday. Cal likes Wilcox - fans don't matter, they never have. Mediocrity with character is what counts. Clean program, graduates, nice guys, not alot of baggage to haul or clean up after.

72CalBear said:

---

Nothing will change no matter who wins this Saturday. Cal likes Wilcox - fans don't matter, they never have. Mediocrity with character is what counts. Clean program, graduates, nice guys, not alot of baggage to haul or clean up after.

---

Sadly I think that is correct.

And honestly, can you blame them? Look at it from a VERY hard headed business standpoint. There are clearly $$$ alumni that care about the above more than they do competing for a natty. I doubt that Christ hears about Rose bowl berths more than one every 2 months - if that - while doing the number one job of a chancellor which is raising funds. No single boone pickens alum supports football and demands for an 8 figure check change. The football team, scandal free, gets donors out on a few select saturdays. It doesn't cause a huge stir with the faculty. It pleasantly exists and, with donations at an all time high, it isn't clear winning would translate into more $$. Since the bulk of revenues come from the TV contract and that is evenly shared few benefits from being more competitive. etc. etc. etc.

Now contrast that with SC. I am POSITIVE that well heeled alumni (several with NFL backgrounds and ready to write 7 figure checks) DEMANDED USC make the hire they did. It is important for the university in respect to brand awareness and how important full paying (especially foreign) students are for U$C finances. Again, a simple business decision that said that Troy could NOT afford NOT to compete for a championship.

The interesting outlier here is UCLA. I just do not understand enough about its fundraising and who supports the Bruins to understand why they can make splashy investments in coaching and we can not. I TEND to think it is because faculty is weaker there - the legacy of Chancellor Young but others may know more.

socaltownie said:

---

72CalBear said:

---

Nothing will change no matter who wins this Saturday. Cal likes Wilcox - fans don't matter, they never have. Mediocrity with character is what counts. Clean program, graduates, nice guys, not alot of baggage to haul or clean up after.

---

Sadly I think that is correct.

And honestly, can you blame them? Look at it from a VERY hard headed business standpoint. There are clearly $$$ alumni that care about the above more than they do competing for a natty. I doubt that Christ hears about Rose bowl berths more than one every 2 months - if that - while doing the number one job of a chancellor which is raising funds. No single boone pickens alum supports football and demands for an 8 figure check change. The football team, scandal free, gets donors out on a few select saturdays. It doesn't cause a huge stir with the faculty. It pleasantly exists and, with donations at an all time high, it isn't clear winning would translate into more $$. Since the bulk of revenues come from the TV contract and that is evenly shared few benefits from being more competitive. etc. etc. etc.

Now contrast that with SC. I am POSITIVE that well heeled alumni (several with NFL backgrounds and ready to write 7 figure checks) DEMANDED USC make the hire they did. It is important for the university in respect to brand awareness and how important full paying (especially foreign) students are for U$C finances. Again, a simple business decision that said that Troy could NOT afford NOT to compete for a championship.

The interesting outlier here is UCLA. I just do not understand enough about its fundraising and who supports the Bruins to understand why they can make splashy investments in coaching and we can not. I TEND to think it is because faculty is weaker there - the legacy of Chancellor Young but others may know more.

---

Athletics has always been part of UCLA's identity but they make it part of their social and educational mission: by emphasizing that they are the school of Jackie Robinson and Arthur Ashe. They hired an African American head football coach decades ago. It is not that their faculty is "weak" it is that their faculty is not opposed and buys in to the idea that John Wooden's Pyramid of Success has application outside sports.

Moreover, sports is not so different than their Film school and Drama school producing actors and directors. They have professors like Jared Diamond that write best sellers, explaining science to the masses instead of just writing for the academic community. It is just a different, more modern, vision for a university, more populist, less elitist.

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

72CalBear said:

---

Nothing will change no matter who wins this Saturday. Cal likes Wilcox - fans don't matter, they never have. Mediocrity with character is what counts. Clean program, graduates, nice guys, not alot of baggage to haul or clean up after.

---

Sadly I think that is correct.

And honestly, can you blame them? Look at it from a VERY hard headed business standpoint. There are clearly $$$ alumni that care about the above more than they do competing for a natty. I doubt that Christ hears about Rose bowl berths more than one every 2 months - if that - while doing the number one job of a chancellor which is raising funds. No single boone pickens alum supports football and demands for an 8 figure check change. The football team, scandal free, gets donors out on a few select saturdays. It doesn't cause a huge stir with the faculty. It pleasantly exists and, with donations at an all time high, it isn't clear winning would translate into more $$. Since the bulk of revenues come from the TV contract and that is evenly shared few benefits from being more competitive. etc. etc. etc.

Now contrast that with SC. I am POSITIVE that well heeled alumni (several with NFL backgrounds and ready to write 7 figure checks) DEMANDED USC make the hire they did. It is important for the university in respect to brand awareness and how important full paying (especially foreign) students are for U$C finances. Again, a simple business decision that said that Troy could NOT afford NOT to compete for a championship.

The interesting outlier here is UCLA. I just do not understand enough about its fundraising and who supports the Bruins to understand why they can make splashy investments in coaching and we can not. I TEND to think it is because faculty is weaker there - the legacy of Chancellor Young but others may know more.

---

Athletics has always been part of UCLA's identity but they make it part of their social and educational mission: by emphasizing that they are the school of Jackie Robinson and Arthur Ashe. They hired an African American head football coach decades ago. It is not that their faculty is "weak" it is that their faculty is not opposed and buys in to the idea that John Wooden's Pyramid of Success has application outside sports.

Moreover, sports is not so different than their Film school and Drama school producing actors and directors. They have professors like Jared Diamond that write best sellers, explaining science to the masses instead of just writing for the academic community. It is just a different, more modern, vision for a university, more populist, less elitist.

---

I buy that. I wonder if internally (as you note) that UCLA's business school (anderson has always been more part of the community than Haas) and dramatic arts have relatively more power than the hard sciences and classical humanities - which always have had a huge influence at Cal.

socaltownie said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

72CalBear said:

---

Nothing will change no matter who wins this Saturday. Cal likes Wilcox - fans don't matter, they never have. Mediocrity with character is what counts. Clean program, graduates, nice guys, not alot of baggage to haul or clean up after.

---

Sadly I think that is correct.

And honestly, can you blame them? Look at it from a VERY hard headed business standpoint. There are clearly $$$ alumni that care about the above more than they do competing for a natty. I doubt that Christ hears about Rose bowl berths more than one every 2 months - if that - while doing the number one job of a chancellor which is raising funds. No single boone pickens alum supports football and demands for an 8 figure check change. The football team, scandal free, gets donors out on a few select saturdays. It doesn't cause a huge stir with the faculty. It pleasantly exists and, with donations at an all time high, it isn't clear winning would translate into more $$. Since the bulk of revenues come from the TV contract and that is evenly shared few benefits from being more competitive. etc. etc. etc.

Now contrast that with SC. I am POSITIVE that well heeled alumni (several with NFL backgrounds and ready to write 7 figure checks) DEMANDED USC make the hire they did. It is important for the university in respect to brand awareness and how important full paying (especially foreign) students are for U$C finances. Again, a simple business decision that said that Troy could NOT afford NOT to compete for a championship.

The interesting outlier here is UCLA. I just do not understand enough about its fundraising and who supports the Bruins to understand why they can make splashy investments in coaching and we can not. I TEND to think it is because faculty is weaker there - the legacy of Chancellor Young but others may know more.

---

Athletics has always been part of UCLA's identity but they make it part of their social and educational mission: by emphasizing that they are the school of Jackie Robinson and Arthur Ashe. They hired an African American head football coach decades ago. It is not that their faculty is "weak" it is that their faculty is not opposed and buys in to the idea that John Wooden's Pyramid of Success has application outside sports.

Moreover, sports is not so different than their Film school and Drama school producing actors and directors. They have professors like Jared Diamond that write best sellers, explaining science to the masses instead of just writing for the academic community. It is just a different, more modern, vision for a university, more populist, less elitist.

---

I buy that. I wonder if internally (as you note) that UCLA's business school (anderson has always been more part of the community than Haas) and dramatic arts have relatively more power than the hard sciences and classical humanities - which always have had a huge influence at Cal.

---

I think Cal has always seen itself as being of another era, grouped in with the Ivies or Oxford and Cambridge. Just look at the stained glass in the Faculty Club. It was a self-image created in the mid-19th century.

Little brother UCLA followed a different, more modern path, more befitting a school created in the 20th century and located in LA. UCLA professors regularly consult on film and television productions. I'm sure many of the English literature professors have written screenplays. Anderson business school's major sponsors include Disney (ABC, ESPN), NBC Universal, Warner Brothers, Hulu, Sony, Fox Entertainment, Qualcomm, etc, The single largest industry their students come from and go to is "Entertainment." They are in no position to turn up their nose at athletics, or students whose goal is to become a professional athlete.

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

72CalBear said:

---

Nothing will change no matter who wins this Saturday. Cal likes Wilcox - fans don't matter, they never have. Mediocrity with character is what counts. Clean program, graduates, nice guys, not alot of baggage to haul or clean up after.

---

Sadly I think that is correct.

And honestly, can you blame them? Look at it from a VERY hard headed business standpoint. There are clearly $$$ alumni that care about the above more than they do competing for a natty. I doubt that Christ hears about Rose bowl berths more than one every 2 months - if that - while doing the number one job of a chancellor which is raising funds. No single boone pickens alum supports football and demands for an 8 figure check change. The football team, scandal free, gets donors out on a few select saturdays. It doesn't cause a huge stir with the faculty. It pleasantly exists and, with donations at an all time high, it isn't clear winning would translate into more $$. Since the bulk of revenues come from the TV contract and that is evenly shared few benefits from being more competitive. etc. etc. etc.

Now contrast that with SC. I am POSITIVE that well heeled alumni (several with NFL backgrounds and ready to write 7 figure checks) DEMANDED USC make the hire they did. It is important for the university in respect to brand awareness and how important full paying (especially foreign) students are for U$C finances. Again, a simple business decision that said that Troy could NOT afford NOT to compete for a championship.

The interesting outlier here is UCLA. I just do not understand enough about its fundraising and who supports the Bruins to understand why they can make splashy investments in coaching and we can not. I TEND to think it is because faculty is weaker there - the legacy of Chancellor Young but others may know more.

---

Athletics has always been part of UCLA's identity but they make it part of their social and educational mission: by emphasizing that they are the school of Jackie Robinson and Arthur Ashe. They hired an African American head football coach decades ago. It is not that their faculty is "weak" it is that their faculty is not opposed and buys in to the idea that John Wooden's Pyramid of Success has application outside sports.

Moreover, sports is not so different than their Film school and Drama school producing actors and directors. They have professors like Jared Diamond that write best sellers, explaining science to the masses instead of just writing for the academic community. It is just a different, more modern, vision for a university, more populist, less elitist.

---

I buy that. I wonder if internally (as you note) that UCLA's business school (anderson has always been more part of the community than Haas) and dramatic arts have relatively more power than the hard sciences and classical humanities - which always have had a huge influence at Cal.

---

I think Cal has always seen itself as being of another era, grouped in with the Ivies or Oxford and Cambridge. Just look at the stained glass in the Faculty Club. It was a self-image created in the mid-19th century.

Little brother UCLA followed a different, more modern path, more befitting a school created in the 20th century and located in LA. UCLA professors regularly consult on film and television productions. I'm sure many of the English literature professors have written screenplays. Anderson business school's major sponsors include Disney (ABC, ESPN), NBC Universal, Warner Brothers, Hulu, Sony, Fox Entertainment, Qualcomm, etc, The single largest industry their students come from and go to is "Entertainment." They are in no position to turn up their nose at athletics, or students whose goal is to become a professional athlete.

---

They're selling excitement. We're selling the 40 year decision. We could overcome it if we were winning.

72CalBear said:

---

Nothing will change no matter who wins this Saturday. Cal likes Wilcox - fans don't matter, they never have. Mediocrity with character is what counts. Clean program, graduates, nice guys, not alot of baggage to haul or clean up after.

---

"Liking Wilcox" is a matter of degree. I doubt he would survive after 2022 if we went 5-7 or 6-6 next season. I'm tempted to throw in 7-5, but I agree that, at 7-5, Cal likes Wilcox.

Anyway, now he's on the hot seat for next season, it's just that our hot seat is different than, say, Florida's.

I've been through this cycle of bad coach, fire him, new exciting coach, no results, fire him too. Only to replace them with a rinse and repeat replacement.

I want to do something radical, like hire a guy who runs the triple option,which nobody sees, sucks to play against and every 4 years your 3* RS Senior laden team takes everybody to the woodshed. We run it every 4th down, and focus our recruiting on defensive talent. We don't even have a punter on the team, but 10 TEs.

CALiforniALUM said:

---

I've been through this cycle of bad coach, fire him, new exciting coach, no results, fire him too. Only to replace them with a rinse and repeat replacement.

I want to do something radical, like hire a guy who runs the triple option,which nobody sees, sucks to play against and every 4 years your 3* RS Senior laden team takes everybody to the woodshed. We run it every 4th down, and focus our recruiting on defensive talent. We don't even have a punter on the team, but 10 TEs.

---

No. Please no gimmicks. Besides, it's boring to watch.

Golden One said:

---

oskidunker said:

---

A 4-7 coach gets an extension?…

---

Only at Cal is that even a possiblity. We strive for mediocrity and celebrate when it's achieved.

---

"Only at Cal is that even a possiblity. We strive for mediocrity in athletics and celebrate when it's achieved. "

I fixed it for you.

dimitrig said:

---

Fire Wilcox no matter what happens against USC

---

Yep, why wait for another 2 or 3 or 4 mediocre seasons? He's always going to be a
.500 coach. One big win a year to tease us should not satisfy anyone who wants
a real program. We continue to lose to light-weights and overall disappoint.
Love the guy in many ways, but not the answer to lead our program.

Big C said:

---

72CalBear said:

---

Nothing will change no matter who wins this Saturday. Cal likes Wilcox - fans don't matter, they never have. Mediocrity with character is what counts. Clean program, graduates, nice guys, not alot of baggage to haul or clean up after.

---

"Liking Wilcox" is a matter of degree. I doubt he would survive after 2022 if we went 5-7 or 6-6 next season. I'm tempted to throw in 7-5, but I agree that, at 7-5, Cal likes Wilcox.

Anyway, now he's on the hot seat for next season, it's just that our hot seat is different than, say, Florida's.

---

Why must we tolerate a lousy program? It's obvious he won't bring us to a higher level.

socaliganbear said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

Bruce Jenkins responds to me commenting about Wilcox going to UW:

"You're dead wrong. They'd love to have him. Nobody could win at Cal with NO skill players (save perhaps Garbers) year after year.

And learn some manners -- Bruce J."

---

Who does Bruce thinks recruits players if not the staff Wilcox handpicked?

---

I guess Bruce doesn't know the coaching staff recruits. Wilcox, nice guy, can't recruit,
can't win......

southseasbear said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

I've been through this cycle of bad coach, fire him, new exciting coach, no results, fire him too. Only to replace them with a rinse and repeat replacement.

I want to do something radical, like hire a guy who runs the triple option,which nobody sees, sucks to play against and every 4 years your 3* RS Senior laden team takes everybody to the woodshed. We run it every 4th down, and focus our recruiting on defensive talent. We don't even have a punter on the team, but 10 TEs.

---

No. Please no gimmicks. Besides, it's boring to watch.

---

And how has those "Pro-Style" and "RPO" offenses worked out the past five years?

1CalFan said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

I've been through this cycle of bad coach, fire him, new exciting coach, no results, fire him too. Only to replace them with a rinse and repeat replacement.

I want to do something radical, like hire a guy who runs the triple option,which nobody sees, sucks to play against and every 4 years your 3* RS Senior laden team takes everybody to the woodshed. We run it every 4th down, and focus our recruiting on defensive talent. We don't even have a punter on the team, but 10 TEs.

---

No. Please no gimmicks. Besides, it's boring to watch.

---

And how has those "Pro-Style" and "RPO" offenses worked out the past five years?

---

For all the top 20 offensive teams, just fine.

Wilcox has just hired OCs who are not good.

CalBarn said:

---

Big C said:

---

72CalBear said:

---

Nothing will change no matter who wins this Saturday. Cal likes Wilcox - fans don't matter, they never have. Mediocrity with character is what counts. Clean program, graduates, nice guys, not alot of baggage to haul or clean up after.

---

"Liking Wilcox" is a matter of degree. I doubt he would survive after 2022 if we went 5-7 or 6-6 next season. I'm tempted to throw in 7-5, but I agree that, at 7-5, Cal likes Wilcox.

Anyway, now he's on the hot seat for next season, it's just that our hot seat is different than, say, Florida's.

---

Why must we tolerate a lousy program? It's obvious he won't bring us to a higher level.

---

Why? You know the answer to that one.

The question is, will you take the time and trouble to round up 30 investors and lead them to the donation table where enough money is forked over to enable you to call the shots...starting with a new AD who can then offer lots of your $$$ to new coaches. Followed by coming up with an answer to how you entice 4 and 5* kids to study hard while excelling in football when most don't care about academics, at best, when they can do the same thing at other schools without those pesky classes and term papers.

We're talking $20 million a year, at least.

oskidunker said:

---

It will be interesting to see what Knowlton does. I expect there will be an extension using Covid as the excuse for the bad record. There just was no excuse losing to Nevada. Worst play calling of the year sealed our fate.

---

Knowlton ain't doing Jack you-know-what.

5 years and no winning conference record....If that's not a criteria to get fired as a coach than Jim Knowlton is a fool. It is clearly evident that Coach Wilcox cannot get this team to progress to the level in contending for the North. He has done some good things such as beating Furd, Fucla, Usc ducks, but not ONE CONFERENCE WINING RECORD WITH A 5TH YEAR QB and reasonably good receivers IMO...

Wang24 said:

---

5 years and no winning conference record....If that's not a criteria to get fired as a coach than Jim Knowlton is a fool. It is clearly evident that Coach Wilcox cannot get this team to progress to the level in contending for the North. He has done some good things such as beating Furd, Fucla, Usc ducks, but not ONE CONFERENCE WINING RECORD WITH A 5TH YEAR QB and reasonably good receivers IMO...

---

And Super Seniors, that no other team, except all of them, have.

No excuses.

socaltownie said:

---

72CalBear said:

---

Nothing will change no matter who wins this Saturday. Cal likes Wilcox - fans don't matter, they never have. Mediocrity with character is what counts. Clean program, graduates, nice guys, not alot of baggage to haul or clean up after.

---

Sadly I think that is correct.

And honestly, can you blame them? Look at it from a VERY hard headed business standpoint. There are clearly $$$ alumni that care about the above more than they do competing for a natty. I doubt that Christ hears about Rose bowl berths more than one every 2 months - if that - while doing the number one job of a chancellor which is raising funds. No single boone pickens alum supports football and demands for an 8 figure check change. The football team, scandal free, gets donors out on a few select saturdays. It doesn't cause a huge stir with the faculty. It pleasantly exists and, with donations at an all time high, it isn't clear winning would translate into more $$. Since the bulk of revenues come from the TV contract and that is evenly shared few benefits from being more competitive. etc. etc. etc.

Now contrast that with SC. I am POSITIVE that well heeled alumni (several with NFL backgrounds and ready to write 7 figure checks) DEMANDED USC make the hire they did. It is important for the university in respect to brand awareness and how important full paying (especially foreign) students are for U$C finances. Again, a simple business decision that said that Troy could NOT afford NOT to compete for a championship.

The interesting outlier here is UCLA. I just do not understand enough about its fundraising and who supports the Bruins to understand why they can make splashy investments in coaching and we can not. I TEND to think it is because faculty is weaker there - the legacy of Chancellor Young but others may know more.

---

UCLA had a history of athletics winning championships. Their admin and fans actually care and when there is support there is will.

We have none of that at Cal and hence we have to get lucky a la Tedford