players and Wilcox

21,276 Views | 155 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by Bobodeluxe
3146gabby
How long do you want to ignore this user?
re Boredom's thoughts and others who more or less say, "a coach is hired to win and when he doesn't...' and use business analogies.

There is certainly some truth to that & I respect their thinking, but reality requires a look at the entire picture and merely saying something 'should be so' really says nothing.

You line up the following key factors and then and only then can conclusions be drawn:

1. What did Wilcox find when he started?
2. What are the institutional and other challenges?
3. His wins/losses?
4. What are the other indicators of a growing/receding program in light of ##1-3?
5. What are the realistic factors in recruiting? There is a vicious circle quality to recruiting; successful teams are successful in continuing to recruit well...Getting over the hump is damn hard.
6. Where does Covid fit in? Two years ago, 8-5, a nice win over Illinois and then covid undercut '20 and '21. A true anomaly but hit Cal as hard as any in the country.
7. What are the non statistical matters and are they important; player buy-in, player sense of where the program is going, etc?
8. And perhaps less important to some, but integrity, understanding what Cal is about, instilling values that the players seem to reflect.

Btw I agree that a new OC may be a key factor, altho there were times that Musg seemed to call a really good hame...



calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KoreAmBear said:

calumnus said:

Cal Strong! said:

The players said the same things about Tedford and Dykes. What sort of player would be dumb enough to slam their current coach in the media?


And Gilbertson and Holmoe. The disgruntled players keep it private, at least until they transfer or graduate.

However, I have no doubt that Wilcox is personally liked by the vast majority of the players. He seems like a very like-able person, and not all coaches are.


Well here's one (gone a while ago) that doesn't like Wilcox. Loyal to Sonny?





Yes, seems like Vic Enwere and Tre Watson too, though their tweets are more cryptic, so it is not clear if it was Wilcox or Baldwin they had issues with.
KoreAmBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

KoreAmBear said:

calumnus said:

Cal Strong! said:

The players said the same things about Tedford and Dykes. What sort of player would be dumb enough to slam their current coach in the media?


And Gilbertson and Holmoe. The disgruntled players keep it private, at least until they transfer or graduate.

However, I have no doubt that Wilcox is personally liked by the vast majority of the players. He seems like a very like-able person, and not all coaches are.


Well here's one (gone a while ago) that doesn't like Wilcox. Loyal to Sonny?





Yes, seems like Vic Enwere and Tre Watson too, though their tweets are more cryptic, so it is not clear if it was Wilcox or Baldwin they had issues with.
Even Jesus had his detractors.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

calumnus said:

3146gabby said:



As to all 3 communities - optimists, pessimists, realists - it always seems a zero sum game in the analysis.

Reality is not what we need, but what is realistic in getting those needs filled.

There are serious extant limitations for football.e.g., narrowness in recruiting because of academic requirements, lack of historic success, too frequent turnover in coaches, etc. etc.

All of which has limited who would come here to coach. We are not going to get a nick saban.

I see significantly more plusses in Wilcox than negatives especially when factoring in what is reality right now. That the players buy in, don't give up, understand the many values of playing FB @ an academic institution like Cal, respond to adversity, and extol what is a one for all mentality, is big for me. But that is just me.





"Frequent turnover in coaches"?

Cal has had 4 coaches in the last 25 years. In the PAC-12, only Whitingham and Shaw have been at their school longer than Wilcox and they have Rose Bowls and Top 10 finishes to justify that while Wilcox has a losing record. If anything, a stronger argument can be made that Cal hangs on to losing coaches too long. Successful programs are generally willing to cycle through coaches until they find a winner, the key is then keeping the coach that is an established winner, at least until they are not anymore, then trying again.

For the schools that are not traditional powers, the danger is, once the coach establishes themselves as a winner, they move on. For Stanford that was the case with Bill Walsh, Dennis Green and Tyrone Willingham. They hit paydirt with Harbaugh from FCS and Shaw, an alum and Bay Area native, as OC and long term successor. Note that Stanford is 3 for 3 with African American head coaches.

Shaw at Stanford and now Jonathan Smith at Oregon State show the advantage of "stepping stone" schools hiring alums. If they are successful they are more likely to stay.

As I've stated in other posts, I think it is likely we give Wilcox another year, and I am OK with that. I just hope we don't extend him, though there will be pressure to do so "for recruiting."
There are quite a number of Stanfordites who want to see Shaw fired. The biggest complaint is his unwillingness to get rid of deadwood assistants.


Yes, I hear the grumbling too, but Shaw isn't getting fired anytime soon. They are like Cal fans complaining about Tedford's lack of advocacy for his team in 2004 and his playcalling in the Holiday Bowl, then booing Ayoob in 2005. There were 7 more years of Tedford to come and Shaw is an alum who has accomplished a lot more at Stanford than Tedford ever did at Cal.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KoreAmBear said:

boredom said:

KoreAmBear said:

82gradDLSdad said:

Could we use a better coach? Yes.
Is Knowlton likely to hire one? No.
Is there even a chance? Probably not.

Keep Wilcox.

Can't believe I'm saying this.

Wilcox has kept the locker room. The players seem to really like and respect him and the culture he's developed. Remember Evan Weaver boasting about our "culture" compared to UW's. This is super important, and I have to give Wilcox credit for that. He has proven to the players he has their back and that he's not a snakeoil salesman. That's very tough to do in this climate.

Now Holmoe was also a nice guy, although I am not sure he kept the locker room.

But Wilcox was not hired to be respected and liked. He was hired to win football games. So while I agree he should be given an extension, he also needs to be held more accountable especially with the offense and the next offensive coordinator he hires. We lost all our 50-50 type games (Nevada, TCU, UW, Oregon and AZ) because our offense could not get it done. We're in a NY6 bowl game if our offense came through.

I really don't understand this. It's 5 years of losing. Year 5 is the same as year 1 (arguably worse given that the opposition has gotten weaker). Why on earth should we extend him? He should be fired. If not fired, there should be 0 incremental financial commitment to him.

What's the rationale behind following "he was hired to win football games" with "he should be given an extension? He was hired to win games. He's lost 2/3 of his conference games. How does that lead to an extension?

What does being held accountable mean here? If we reward crap performance with contract extensions, how does that hold him accountable?

And I don't mean this at you personally, I see others saying similar things. I don't get it.
I think because Cal. He has held the locker room which is a huge win. He is kind of winning. We could do a lot worse, and with Knowlton, that's almost a guarantee. And maybe with an OC that has a clue, maybe we can break out of this mediocre cycle. Hence, extend him.

Wilcox has, what, two years left on his contract? If we feel we need to extend him one year for recruiting purposes (show of support), at the same salary, I don't have a problem with that. It's the cost of doing business nowadays.

In terms of a longer extension, complete with a higher salary, no possible way until he shows us he can win... and that needs to come next season. (and should've come this season)
Golden One
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KoreAmBear said:

82gradDLSdad said:

Could we use a better coach? Yes.
Is Knowlton likely to hire one? No.
Is there even a chance? Probably not.

Keep Wilcox.

Can't believe I'm saying this.

Wilcox has kept the locker room. The players seem to really like and respect him and the culture he's developed. Remember Evan Weaver boasting about our "culture" compared to UW's. This is super important, and I have to give Wilcox credit for that. He has proven to the players he has their back and that he's not a snakeoil salesman. That's very tough to do in this climate.

Now Holmoe was also a nice guy, although I am not sure he kept the locker room.

But Wilcox was not hired to be respected and liked. He was hired to win football games. So while I agree he should be given an extension, he also needs to be held more accountable especially with the offense and the next offensive coordinator he hires. We lost all our 50-50 type games (Nevada, TCU, UW, Oregon and AZ) because our offense could not get it done. We're in a NY6 bowl game if our offense came through.
Seems to me that getting an extension and being held more accountable are mutually exclusive. It's either one or the other with Wilcox. I fear that an extension is more likely, because Cal doesn't often hold coaches accountable.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
3146gabby said:

re Boredom's thoughts and others who more or less say, "a coach is hired to win and when he doesn't...' and use business analogies.

There is certainly some truth to that & I respect their thinking, but reality requires a look at the entire picture and merely saying something 'should be so' really says nothing.

You line up the following key factors and then and only then can conclusions be drawn:

1. What did Wilcox find when he started?
2. What are the institutional and other challenges?
3. His wins/losses?
4. What are the other indicators of a growing/receding program in light of ##1-3?
5. What are the realistic factors in recruiting? There is a vicious circle quality to recruiting; successful teams are successful in continuing to recruit well...Getting over the hump is damn hard.
6. Where does Covid fit in? Two years ago, 8-5, a nice win over Illinois and then covid undercut '20 and '21. A true anomaly but hit Cal as hard as any in the country.
7. What are the non statistical matters and are they important; player buy-in, player sense of where the program is going, etc?
8. And perhaps less important to some, but integrity, understanding what Cal is about, instilling values that the players seem to reflect.

Btw I agree that a new OC may be a key factor, altho there were times that Musg seemed to call a really good hame...






You only have one chance to make a first impression. Tedford came out the gate with a boatload of JC transfers, a trick play for a TD in a 70-22 point blowout of Baylor at Memorial resurrecting Kyle Boller from the ashes and turning him into a first round pick in the process. Then he discovered Aaron Rodgers. The positive momentum lead to recruiting elite players like Marshawn Lynch and DeSean Jackson. He later fizzled out, but the early pattern of building success was there.

Dykes' picked a dud DC, lack of depth and injuries decimated the secondary. His first team was historically bad. He never recovered. By 2015 he had a good team in a then tough PAC-12 (7 teams in Sagarin's Top 30) and was stocking the defense with good young players and 4 and 5 stars on offense, but he never got above .500 in conference and more importantly was never accepted by the fan base. He did not appear to have any momentum and was fired.

Wilcox picked a dud OC. Baldwin was a successful FCS HC, but it had been a decade(?) since he called plays. Most of our top offensive talent left. We became one of the worst offensive teams in the country, worst in Cal history, worse than we were under Holmoe. Cheezit Bowl became infamous for ineptitude.

It is just tough to overcome all that. It is possible, but tough.

Snyder is the best example of overcoming a bad start, but he actually showed steady year over year improvement from Kapp until the offense took off under new OC Steve Mariucci and Pawlawski at QB. Russell White at RB and Treggs and Dawkins at WR.

I was hoping a new OC and Justyn Martin at QB would similarly turn around Wilcox. That might have happened if we could have shown recruits progress since 2019.

I think Wilcox has to pull a Hail Mary for next year, find a difference maker OC and QB or we can expect more of the same.
boredom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

KoreAmBear said:

boredom said:

KoreAmBear said:

82gradDLSdad said:

Could we use a better coach? Yes.
Is Knowlton likely to hire one? No.
Is there even a chance? Probably not.

Keep Wilcox.

Can't believe I'm saying this.

Wilcox has kept the locker room. The players seem to really like and respect him and the culture he's developed. Remember Evan Weaver boasting about our "culture" compared to UW's. This is super important, and I have to give Wilcox credit for that. He has proven to the players he has their back and that he's not a snakeoil salesman. That's very tough to do in this climate.

Now Holmoe was also a nice guy, although I am not sure he kept the locker room.

But Wilcox was not hired to be respected and liked. He was hired to win football games. So while I agree he should be given an extension, he also needs to be held more accountable especially with the offense and the next offensive coordinator he hires. We lost all our 50-50 type games (Nevada, TCU, UW, Oregon and AZ) because our offense could not get it done. We're in a NY6 bowl game if our offense came through.

I really don't understand this. It's 5 years of losing. Year 5 is the same as year 1 (arguably worse given that the opposition has gotten weaker). Why on earth should we extend him? He should be fired. If not fired, there should be 0 incremental financial commitment to him.

What's the rationale behind following "he was hired to win football games" with "he should be given an extension? He was hired to win games. He's lost 2/3 of his conference games. How does that lead to an extension?

What does being held accountable mean here? If we reward crap performance with contract extensions, how does that hold him accountable?

And I don't mean this at you personally, I see others saying similar things. I don't get it.
I think because Cal. He has held the locker room which is a huge win. He is kind of winning. We could do a lot worse, and with Knowlton, that's almost a guarantee. And maybe with an OC that has a clue, maybe we can break out of this mediocre cycle. Hence, extend him.

Wilcox has, what, two years left on his contract? If we feel we need to extend him one year for recruiting purposes (show of support), at the same salary, I don't have a problem with that. It's the cost of doing business nowadays.

In terms of a longer extension, complete with a higher salary, no possible way until he shows us he can win... and that needs to come next season. (and should've come this season)

If we continue down the path of hoping Wilcox can guide us to the 5-4 in conference mountain top and extend him then the real key isn't how much money we flush down the toilet in annual salary but how much we commit to in extra buyout money. If there's any proof that this would suddenly make Wilcox get high level recruits then we should give him a 100 year extension as long as it costs us nothing to fire him.

(and is there any proof that extending dead man walking coaches by a year or two suddenly boosts their recruiting? This seems like a fairytale made up by coaches and their agents to get more $$$ when they get canned)
4thGenCal
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

3146gabby said:



As to all 3 communities - optimists, pessimists, realists - it always seems a zero sum game in the analysis.

Reality is not what we need, but what is realistic in getting those needs filled.

There are serious extant limitations for football.e.g., narrowness in recruiting because of academic requirements, lack of historic success, too frequent turnover in coaches, etc. etc.

All of which has limited who would come here to coach. We are not going to get a nick saban.

I see significantly more plusses in Wilcox than negatives especially when factoring in what is reality right now. That the players buy in, don't give up, understand the many values of playing FB @ an academic institution like Cal, respond to adversity, and extol what is a one for all mentality, is big for me. But that is just me.



First of all, the academic issue is absolute bull****. Stanford has commitments from 22 players, including 8 four stars and currently ranks 11th in the country. Cal has commitments from 10 players, including zero four stars and ranks 65th in the country. Source: 247 Sports. Note: I understand the size of a class varies due to availability of scholarships. However, the quality is something that shouldn't vary. It should always be stellar.

There is absolutely no reason that Cal cannot sign a Top 20 class every year, occasionally breaking into the Top Ten depending on the strength of the California-based class. If Stanford can sign a strong class, so can Cal. Period.

Historic success, particularly in the recent past, is a very big hurdle. That can be addressed by finding a "pied piper" type of recruit. Russell White is an excellent example of a recruit who caused others to think, "why not?" He led a resurgence of Cal football.

Turnover of coaches - absolutely an issue. Cal has long been known as the "graveyard of coaches". The key is hiring a guy who wants to be at Cal, understands the relationship of athletics to other departments within the campus community, and is an able coach.

While I have some significant concerns about Wilcox, I fully support bringing him back next year. My biggest concerns are whether he can bring in the talent necessary to compete for a conference championship and whether he can hire assistants who are capable of executing a complex game plan and motivating players to reach their maximum potential, this means hiring from a pool that includes only young, innovative coaches (retreads need not apply). At this time, I would not consider extending his contract. If he can produce an eight win season in 2022, that will be a very good sign given the talent that will be available.


Academic restrictions are real and impact the recruiting pool Cal can go after - its a simple fact. There are VERY few exceptions made for a sub 3.0 Gpa and those include a gaunlet for the prospective student/athlete to go thru (including facing a panel of administrators/professor/compliance/AD etc to address potential academic course load concerns etc). Yes that Stanford pulls in high level Student athletes and that is the sole exception (relative to competitive D1 programs) Stanford is simply a different playing field in many ways. Cal very rarely wins out head to head regardless of the situation. The other issues not mentioned where Cal is woefully behind the Top 25 schools and the majority of conference members, is housing ( difficult to find close to campus - 10 players housed 15 minutes away off campus and in tough areas due to lower cost. Overall quality of housing is below average and very expensive for a schlorship player receiving $1700/month - the basketball model for Cal is unique (in that a few passionate alums stepped up to provide quality close to campus housing at a affordable cost). Second issue is the salaries for All of the assistants and Especially the lower level assistant recruiting/strength/support coaches, is extremely low relative to our conference members. IE SC pays $175k to a support coach that Cal for the same position, is able to pay just $75K to. Yes there recently was 8 generous Bear Backers who have put together an annual bump of $250K (each of next 3 seasons) toward the Assistant coaches pool and that helps certainly - but again the delta between Cal and the majority of schools is much greater than is commonly known.
Alkiadt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4thGenCal said:

71Bear said:

3146gabby said:



As to all 3 communities - optimists, pessimists, realists - it always seems a zero sum game in the analysis.

Reality is not what we need, but what is realistic in getting those needs filled.

There are serious extant limitations for football.e.g., narrowness in recruiting because of academic requirements, lack of historic success, too frequent turnover in coaches, etc. etc.

All of which has limited who would come here to coach. We are not going to get a nick saban.

I see significantly more plusses in Wilcox than negatives especially when factoring in what is reality right now. That the players buy in, don't give up, understand the many values of playing FB @ an academic institution like Cal, respond to adversity, and extol what is a one for all mentality, is big for me. But that is just me.



First of all, the academic issue is absolute bull****. Stanford has commitments from 22 players, including 8 four stars and currently ranks 11th in the country. Cal has commitments from 10 players, including zero four stars and ranks 65th in the country. Source: 247 Sports. Note: I understand the size of a class varies due to availability of scholarships. However, the quality is something that shouldn't vary. It should always be stellar.

There is absolutely no reason that Cal cannot sign a Top 20 class every year, occasionally breaking into the Top Ten depending on the strength of the California-based class. If Stanford can sign a strong class, so can Cal. Period.

Historic success, particularly in the recent past, is a very big hurdle. That can be addressed by finding a "pied piper" type of recruit. Russell White is an excellent example of a recruit who caused others to think, "why not?" He led a resurgence of Cal football.

Turnover of coaches - absolutely an issue. Cal has long been known as the "graveyard of coaches". The key is hiring a guy who wants to be at Cal, understands the relationship of athletics to other departments within the campus community, and is an able coach.

While I have some significant concerns about Wilcox, I fully support bringing him back next year. My biggest concerns are whether he can bring in the talent necessary to compete for a conference championship and whether he can hire assistants who are capable of executing a complex game plan and motivating players to reach their maximum potential, this means hiring from a pool that includes only young, innovative coaches (retreads need not apply). At this time, I would not consider extending his contract. If he can produce an eight win season in 2022, that will be a very good sign given the talent that will be available.


Academic restrictions are real and impact the recruiting pool Cal can go after - its a simple fact. There are VERY few exceptions made for a sub 3.0 Gpa and those include a gaunlet for the prospective student/athlete to go thru (including facing a panel of administrators/professor/compliance/AD etc to address potential academic course load concerns etc). Yes that Stanford pulls in high level Student athletes and that is the sole exception (relative to competitive D1 programs) Stanford is simply a different playing field in many ways. Cal very rarely wins out head to head regardless of the situation. The other issues not mentioned where Cal is woefully behind the Top 25 schools and the majority of conference members, is housing ( difficult to find close to campus - 10 players housed 15 minutes away off campus and in tough areas due to lower cost. Overall quality of housing is below average and very expensive for a schlorship player receiving $1700/month - the basketball model for Cal is unique (in that a few passionate alums stepped up to provide quality close to campus housing at a affordable cost). Second issue is the salaries for All of the assistants and Especially the lower level assistant recruiting/strength/support coaches, is extremely low relative to our conference members. IE SC pays $175k to a support coach that Cal for the same position, is able to pay just $75K to. Yes there recently was 8 generous Bear Backers who have put together an annual bump of $250K (each of next 3 seasons) toward the Assistant coaches pool and that helps certainly - but again the delta between Cal and the majority of schools is much greater than is commonly known.
This is 100% dead on correct.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4thGenCal said:

71Bear said:

3146gabby said:



As to all 3 communities - optimists, pessimists, realists - it always seems a zero sum game in the analysis.

Reality is not what we need, but what is realistic in getting those needs filled.

There are serious extant limitations for football.e.g., narrowness in recruiting because of academic requirements, lack of historic success, too frequent turnover in coaches, etc. etc.

All of which has limited who would come here to coach. We are not going to get a nick saban.

I see significantly more plusses in Wilcox than negatives especially when factoring in what is reality right now. That the players buy in, don't give up, understand the many values of playing FB @ an academic institution like Cal, respond to adversity, and extol what is a one for all mentality, is big for me. But that is just me.



First of all, the academic issue is absolute bull****. Stanford has commitments from 22 players, including 8 four stars and currently ranks 11th in the country. Cal has commitments from 10 players, including zero four stars and ranks 65th in the country. Source: 247 Sports. Note: I understand the size of a class varies due to availability of scholarships. However, the quality is something that shouldn't vary. It should always be stellar.

There is absolutely no reason that Cal cannot sign a Top 20 class every year, occasionally breaking into the Top Ten depending on the strength of the California-based class. If Stanford can sign a strong class, so can Cal. Period.

Historic success, particularly in the recent past, is a very big hurdle. That can be addressed by finding a "pied piper" type of recruit. Russell White is an excellent example of a recruit who caused others to think, "why not?" He led a resurgence of Cal football.

Turnover of coaches - absolutely an issue. Cal has long been known as the "graveyard of coaches". The key is hiring a guy who wants to be at Cal, understands the relationship of athletics to other departments within the campus community, and is an able coach.

While I have some significant concerns about Wilcox, I fully support bringing him back next year. My biggest concerns are whether he can bring in the talent necessary to compete for a conference championship and whether he can hire assistants who are capable of executing a complex game plan and motivating players to reach their maximum potential, this means hiring from a pool that includes only young, innovative coaches (retreads need not apply). At this time, I would not consider extending his contract. If he can produce an eight win season in 2022, that will be a very good sign given the talent that will be available.


Academic restrictions are real and impact the recruiting pool Cal can go after - its a simple fact. There are VERY few exceptions made for a sub 3.0 Gpa and those include a gaunlet for the prospective student/athlete to go thru (including facing a panel of administrators/professor/compliance/AD etc to address potential academic course load concerns etc). Yes that Stanford pulls in high level Student athletes and that is the sole exception (relative to competitive D1 programs) Stanford is simply a different playing field in many ways. Cal very rarely wins out head to head regardless of the situation. The other issues not mentioned where Cal is woefully behind the Top 25 schools and the majority of conference members, is housing ( difficult to find close to campus - 10 players housed 15 minutes away off campus and in tough areas due to lower cost. Overall quality of housing is below average and very expensive for a schlorship player receiving $1700/month - the basketball model for Cal is unique (in that a few passionate alums stepped up to provide quality close to campus housing at a affordable cost). Second issue is the salaries for All of the assistants and Especially the lower level assistant recruiting/strength/support coaches, is extremely low relative to our conference members. IE SC pays $175k to a support coach that Cal for the same position, is able to pay just $75K to. Yes there recently was 8 generous Bear Backers who have put together an annual bump of $250K (each of next 3 seasons) toward the Assistant coaches pool and that helps certainly - but again the delta between Cal and the majority of schools is much greater than is commonly known.


Randy Bennet makes about $600,000 last I saw. What do his assistants make? What are the housing and rent costs in Moraga? Which players at St. Mary's could not get into Cal?

Just 5 years ago Cal basketball went undefeated at Haas with 3 McDonald's All Americans on the team, got a 4 seed and finished the season ranked. So it is possible. What about Cal has changed since then?
boredom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
3146gabby said:

re Boredom's thoughts and others who more or less say, "a coach is hired to win and when he doesn't...' and use business analogies.

There is certainly some truth to that & I respect their thinking, but reality requires a look at the entire picture and merely saying something 'should be so' really says nothing.

You line up the following key factors and then and only then can conclusions be drawn:

1. What did Wilcox find when he started?
2. What are the institutional and other challenges?
3. His wins/losses?
4. What are the other indicators of a growing/receding program in light of ##1-3?
5. What are the realistic factors in recruiting? There is a vicious circle quality to recruiting; successful teams are successful in continuing to recruit well...Getting over the hump is damn hard.
6. Where does Covid fit in? Two years ago, 8-5, a nice win over Illinois and then covid undercut '20 and '21. A true anomaly but hit Cal as hard as any in the country.
7. What are the non statistical matters and are they important; player buy-in, player sense of where the program is going, etc?
8. And perhaps less important to some, but integrity, understanding what Cal is about, instilling values that the players seem to reflect.

Btw I agree that a new OC may be a key factor, altho there were times that Musg seemed to call a really good hame...





I look at this through a different lens. I don't care about assigning blame. I don't care if its really Wilcox' fault or he's just had bad luck or whatever else. I care about Cal winning. I have some typically unspoken requirements beyond that (e.g. no Sandusky behavior) but that stuff is, to me, necessary to keep the job but not sufficient to keep the job.

Here's the big picture as far as I'm concerned: how confident are you that Wilcox will have us in the top 10 and winning the conference in the next few years? I have zero confidence. Not impossible, but super unlikely in my mind. He's failed to move up even while all the big boys are down. The program has no momentum.


71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KoreAmBear said:

calumnus said:

Cal Strong! said:

The players said the same things about Tedford and Dykes. What sort of player would be dumb enough to slam their current coach in the media?


And Gilbertson and Holmoe. The disgruntled players keep it private, at least until they transfer or graduate.

However, I have no doubt that Wilcox is personally liked by the vast majority of the players. He seems like a very like-able person, and not all coaches are.


Well here's one (gone a while ago) that doesn't like Wilcox. Loyal to Sonny?



With 85 guys on scholarship, you cannot possibly make everyone happy. Just keep the ones who don't like you away from those who are sitting on the fence trying to figure out which way to go.

Golden One
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boredom said:

Big C said:

KoreAmBear said:

boredom said:

KoreAmBear said:

82gradDLSdad said:

Could we use a better coach? Yes.
Is Knowlton likely to hire one? No.
Is there even a chance? Probably not.

Keep Wilcox.

Can't believe I'm saying this.

Wilcox has kept the locker room. The players seem to really like and respect him and the culture he's developed. Remember Evan Weaver boasting about our "culture" compared to UW's. This is super important, and I have to give Wilcox credit for that. He has proven to the players he has their back and that he's not a snakeoil salesman. That's very tough to do in this climate.

Now Holmoe was also a nice guy, although I am not sure he kept the locker room.

But Wilcox was not hired to be respected and liked. He was hired to win football games. So while I agree he should be given an extension, he also needs to be held more accountable especially with the offense and the next offensive coordinator he hires. We lost all our 50-50 type games (Nevada, TCU, UW, Oregon and AZ) because our offense could not get it done. We're in a NY6 bowl game if our offense came through.

I really don't understand this. It's 5 years of losing. Year 5 is the same as year 1 (arguably worse given that the opposition has gotten weaker). Why on earth should we extend him? He should be fired. If not fired, there should be 0 incremental financial commitment to him.

What's the rationale behind following "he was hired to win football games" with "he should be given an extension? He was hired to win games. He's lost 2/3 of his conference games. How does that lead to an extension?

What does being held accountable mean here? If we reward crap performance with contract extensions, how does that hold him accountable?

And I don't mean this at you personally, I see others saying similar things. I don't get it.
I think because Cal. He has held the locker room which is a huge win. He is kind of winning. We could do a lot worse, and with Knowlton, that's almost a guarantee. And maybe with an OC that has a clue, maybe we can break out of this mediocre cycle. Hence, extend him.

Wilcox has, what, two years left on his contract? If we feel we need to extend him one year for recruiting purposes (show of support), at the same salary, I don't have a problem with that. It's the cost of doing business nowadays.

In terms of a longer extension, complete with a higher salary, no possible way until he shows us he can win... and that needs to come next season. (and should've come this season)

If we continue down the path of hoping Wilcox can guide us to the 5-4 in conference mountain top and extend him then the real key isn't how much money we flush down the toilet in annual salary but how much we commit to in extra buyout money. If there's any proof that this would suddenly make Wilcox get high level recruits then we should give him a 100 year extension as long as it costs us nothing to fire him.

(and is there any proof that extending dead man walking coaches by a year or two suddenly boosts their recruiting? This seems like a fairytale made up by coaches and their agents to get more $$$ when they get canned)
Wilcox hasn't recruited any high level players in 5 years. What is going to make the future any different with him as head coach? He would have to hire a top tier offensive coordinator, which, given his history, is highly unlikely.
Golden One
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boredom said:

3146gabby said:

re Boredom's thoughts and others who more or less say, "a coach is hired to win and when he doesn't...' and use business analogies.

There is certainly some truth to that & I respect their thinking, but reality requires a look at the entire picture and merely saying something 'should be so' really says nothing.

You line up the following key factors and then and only then can conclusions be drawn:

1. What did Wilcox find when he started?
2. What are the institutional and other challenges?
3. His wins/losses?
4. What are the other indicators of a growing/receding program in light of ##1-3?
5. What are the realistic factors in recruiting? There is a vicious circle quality to recruiting; successful teams are successful in continuing to recruit well...Getting over the hump is damn hard.
6. Where does Covid fit in? Two years ago, 8-5, a nice win over Illinois and then covid undercut '20 and '21. A true anomaly but hit Cal as hard as any in the country.
7. What are the non statistical matters and are they important; player buy-in, player sense of where the program is going, etc?
8. And perhaps less important to some, but integrity, understanding what Cal is about, instilling values that the players seem to reflect.

Btw I agree that a new OC may be a key factor, altho there were times that Musg seemed to call a really good hame...





I look at this through a different lens. I don't care about assigning blame. I don't care if its really Wilcox' fault or he's just had bad luck or whatever else. I care about Cal winning. I have some typically unspoken requirements beyond that (e.g. no Sandusky behavior) but that stuff is, to me, necessary to keep the job but not sufficient to keep the job.

Here's the big picture as far as I'm concerned: how confident are you that Wilcox will have us in the top 10 and winning the conference in the next few years? I have zero confidence. Not impossible, but super unlikely in my mind. He's failed to move up even while all the big boys are down. The program has no momentum.



Wilcox can get us in the top 10 of the Pac-12, but there is zero chance he will ever be able to get us into the top 10 nationally. Zero.
Cal Strong!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KoreAmBear said:

calumnus said:

Cal Strong! said:

The players said the same things about Tedford and Dykes. What sort of player would be dumb enough to slam their current coach in the media?


And Gilbertson and Holmoe. The disgruntled players keep it private, at least until they transfer or graduate.

However, I have no doubt that Wilcox is personally liked by the vast majority of the players. He seems like a very like-able person, and not all coaches are.


Well here's one (gone a while ago) that doesn't like Wilcox. Loyal to Sonny?




There were a ton of transfers when Wilcox came in with his lame offense. And there have been many transfers since then. That doesn't necessarily mean there aren't players who love him. That happens with lots of coaches. All it means is that Wilcox hardly walks on water with his players. Some love him, some hate him. Some are generally neutral.

So long as he isn't doing anything like Jerry Sandusky, Pierre Ingram, or Bobby Petrino, who cares what players say in the media about him?
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4thGenCal said:

71Bear said:

3146gabby said:



As to all 3 communities - optimists, pessimists, realists - it always seems a zero sum game in the analysis.

Reality is not what we need, but what is realistic in getting those needs filled.

There are serious extant limitations for football.e.g., narrowness in recruiting because of academic requirements, lack of historic success, too frequent turnover in coaches, etc. etc.

All of which has limited who would come here to coach. We are not going to get a nick saban.

I see significantly more plusses in Wilcox than negatives especially when factoring in what is reality right now. That the players buy in, don't give up, understand the many values of playing FB @ an academic institution like Cal, respond to adversity, and extol what is a one for all mentality, is big for me. But that is just me.



First of all, the academic issue is absolute bull****. Stanford has commitments from 22 players, including 8 four stars and currently ranks 11th in the country. Cal has commitments from 10 players, including zero four stars and ranks 65th in the country. Source: 247 Sports. Note: I understand the size of a class varies due to availability of scholarships. However, the quality is something that shouldn't vary. It should always be stellar.

There is absolutely no reason that Cal cannot sign a Top 20 class every year, occasionally breaking into the Top Ten depending on the strength of the California-based class. If Stanford can sign a strong class, so can Cal. Period.

Historic success, particularly in the recent past, is a very big hurdle. That can be addressed by finding a "pied piper" type of recruit. Russell White is an excellent example of a recruit who caused others to think, "why not?" He led a resurgence of Cal football.

Turnover of coaches - absolutely an issue. Cal has long been known as the "graveyard of coaches". The key is hiring a guy who wants to be at Cal, understands the relationship of athletics to other departments within the campus community, and is an able coach.

While I have some significant concerns about Wilcox, I fully support bringing him back next year. My biggest concerns are whether he can bring in the talent necessary to compete for a conference championship and whether he can hire assistants who are capable of executing a complex game plan and motivating players to reach their maximum potential, this means hiring from a pool that includes only young, innovative coaches (retreads need not apply). At this time, I would not consider extending his contract. If he can produce an eight win season in 2022, that will be a very good sign given the talent that will be available.


Academic restrictions are real and impact the recruiting pool Cal can go after - its a simple fact. There are VERY few exceptions made for a sub 3.0 Gpa and those include a gaunlet for the prospective student/athlete to go thru (including facing a panel of administrators/professor/compliance/AD etc to address potential academic course load concerns etc). Yes that Stanford pulls in high level Student athletes and that is the sole exception (relative to competitive D1 programs) Stanford is simply a different playing field in many ways. Cal very rarely wins out head to head regardless of the situation. The other issues not mentioned where Cal is woefully behind the Top 25 schools and the majority of conference members, is housing ( difficult to find close to campus - 10 players housed 15 minutes away off campus and in tough areas due to lower cost. Overall quality of housing is below average and very expensive for a schlorship player receiving $1700/month - the basketball model for Cal is unique (in that a few passionate alums stepped up to provide quality close to campus housing at a affordable cost). Second issue is the salaries for All of the assistants and Especially the lower level assistant recruiting/strength/support coaches, is extremely low relative to our conference members. IE SC pays $175k to a support coach that Cal for the same position, is able to pay just $75K to. Yes there recently was 8 generous Bear Backers who have put together an annual bump of $250K (each of next 3 seasons) toward the Assistant coaches pool and that helps certainly - but again the delta between Cal and the majority of schools is much greater than is commonly known.
Thank you for posting the usual laundry list of excuses.

In fact, from an academic perspective, there are a number of very strong public and private universities that have successfully paired their academic prowess with equally strong athletic programs. Anyone who cites academics as a problem for Cal's athletic program is just making excuses.


Big Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Alkiadt said:

4thGenCal said:

71Bear said:

3146gabby said:



As to all 3 communities - optimists, pessimists, realists - it always seems a zero sum game in the analysis.

Reality is not what we need, but what is realistic in getting those needs filled.

There are serious extant limitations for football.e.g., narrowness in recruiting because of academic requirements, lack of historic success, too frequent turnover in coaches, etc. etc.

All of which has limited who would come here to coach. We are not going to get a nick saban.

I see significantly more plusses in Wilcox than negatives especially when factoring in what is reality right now. That the players buy in, don't give up, understand the many values of playing FB @ an academic institution like Cal, respond to adversity, and extol what is a one for all mentality, is big for me. But that is just me.



First of all, the academic issue is absolute bull****. Stanford has commitments from 22 players, including 8 four stars and currently ranks 11th in the country. Cal has commitments from 10 players, including zero four stars and ranks 65th in the country. Source: 247 Sports. Note: I understand the size of a class varies due to availability of scholarships. However, the quality is something that shouldn't vary. It should always be stellar.

There is absolutely no reason that Cal cannot sign a Top 20 class every year, occasionally breaking into the Top Ten depending on the strength of the California-based class. If Stanford can sign a strong class, so can Cal. Period.

Historic success, particularly in the recent past, is a very big hurdle. That can be addressed by finding a "pied piper" type of recruit. Russell White is an excellent example of a recruit who caused others to think, "why not?" He led a resurgence of Cal football.

Turnover of coaches - absolutely an issue. Cal has long been known as the "graveyard of coaches". The key is hiring a guy who wants to be at Cal, understands the relationship of athletics to other departments within the campus community, and is an able coach.

While I have some significant concerns about Wilcox, I fully support bringing him back next year. My biggest concerns are whether he can bring in the talent necessary to compete for a conference championship and whether he can hire assistants who are capable of executing a complex game plan and motivating players to reach their maximum potential, this means hiring from a pool that includes only young, innovative coaches (retreads need not apply). At this time, I would not consider extending his contract. If he can produce an eight win season in 2022, that will be a very good sign given the talent that will be available.


Academic restrictions are real and impact the recruiting pool Cal can go after - its a simple fact. There are VERY few exceptions made for a sub 3.0 Gpa and those include a gaunlet for the prospective student/athlete to go thru (including facing a panel of administrators/professor/compliance/AD etc to address potential academic course load concerns etc). Yes that Stanford pulls in high level Student athletes and that is the sole exception (relative to competitive D1 programs) Stanford is simply a different playing field in many ways. Cal very rarely wins out head to head regardless of the situation. The other issues not mentioned where Cal is woefully behind the Top 25 schools and the majority of conference members, is housing ( difficult to find close to campus - 10 players housed 15 minutes away off campus and in tough areas due to lower cost. Overall quality of housing is below average and very expensive for a schlorship player receiving $1700/month - the basketball model for Cal is unique (in that a few passionate alums stepped up to provide quality close to campus housing at a affordable cost). Second issue is the salaries for All of the assistants and Especially the lower level assistant recruiting/strength/support coaches, is extremely low relative to our conference members. IE SC pays $175k to a support coach that Cal for the same position, is able to pay just $75K to. Yes there recently was 8 generous Bear Backers who have put together an annual bump of $250K (each of next 3 seasons) toward the Assistant coaches pool and that helps certainly - but again the delta between Cal and the majority of schools is much greater than is commonly known.
This is 100% dead on correct.

Almost. In addition to Stanford, Notre Dame, Northwestern, Duke, and Vandy (and a few others) also pull in high level student athletes. But that just reinforces the point: there aint' that many high level student footballers to go around. Moreover, the Stanford's of the world have extremely generous $$ aid available to all students, including D1 schollies. Michigan is similar to Cal academically; Ann Arbor is the quintessential college town and the Big House....
4thGenCal
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big Dog said:

Alkiadt said:

4thGenCal said:

71Bear said:

3146gabby said:



As to all 3 communities - optimists, pessimists, realists - it always seems a zero sum game in the analysis.

Reality is not what we need, but what is realistic in getting those needs filled.

There are serious extant limitations for football.e.g., narrowness in recruiting because of academic requirements, lack of historic success, too frequent turnover in coaches, etc. etc.

All of which has limited who would come here to coach. We are not going to get a nick saban.

I see significantly more plusses in Wilcox than negatives especially when factoring in what is reality right now. That the players buy in, don't give up, understand the many values of playing FB @ an academic institution like Cal, respond to adversity, and extol what is a one for all mentality, is big for me. But that is just me.



First of all, the academic issue is absolute bull****. Stanford has commitments from 22 players, including 8 four stars and currently ranks 11th in the country. Cal has commitments from 10 players, including zero four stars and ranks 65th in the country. Source: 247 Sports. Note: I understand the size of a class varies due to availability of scholarships. However, the quality is something that shouldn't vary. It should always be stellar.

There is absolutely no reason that Cal cannot sign a Top 20 class every year, occasionally breaking into the Top Ten depending on the strength of the California-based class. If Stanford can sign a strong class, so can Cal. Period.

Historic success, particularly in the recent past, is a very big hurdle. That can be addressed by finding a "pied piper" type of recruit. Russell White is an excellent example of a recruit who caused others to think, "why not?" He led a resurgence of Cal football.

Turnover of coaches - absolutely an issue. Cal has long been known as the "graveyard of coaches". The key is hiring a guy who wants to be at Cal, understands the relationship of athletics to other departments within the campus community, and is an able coach.

While I have some significant concerns about Wilcox, I fully support bringing him back next year. My biggest concerns are whether he can bring in the talent necessary to compete for a conference championship and whether he can hire assistants who are capable of executing a complex game plan and motivating players to reach their maximum potential, this means hiring from a pool that includes only young, innovative coaches (retreads need not apply). At this time, I would not consider extending his contract. If he can produce an eight win season in 2022, that will be a very good sign given the talent that will be available.


Academic restrictions are real and impact the recruiting pool Cal can go after - its a simple fact. There are VERY few exceptions made for a sub 3.0 Gpa and those include a gaunlet for the prospective student/athlete to go thru (including facing a panel of administrators/professor/compliance/AD etc to address potential academic course load concerns etc). Yes that Stanford pulls in high level Student athletes and that is the sole exception (relative to competitive D1 programs) Stanford is simply a different playing field in many ways. Cal very rarely wins out head to head regardless of the situation. The other issues not mentioned where Cal is woefully behind the Top 25 schools and the majority of conference members, is housing ( difficult to find close to campus - 10 players housed 15 minutes away off campus and in tough areas due to lower cost. Overall quality of housing is below average and very expensive for a schlorship player receiving $1700/month - the basketball model for Cal is unique (in that a few passionate alums stepped up to provide quality close to campus housing at a affordable cost). Second issue is the salaries for All of the assistants and Especially the lower level assistant recruiting/strength/support coaches, is extremely low relative to our conference members. IE SC pays $175k to a support coach that Cal for the same position, is able to pay just $75K to. Yes there recently was 8 generous Bear Backers who have put together an annual bump of $250K (each of next 3 seasons) toward the Assistant coaches pool and that helps certainly - but again the delta between Cal and the majority of schools is much greater than is commonly known.
This is 100% dead on correct.

Almost. In addition to Stanford, Notre Dame, Northwestern, Duke, and Vandy (and a few others) also pull in high level student athletes. But that just reinforces the point: there aint' that many high level student footballers to go around. Moreover, the Stanford's of the world have extremely generous $$ aid available to all students, including D1 schollies. Michigan is similar to Cal academically; Ann Arbor is the quintessential college town and the Big House....
So true - Additionally, Stanford assistant coaches have their housing costs covered - the pay scale is also higher than Cal's. The posters who think academic standards that Cal enforces are "excuses" really are not informed on the available and eligible recruiting pool for Cal. I found out first hand when I passed on several local CCS football players names/articles and even coaches contact info - over the past 5 seasons, only to be told each time "excellent player and we would love to have him, but no chance of being academically accepted". Yes lightening can happen once every 5- 7 years+- to get a academically sound high level prospect and local who wants to play close to home, but that is the exception not the rule. Cal cannot get admitted the players that the vast majority of top level programs can. Wish the administration would do what Colorado Chancellor agreed to do 7 seasons ago and approved 6 players who were below the in place admission gpa/score bar. Two seasons later the Buffs were in the conference title game. Yes it means providing extra resources for academic tutoring/mentoring and adherence to class attendence. Yes a few may not make it, but with the right support system many will and it will benefit their life development.
Goobear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

KoreAmBear said:

calumnus said:

Cal Strong! said:

The players said the same things about Tedford and Dykes. What sort of player would be dumb enough to slam their current coach in the media?


And Gilbertson and Holmoe. The disgruntled players keep it private, at least until they transfer or graduate.

However, I have no doubt that Wilcox is personally liked by the vast majority of the players. He seems like a very like-able person, and not all coaches are.


Well here's one (gone a while ago) that doesn't like Wilcox. Loyal to Sonny?



Didn't Allensworth lose his starting position for part of his senior year?
Butt hurt passed up because Coach Alexander had better options…
Chapman_is_Gone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4thGenCal said:

Big Dog said:

Alkiadt said:

4thGenCal said:

71Bear said:

3146gabby said:



As to all 3 communities - optimists, pessimists, realists - it always seems a zero sum game in the analysis.

Reality is not what we need, but what is realistic in getting those needs filled.

There are serious extant limitations for football.e.g., narrowness in recruiting because of academic requirements, lack of historic success, too frequent turnover in coaches, etc. etc.

All of which has limited who would come here to coach. We are not going to get a nick saban.

I see significantly more plusses in Wilcox than negatives especially when factoring in what is reality right now. That the players buy in, don't give up, understand the many values of playing FB @ an academic institution like Cal, respond to adversity, and extol what is a one for all mentality, is big for me. But that is just me.



First of all, the academic issue is absolute bull****. Stanford has commitments from 22 players, including 8 four stars and currently ranks 11th in the country. Cal has commitments from 10 players, including zero four stars and ranks 65th in the country. Source: 247 Sports. Note: I understand the size of a class varies due to availability of scholarships. However, the quality is something that shouldn't vary. It should always be stellar.

There is absolutely no reason that Cal cannot sign a Top 20 class every year, occasionally breaking into the Top Ten depending on the strength of the California-based class. If Stanford can sign a strong class, so can Cal. Period.

Historic success, particularly in the recent past, is a very big hurdle. That can be addressed by finding a "pied piper" type of recruit. Russell White is an excellent example of a recruit who caused others to think, "why not?" He led a resurgence of Cal football.

Turnover of coaches - absolutely an issue. Cal has long been known as the "graveyard of coaches". The key is hiring a guy who wants to be at Cal, understands the relationship of athletics to other departments within the campus community, and is an able coach.

While I have some significant concerns about Wilcox, I fully support bringing him back next year. My biggest concerns are whether he can bring in the talent necessary to compete for a conference championship and whether he can hire assistants who are capable of executing a complex game plan and motivating players to reach their maximum potential, this means hiring from a pool that includes only young, innovative coaches (retreads need not apply). At this time, I would not consider extending his contract. If he can produce an eight win season in 2022, that will be a very good sign given the talent that will be available.


Academic restrictions are real and impact the recruiting pool Cal can go after - its a simple fact. There are VERY few exceptions made for a sub 3.0 Gpa and those include a gaunlet for the prospective student/athlete to go thru (including facing a panel of administrators/professor/compliance/AD etc to address potential academic course load concerns etc). Yes that Stanford pulls in high level Student athletes and that is the sole exception (relative to competitive D1 programs) Stanford is simply a different playing field in many ways. Cal very rarely wins out head to head regardless of the situation. The other issues not mentioned where Cal is woefully behind the Top 25 schools and the majority of conference members, is housing ( difficult to find close to campus - 10 players housed 15 minutes away off campus and in tough areas due to lower cost. Overall quality of housing is below average and very expensive for a schlorship player receiving $1700/month - the basketball model for Cal is unique (in that a few passionate alums stepped up to provide quality close to campus housing at a affordable cost). Second issue is the salaries for All of the assistants and Especially the lower level assistant recruiting/strength/support coaches, is extremely low relative to our conference members. IE SC pays $175k to a support coach that Cal for the same position, is able to pay just $75K to. Yes there recently was 8 generous Bear Backers who have put together an annual bump of $250K (each of next 3 seasons) toward the Assistant coaches pool and that helps certainly - but again the delta between Cal and the majority of schools is much greater than is commonly known.
This is 100% dead on correct.

Almost. In addition to Stanford, Notre Dame, Northwestern, Duke, and Vandy (and a few others) also pull in high level student athletes. But that just reinforces the point: there aint' that many high level student footballers to go around. Moreover, the Stanford's of the world have extremely generous $$ aid available to all students, including D1 schollies. Michigan is similar to Cal academically; Ann Arbor is the quintessential college town and the Big House....
So true - Additionally, Stanford assistant coaches have their housing costs covered - the pay scale is also higher than Cal's. The posters who think academic standards that Cal enforces are "excuses" really are not informed on the available and eligible recruiting pool for Cal. I found out first hand when I passed on several local CCS football players names/articles and even coaches contact info - over the past 5 seasons, only to be told each time "excellent player and we would love to have him, but no chance of being academically accepted". Yes lightening can happen once every 5- 7 years+- to get a academically sound high level prospect and local who wants to play close to home, but that is the exception not the rule. Cal cannot get admitted the players that the vast majority of top level programs can. Wish the administration would do what Colorado Chancellor agreed to do 7 seasons ago and approved 6 players who were below the in place admission gpa/score bar. Two seasons later the Buffs were in the conference title game. Yes it means providing extra resources for academic tutoring/mentoring and adherence to class attendence. Yes a few may not make it, but with the right support system many will and it will benefit their life development.

I recently read here that 25% of the recruiting class is allowed to be below the 3.0 threshold, and while that 25% figure may be lower than our university peers who face similar threshold situations, it at least is a modest compromise. Is that not accurate?
BearGoggles
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

4thGenCal said:

71Bear said:

3146gabby said:



As to all 3 communities - optimists, pessimists, realists - it always seems a zero sum game in the analysis.

Reality is not what we need, but what is realistic in getting those needs filled.

There are serious extant limitations for football.e.g., narrowness in recruiting because of academic requirements, lack of historic success, too frequent turnover in coaches, etc. etc.

All of which has limited who would come here to coach. We are not going to get a nick saban.

I see significantly more plusses in Wilcox than negatives especially when factoring in what is reality right now. That the players buy in, don't give up, understand the many values of playing FB @ an academic institution like Cal, respond to adversity, and extol what is a one for all mentality, is big for me. But that is just me.



First of all, the academic issue is absolute bull****. Stanford has commitments from 22 players, including 8 four stars and currently ranks 11th in the country. Cal has commitments from 10 players, including zero four stars and ranks 65th in the country. Source: 247 Sports. Note: I understand the size of a class varies due to availability of scholarships. However, the quality is something that shouldn't vary. It should always be stellar.

There is absolutely no reason that Cal cannot sign a Top 20 class every year, occasionally breaking into the Top Ten depending on the strength of the California-based class. If Stanford can sign a strong class, so can Cal. Period.

Historic success, particularly in the recent past, is a very big hurdle. That can be addressed by finding a "pied piper" type of recruit. Russell White is an excellent example of a recruit who caused others to think, "why not?" He led a resurgence of Cal football.

Turnover of coaches - absolutely an issue. Cal has long been known as the "graveyard of coaches". The key is hiring a guy who wants to be at Cal, understands the relationship of athletics to other departments within the campus community, and is an able coach.

While I have some significant concerns about Wilcox, I fully support bringing him back next year. My biggest concerns are whether he can bring in the talent necessary to compete for a conference championship and whether he can hire assistants who are capable of executing a complex game plan and motivating players to reach their maximum potential, this means hiring from a pool that includes only young, innovative coaches (retreads need not apply). At this time, I would not consider extending his contract. If he can produce an eight win season in 2022, that will be a very good sign given the talent that will be available.


Academic restrictions are real and impact the recruiting pool Cal can go after - its a simple fact. There are VERY few exceptions made for a sub 3.0 Gpa and those include a gaunlet for the prospective student/athlete to go thru (including facing a panel of administrators/professor/compliance/AD etc to address potential academic course load concerns etc). Yes that Stanford pulls in high level Student athletes and that is the sole exception (relative to competitive D1 programs) Stanford is simply a different playing field in many ways. Cal very rarely wins out head to head regardless of the situation. The other issues not mentioned where Cal is woefully behind the Top 25 schools and the majority of conference members, is housing ( difficult to find close to campus - 10 players housed 15 minutes away off campus and in tough areas due to lower cost. Overall quality of housing is below average and very expensive for a schlorship player receiving $1700/month - the basketball model for Cal is unique (in that a few passionate alums stepped up to provide quality close to campus housing at a affordable cost). Second issue is the salaries for All of the assistants and Especially the lower level assistant recruiting/strength/support coaches, is extremely low relative to our conference members. IE SC pays $175k to a support coach that Cal for the same position, is able to pay just $75K to. Yes there recently was 8 generous Bear Backers who have put together an annual bump of $250K (each of next 3 seasons) toward the Assistant coaches pool and that helps certainly - but again the delta between Cal and the majority of schools is much greater than is commonly known.
Thank you for posting the usual laundry list of excuses.

In fact, from an academic perspective, there are a number of very strong public and private universities that have successfully paired their academic prowess with equally strong athletic programs. Anyone who cites academics as a problem for Cal's athletic program is just making excuses.



Aren't you the one claiming to be the realist in a different thread? I'm open to the possibility 4thGen is wrong, but you're post doesn't shed any light on why that might be the case.

Saying there are a number of private and public universities with strong academics and athletics is your first departure from reality. Which ones are currently fielding teams in the top 25 for men's hoops or football? Football is Michigan and arguably Notre Dame. Basketball, where it's easier to field a strong team, it is UCLA, Duke, and maybe Purdue. So out of all the academically oriented public schools, there are 2-3 doing it well.

As a public institution, Cal cannot offer many of the things a private academically oriented school like Furd or Duke offers. And let's face it, how many other academic schools are there that are serious about sports (maybe Vanderbilt and Notre Dame?).

Cal athletes are not coddled and don't attend school at a place where grade inflation ensures the worst grade is a B. Cal athletes simply aren't offered the same benefits as those private schools - exactly the issues 4thgen pointed out. And Cal doesn't offer the same name cache and alumni network either.

What are Cal's peer institutions doing? I think Michigan and UCLA are the model. They are the only academic public school consistently doing well in the major sports (maybe Virginia too in hoops?). They throw big dollars at Football and, more relevantly, make MAJOR accommodations in recruiting to football and men's basketball admissions. Why isn't Cal doing that?

At Cal, it isn't just the academics. It the tough academics, combined with admissions policies that are more difficult than its peer institutions (UCLA and Michigan) and then when the athletes get to Cal, they lack many of the benefits they would have elsewhere.

Those are the things 4thgen is pointing to. They can be overcome - but denying they exist is not being a realist and, more importantly, ensures the issues will not be overcome.
StarsDoMatter
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How can some you guys still want wilcox?!!'

He's 15-25 in the pac12.

The only team he beat with a winning record all season (im excluding FSC sac st) was 7-5 oregon state.

Our current recruiting class is 71st in the nation. 71st!!

Hes never had a winning record in conference
Hes recruiting is below average, even for cal standards
Hes teams are extremely boring.

Why must we suffer with such an inadequate coach for another season???
PtownBear1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

4thGenCal said:

71Bear said:

3146gabby said:



As to all 3 communities - optimists, pessimists, realists - it always seems a zero sum game in the analysis.

Reality is not what we need, but what is realistic in getting those needs filled.

There are serious extant limitations for football.e.g., narrowness in recruiting because of academic requirements, lack of historic success, too frequent turnover in coaches, etc. etc.

All of which has limited who would come here to coach. We are not going to get a nick saban.

I see significantly more plusses in Wilcox than negatives especially when factoring in what is reality right now. That the players buy in, don't give up, understand the many values of playing FB @ an academic institution like Cal, respond to adversity, and extol what is a one for all mentality, is big for me. But that is just me.



First of all, the academic issue is absolute bull****. Stanford has commitments from 22 players, including 8 four stars and currently ranks 11th in the country. Cal has commitments from 10 players, including zero four stars and ranks 65th in the country. Source: 247 Sports. Note: I understand the size of a class varies due to availability of scholarships. However, the quality is something that shouldn't vary. It should always be stellar.

There is absolutely no reason that Cal cannot sign a Top 20 class every year, occasionally breaking into the Top Ten depending on the strength of the California-based class. If Stanford can sign a strong class, so can Cal. Period.

Historic success, particularly in the recent past, is a very big hurdle. That can be addressed by finding a "pied piper" type of recruit. Russell White is an excellent example of a recruit who caused others to think, "why not?" He led a resurgence of Cal football.

Turnover of coaches - absolutely an issue. Cal has long been known as the "graveyard of coaches". The key is hiring a guy who wants to be at Cal, understands the relationship of athletics to other departments within the campus community, and is an able coach.

While I have some significant concerns about Wilcox, I fully support bringing him back next year. My biggest concerns are whether he can bring in the talent necessary to compete for a conference championship and whether he can hire assistants who are capable of executing a complex game plan and motivating players to reach their maximum potential, this means hiring from a pool that includes only young, innovative coaches (retreads need not apply). At this time, I would not consider extending his contract. If he can produce an eight win season in 2022, that will be a very good sign given the talent that will be available.


Academic restrictions are real and impact the recruiting pool Cal can go after - its a simple fact. There are VERY few exceptions made for a sub 3.0 Gpa and those include a gaunlet for the prospective student/athlete to go thru (including facing a panel of administrators/professor/compliance/AD etc to address potential academic course load concerns etc). Yes that Stanford pulls in high level Student athletes and that is the sole exception (relative to competitive D1 programs) Stanford is simply a different playing field in many ways. Cal very rarely wins out head to head regardless of the situation. The other issues not mentioned where Cal is woefully behind the Top 25 schools and the majority of conference members, is housing ( difficult to find close to campus - 10 players housed 15 minutes away off campus and in tough areas due to lower cost. Overall quality of housing is below average and very expensive for a schlorship player receiving $1700/month - the basketball model for Cal is unique (in that a few passionate alums stepped up to provide quality close to campus housing at a affordable cost). Second issue is the salaries for All of the assistants and Especially the lower level assistant recruiting/strength/support coaches, is extremely low relative to our conference members. IE SC pays $175k to a support coach that Cal for the same position, is able to pay just $75K to. Yes there recently was 8 generous Bear Backers who have put together an annual bump of $250K (each of next 3 seasons) toward the Assistant coaches pool and that helps certainly - but again the delta between Cal and the majority of schools is much greater than is commonly known.


Randy Bennet makes about $600,000 last I saw. What do his assistants make? What are the housing and rent costs in Moraga? Which players at St. Mary's could not get into Cal?

Just 5 years ago Cal basketball went undefeated at Haas with 3 McDonald's All Americans on the team, got a 4 seed and finished the season ranked. So it is possible. What about Cal has changed since then?


A competent AD was replaced by Mike Williams and then Jim Knowlton.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PtownBear1 said:

calumnus said:

4thGenCal said:

71Bear said:

3146gabby said:



As to all 3 communities - optimists, pessimists, realists - it always seems a zero sum game in the analysis.

Reality is not what we need, but what is realistic in getting those needs filled.

There are serious extant limitations for football.e.g., narrowness in recruiting because of academic requirements, lack of historic success, too frequent turnover in coaches, etc. etc.

All of which has limited who would come here to coach. We are not going to get a nick saban.

I see significantly more plusses in Wilcox than negatives especially when factoring in what is reality right now. That the players buy in, don't give up, understand the many values of playing FB @ an academic institution like Cal, respond to adversity, and extol what is a one for all mentality, is big for me. But that is just me.



First of all, the academic issue is absolute bull****. Stanford has commitments from 22 players, including 8 four stars and currently ranks 11th in the country. Cal has commitments from 10 players, including zero four stars and ranks 65th in the country. Source: 247 Sports. Note: I understand the size of a class varies due to availability of scholarships. However, the quality is something that shouldn't vary. It should always be stellar.

There is absolutely no reason that Cal cannot sign a Top 20 class every year, occasionally breaking into the Top Ten depending on the strength of the California-based class. If Stanford can sign a strong class, so can Cal. Period.

Historic success, particularly in the recent past, is a very big hurdle. That can be addressed by finding a "pied piper" type of recruit. Russell White is an excellent example of a recruit who caused others to think, "why not?" He led a resurgence of Cal football.

Turnover of coaches - absolutely an issue. Cal has long been known as the "graveyard of coaches". The key is hiring a guy who wants to be at Cal, understands the relationship of athletics to other departments within the campus community, and is an able coach.

While I have some significant concerns about Wilcox, I fully support bringing him back next year. My biggest concerns are whether he can bring in the talent necessary to compete for a conference championship and whether he can hire assistants who are capable of executing a complex game plan and motivating players to reach their maximum potential, this means hiring from a pool that includes only young, innovative coaches (retreads need not apply). At this time, I would not consider extending his contract. If he can produce an eight win season in 2022, that will be a very good sign given the talent that will be available.


Academic restrictions are real and impact the recruiting pool Cal can go after - its a simple fact. There are VERY few exceptions made for a sub 3.0 Gpa and those include a gaunlet for the prospective student/athlete to go thru (including facing a panel of administrators/professor/compliance/AD etc to address potential academic course load concerns etc). Yes that Stanford pulls in high level Student athletes and that is the sole exception (relative to competitive D1 programs) Stanford is simply a different playing field in many ways. Cal very rarely wins out head to head regardless of the situation. The other issues not mentioned where Cal is woefully behind the Top 25 schools and the majority of conference members, is housing ( difficult to find close to campus - 10 players housed 15 minutes away off campus and in tough areas due to lower cost. Overall quality of housing is below average and very expensive for a schlorship player receiving $1700/month - the basketball model for Cal is unique (in that a few passionate alums stepped up to provide quality close to campus housing at a affordable cost). Second issue is the salaries for All of the assistants and Especially the lower level assistant recruiting/strength/support coaches, is extremely low relative to our conference members. IE SC pays $175k to a support coach that Cal for the same position, is able to pay just $75K to. Yes there recently was 8 generous Bear Backers who have put together an annual bump of $250K (each of next 3 seasons) toward the Assistant coaches pool and that helps certainly - but again the delta between Cal and the majority of schools is much greater than is commonly known.


Randy Bennet makes about $600,000 last I saw. What do his assistants make? What are the housing and rent costs in Moraga? Which players at St. Mary's could not get into Cal?

Just 5 years ago Cal basketball went undefeated at Haas with 3 McDonald's All Americans on the team, got a 4 seed and finished the season ranked. So it is possible. What about Cal has changed since then?


A competent AD was replaced by Mike Williams and then Jim Knowlton.


People here hated Sandy Barbour, especially after she fired Tedford and hired Dykes.
DLSbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KoreAmBear said:

calumnus said:

KoreAmBear said:

calumnus said:

Cal Strong! said:

The players said the same things about Tedford and Dykes. What sort of player would be dumb enough to slam their current coach in the media?

PREACH ON
And Gilbertson and Holmoe. The disgruntled players keep it private, at least until they transfer or graduate.

However, I have no doubt that Wilcox is personally liked by the vast majority of the players. He seems like a very like-able person, and not all coaches are.


Well here's one (gone a while ago) that doesn't like Wilcox. Loyal to Sonny?





Yes, seems like Vic Enwere and Tre Watson too, though their tweets are more cryptic, so it is not clear if it was Wilcox or Baldwin they had issues with.
Even Jesus had his detractors.
Goobear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
StarsDoMatter said:

How can some you guys still want wilcox?!!'

He's 15-25 in the pac12.

The only team he beat with a winning record all season (im excluding FSC sac st) was 7-5 oregon state.

Our current recruiting class is 71st in the nation. 71st!!

Hes never had a winning record in conference
Hes recruiting is below average, even for cal standards
Hes teams are extremely boring.

Why must we suffer with such an inadequate coach for another season???
Because he treats the kids right, fights the admin for them and is honest. They also feel like there are still too many barriers that have to be overcome and love Wilcox for going to bat for them. Now the admin needs to step up and break down those impediments…
NVBear78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
71Bear said:

4thGenCal said:

71Bear said:

3146gabby said:



As to all 3 communities - optimists, pessimists, realists - it always seems a zero sum game in the analysis.

Reality is not what we need, but what is realistic in getting those needs filled.

There are serious extant limitations for football.e.g., narrowness in recruiting because of academic requirements, lack of historic success, too frequent turnover in coaches, etc. etc.

All of which has limited who would come here to coach. We are not going to get a nick saban.

I see significantly more plusses in Wilcox than negatives especially when factoring in what is reality right now. That the players buy in, don't give up, understand the many values of playing FB @ an academic institution like Cal, respond to adversity, and extol what is a one for all mentality, is big for me. But that is just me.



First of all, the academic issue is absolute bull****. Stanford has commitments from 22 players, including 8 four stars and currently ranks 11th in the country. Cal has commitments from 10 players, including zero four stars and ranks 65th in the country. Source: 247 Sports. Note: I understand the size of a class varies due to availability of scholarships. However, the quality is something that shouldn't vary. It should always be stellar.

There is absolutely no reason that Cal cannot sign a Top 20 class every year, occasionally breaking into the Top Ten depending on the strength of the California-based class. If Stanford can sign a strong class, so can Cal. Period.

Historic success, particularly in the recent past, is a very big hurdle. That can be addressed by finding a "pied piper" type of recruit. Russell White is an excellent example of a recruit who caused others to think, "why not?" He led a resurgence of Cal football.

Turnover of coaches - absolutely an issue. Cal has long been known as the "graveyard of coaches". The key is hiring a guy who wants to be at Cal, understands the relationship of athletics to other departments within the campus community, and is an able coach.

While I have some significant concerns about Wilcox, I fully support bringing him back next year. My biggest concerns are whether he can bring in the talent necessary to compete for a conference championship and whether he can hire assistants who are capable of executing a complex game plan and motivating players to reach their maximum potential, this means hiring from a pool that includes only young, innovative coaches (retreads need not apply). At this time, I would not consider extending his contract. If he can produce an eight win season in 2022, that will be a very good sign given the talent that will be available.


Academic restrictions are real and impact the recruiting pool Cal can go after - its a simple fact. There are VERY few exceptions made for a sub 3.0 Gpa and those include a gaunlet for the prospective student/athlete to go thru (including facing a panel of administrators/professor/compliance/AD etc to address potential academic course load concerns etc). Yes that Stanford pulls in high level Student athletes and that is the sole exception (relative to competitive D1 programs) Stanford is simply a different playing field in many ways. Cal very rarely wins out head to head regardless of the situation. The other issues not mentioned where Cal is woefully behind the Top 25 schools and the majority of conference members, is housing ( difficult to find close to campus - 10 players housed 15 minutes away off campus and in tough areas due to lower cost. Overall quality of housing is below average and very expensive for a schlorship player receiving $1700/month - the basketball model for Cal is unique (in that a few passionate alums stepped up to provide quality close to campus housing at a affordable cost). Second issue is the salaries for All of the assistants and Especially the lower level assistant recruiting/strength/support coaches, is extremely low relative to our conference members. IE SC pays $175k to a support coach that Cal for the same position, is able to pay just $75K to. Yes there recently was 8 generous Bear Backers who have put together an annual bump of $250K (each of next 3 seasons) toward the Assistant coaches pool and that helps certainly - but again the delta between Cal and the majority of schools is much greater than is commonly known.
Thank you for posting the usual laundry list of excuses.

In fact, from an academic perspective, there are a number of very strong public and private universities that have successfully paired their academic prowess with equally strong athletic programs. Anyone who cites academics as a problem for Cal's athletic program is just making excuses.



So the reason we have been to so many Rose Bowls in the last fifty years is it is easy to win at Cal and there are no excuses for not winning? Every single coach we hired was a bum apparently and we never picked anybody good?
NVBear78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearGoggles said:

71Bear said:

4thGenCal said:

71Bear said:

3146gabby said:



As to all 3 communities - optimists, pessimists, realists - it always seems a zero sum game in the analysis.

Reality is not what we need, but what is realistic in getting those needs filled.

There are serious extant limitations for football.e.g., narrowness in recruiting because of academic requirements, lack of historic success, too frequent turnover in coaches, etc. etc.

All of which has limited who would come here to coach. We are not going to get a nick saban.

I see significantly more plusses in Wilcox than negatives especially when factoring in what is reality right now. That the players buy in, don't give up, understand the many values of playing FB @ an academic institution like Cal, respond to adversity, and extol what is a one for all mentality, is big for me. But that is just me.



First of all, the academic issue is absolute bull****. Stanford has commitments from 22 players, including 8 four stars and currently ranks 11th in the country. Cal has commitments from 10 players, including zero four stars and ranks 65th in the country. Source: 247 Sports. Note: I understand the size of a class varies due to availability of scholarships. However, the quality is something that shouldn't vary. It should always be stellar.

There is absolutely no reason that Cal cannot sign a Top 20 class every year, occasionally breaking into the Top Ten depending on the strength of the California-based class. If Stanford can sign a strong class, so can Cal. Period.

Historic success, particularly in the recent past, is a very big hurdle. That can be addressed by finding a "pied piper" type of recruit. Russell White is an excellent example of a recruit who caused others to think, "why not?" He led a resurgence of Cal football.

Turnover of coaches - absolutely an issue. Cal has long been known as the "graveyard of coaches". The key is hiring a guy who wants to be at Cal, understands the relationship of athletics to other departments within the campus community, and is an able coach.

While I have some significant concerns about Wilcox, I fully support bringing him back next year. My biggest concerns are whether he can bring in the talent necessary to compete for a conference championship and whether he can hire assistants who are capable of executing a complex game plan and motivating players to reach their maximum potential, this means hiring from a pool that includes only young, innovative coaches (retreads need not apply). At this time, I would not consider extending his contract. If he can produce an eight win season in 2022, that will be a very good sign given the talent that will be available.


Academic restrictions are real and impact the recruiting pool Cal can go after - its a simple fact. There are VERY few exceptions made for a sub 3.0 Gpa and those include a gaunlet for the prospective student/athlete to go thru (including facing a panel of administrators/professor/compliance/AD etc to address potential academic course load concerns etc). Yes that Stanford pulls in high level Student athletes and that is the sole exception (relative to competitive D1 programs) Stanford is simply a different playing field in many ways. Cal very rarely wins out head to head regardless of the situation. The other issues not mentioned where Cal is woefully behind the Top 25 schools and the majority of conference members, is housing ( difficult to find close to campus - 10 players housed 15 minutes away off campus and in tough areas due to lower cost. Overall quality of housing is below average and very expensive for a schlorship player receiving $1700/month - the basketball model for Cal is unique (in that a few passionate alums stepped up to provide quality close to campus housing at a affordable cost). Second issue is the salaries for All of the assistants and Especially the lower level assistant recruiting/strength/support coaches, is extremely low relative to our conference members. IE SC pays $175k to a support coach that Cal for the same position, is able to pay just $75K to. Yes there recently was 8 generous Bear Backers who have put together an annual bump of $250K (each of next 3 seasons) toward the Assistant coaches pool and that helps certainly - but again the delta between Cal and the majority of schools is much greater than is commonly known.
Thank you for posting the usual laundry list of excuses.

In fact, from an academic perspective, there are a number of very strong public and private universities that have successfully paired their academic prowess with equally strong athletic programs. Anyone who cites academics as a problem for Cal's athletic program is just making excuses.



Aren't you the one claiming to be the realist in a different thread? I'm open to the possibility 4thGen is wrong, but you're post doesn't shed any light on why that might be the case.

Saying there are a number of private and public universities with strong academics and athletics is your first departure from reality. Which ones are currently fielding teams in the top 25 for men's hoops or football? Football is Michigan and arguably Notre Dame. Basketball, where it's easier to field a strong team, it is UCLA, Duke, and maybe Purdue. So out of all the academically oriented public schools, there are 2-3 doing it well.

As a public institution, Cal cannot offer many of the things a private academically oriented school like Furd or Duke offers. And let's face it, how many other academic schools are there that are serious about sports (maybe Vanderbilt and Notre Dame?).

Cal athletes are not coddled and don't attend school at a place where grade inflation ensures the worst grade is a B. Cal athletes simply aren't offered the same benefits as those private schools - exactly the issues 4thgen pointed out. And Cal doesn't offer the same name cache and alumni network either.

What are Cal's peer institutions doing? I think Michigan and UCLA are the model. They are the only academic public school consistently doing well in the major sports (maybe Virginia too in hoops?). They throw big dollars at Football and, more relevantly, make MAJOR accommodations in recruiting to football and men's basketball admissions. Why isn't Cal doing that?

At Cal, it isn't just the academics. It the tough academics, combined with admissions policies that are more difficult than its peer institutions (UCLA and Michigan) and then when the athletes get to Cal, they lack many of the benefits they would have elsewhere.

Those are the things 4thgen is pointing to. They can be overcome - but denying they exist is not being a realist and, more importantly, ensures the issues will not be overcome.
spot on
PtownBear1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

PtownBear1 said:

calumnus said:

4thGenCal said:

71Bear said:

3146gabby said:



As to all 3 communities - optimists, pessimists, realists - it always seems a zero sum game in the analysis.

Reality is not what we need, but what is realistic in getting those needs filled.

There are serious extant limitations for football.e.g., narrowness in recruiting because of academic requirements, lack of historic success, too frequent turnover in coaches, etc. etc.

All of which has limited who would come here to coach. We are not going to get a nick saban.

I see significantly more plusses in Wilcox than negatives especially when factoring in what is reality right now. That the players buy in, don't give up, understand the many values of playing FB @ an academic institution like Cal, respond to adversity, and extol what is a one for all mentality, is big for me. But that is just me.



First of all, the academic issue is absolute bull****. Stanford has commitments from 22 players, including 8 four stars and currently ranks 11th in the country. Cal has commitments from 10 players, including zero four stars and ranks 65th in the country. Source: 247 Sports. Note: I understand the size of a class varies due to availability of scholarships. However, the quality is something that shouldn't vary. It should always be stellar.

There is absolutely no reason that Cal cannot sign a Top 20 class every year, occasionally breaking into the Top Ten depending on the strength of the California-based class. If Stanford can sign a strong class, so can Cal. Period.

Historic success, particularly in the recent past, is a very big hurdle. That can be addressed by finding a "pied piper" type of recruit. Russell White is an excellent example of a recruit who caused others to think, "why not?" He led a resurgence of Cal football.

Turnover of coaches - absolutely an issue. Cal has long been known as the "graveyard of coaches". The key is hiring a guy who wants to be at Cal, understands the relationship of athletics to other departments within the campus community, and is an able coach.

While I have some significant concerns about Wilcox, I fully support bringing him back next year. My biggest concerns are whether he can bring in the talent necessary to compete for a conference championship and whether he can hire assistants who are capable of executing a complex game plan and motivating players to reach their maximum potential, this means hiring from a pool that includes only young, innovative coaches (retreads need not apply). At this time, I would not consider extending his contract. If he can produce an eight win season in 2022, that will be a very good sign given the talent that will be available.


Academic restrictions are real and impact the recruiting pool Cal can go after - its a simple fact. There are VERY few exceptions made for a sub 3.0 Gpa and those include a gaunlet for the prospective student/athlete to go thru (including facing a panel of administrators/professor/compliance/AD etc to address potential academic course load concerns etc). Yes that Stanford pulls in high level Student athletes and that is the sole exception (relative to competitive D1 programs) Stanford is simply a different playing field in many ways. Cal very rarely wins out head to head regardless of the situation. The other issues not mentioned where Cal is woefully behind the Top 25 schools and the majority of conference members, is housing ( difficult to find close to campus - 10 players housed 15 minutes away off campus and in tough areas due to lower cost. Overall quality of housing is below average and very expensive for a schlorship player receiving $1700/month - the basketball model for Cal is unique (in that a few passionate alums stepped up to provide quality close to campus housing at a affordable cost). Second issue is the salaries for All of the assistants and Especially the lower level assistant recruiting/strength/support coaches, is extremely low relative to our conference members. IE SC pays $175k to a support coach that Cal for the same position, is able to pay just $75K to. Yes there recently was 8 generous Bear Backers who have put together an annual bump of $250K (each of next 3 seasons) toward the Assistant coaches pool and that helps certainly - but again the delta between Cal and the majority of schools is much greater than is commonly known.


Randy Bennet makes about $600,000 last I saw. What do his assistants make? What are the housing and rent costs in Moraga? Which players at St. Mary's could not get into Cal?

Just 5 years ago Cal basketball went undefeated at Haas with 3 McDonald's All Americans on the team, got a 4 seed and finished the season ranked. So it is possible. What about Cal has changed since then?


A competent AD was replaced by Mike Williams and then Jim Knowlton.


People here hated Sandy Barbour, especially after she fired Tedford and hired Dykes.


Well I disagree with people here then, and the relative results in FB and BB speak for themselves.
Golden One
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NVBear78 said:

71Bear said:

4thGenCal said:

71Bear said:

3146gabby said:



As to all 3 communities - optimists, pessimists, realists - it always seems a zero sum game in the analysis.

Reality is not what we need, but what is realistic in getting those needs filled.

There are serious extant limitations for football.e.g., narrowness in recruiting because of academic requirements, lack of historic success, too frequent turnover in coaches, etc. etc.

All of which has limited who would come here to coach. We are not going to get a nick saban.

I see significantly more plusses in Wilcox than negatives especially when factoring in what is reality right now. That the players buy in, don't give up, understand the many values of playing FB @ an academic institution like Cal, respond to adversity, and extol what is a one for all mentality, is big for me. But that is just me.



First of all, the academic issue is absolute bull****. Stanford has commitments from 22 players, including 8 four stars and currently ranks 11th in the country. Cal has commitments from 10 players, including zero four stars and ranks 65th in the country. Source: 247 Sports. Note: I understand the size of a class varies due to availability of scholarships. However, the quality is something that shouldn't vary. It should always be stellar.

There is absolutely no reason that Cal cannot sign a Top 20 class every year, occasionally breaking into the Top Ten depending on the strength of the California-based class. If Stanford can sign a strong class, so can Cal. Period.

Historic success, particularly in the recent past, is a very big hurdle. That can be addressed by finding a "pied piper" type of recruit. Russell White is an excellent example of a recruit who caused others to think, "why not?" He led a resurgence of Cal football.

Turnover of coaches - absolutely an issue. Cal has long been known as the "graveyard of coaches". The key is hiring a guy who wants to be at Cal, understands the relationship of athletics to other departments within the campus community, and is an able coach.

While I have some significant concerns about Wilcox, I fully support bringing him back next year. My biggest concerns are whether he can bring in the talent necessary to compete for a conference championship and whether he can hire assistants who are capable of executing a complex game plan and motivating players to reach their maximum potential, this means hiring from a pool that includes only young, innovative coaches (retreads need not apply). At this time, I would not consider extending his contract. If he can produce an eight win season in 2022, that will be a very good sign given the talent that will be available.


Academic restrictions are real and impact the recruiting pool Cal can go after - its a simple fact. There are VERY few exceptions made for a sub 3.0 Gpa and those include a gaunlet for the prospective student/athlete to go thru (including facing a panel of administrators/professor/compliance/AD etc to address potential academic course load concerns etc). Yes that Stanford pulls in high level Student athletes and that is the sole exception (relative to competitive D1 programs) Stanford is simply a different playing field in many ways. Cal very rarely wins out head to head regardless of the situation. The other issues not mentioned where Cal is woefully behind the Top 25 schools and the majority of conference members, is housing ( difficult to find close to campus - 10 players housed 15 minutes away off campus and in tough areas due to lower cost. Overall quality of housing is below average and very expensive for a schlorship player receiving $1700/month - the basketball model for Cal is unique (in that a few passionate alums stepped up to provide quality close to campus housing at a affordable cost). Second issue is the salaries for All of the assistants and Especially the lower level assistant recruiting/strength/support coaches, is extremely low relative to our conference members. IE SC pays $175k to a support coach that Cal for the same position, is able to pay just $75K to. Yes there recently was 8 generous Bear Backers who have put together an annual bump of $250K (each of next 3 seasons) toward the Assistant coaches pool and that helps certainly - but again the delta between Cal and the majority of schools is much greater than is commonly known.
Thank you for posting the usual laundry list of excuses.

In fact, from an academic perspective, there are a number of very strong public and private universities that have successfully paired their academic prowess with equally strong athletic programs. Anyone who cites academics as a problem for Cal's athletic program is just making excuses.



So the reason we have been to so many Rose Bowls in the last fifty years is it is easy to win at Cal and there are no excuses for not winning? Every single coach we hired was a bum apparently and we never picked anybody good?
Tedford was good, until he wasn't.
TomBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's getting late. I just got home from the Bay Area (game) and I want to go to sleep.

So, I admit to writing this without having read all the posts here.

But one thing that is very important that I didn't see mentioned earlier is that it isn't just that the team seems to believe in Wilcox and appears to play well for him (especially noticeable at the end of the season when they didn't just give up on winning).

Wilcox appears to be a man of character. He is briniging in young men of character. And......they have chemistry. If you harken back to the remarks of almost every recruit he signed in the last year, somewhere in the comments they said something about the culture, or the fact that the Cal team was like family. Chemistry is important to a team. It enhances the chances for success because players truly do play for each other because they enjoy and care about each other.

Wilcox seems to understand that, as evidenced by the remarks of committed recruits.

And that is a point that has been mentioned by many commentators on both television and radio.

Yes, it's been a slow process. But things that come fast sometimes collapse just as fast. Things that develop slowly often having staying power.

I'm willing to be patient. I think Wilcox is on to something. If the recent fiasco with UHS and COB can be minimized, and if Wilcox can continue to recruit the kind of players he's been getting, I think this program can succeed regardless of the number of stars associated with recruits.

Remember, Wisconsin and Northwestern don't get a lot of 5 stars either. But they play competitive ball pretty consistently. Once in a while they break through and win or challenge for B10 championships.

I would be OK with that kind of success. Teams/players that rep well, play hard, and challenge more often than not is fine with me. I don't wish to be Oregon, $C or Ohio State. I do want to be better than we've been, and I think we're on the road to that. And I'm ok with the direction I think we're headed, UHS and COB notwithstanding.
GMP
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal Strong! said:

The players said the same things about Tedford and Dykes. What sort of player would be dumb enough to slam their current coach in the media?


First of all, that's not true about Dykes. There was a lot of player unhappiness bubbling to the surface in public stories and tweets. With Tedford even, you saw teams completely give up - like that last season in a November game against Oregon State.

Second, when things are bad, you see stories like this:

https://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/article/hawaii-football-troubles-under-coach-todd-graham-16670501.php

It seems pretty safe to say that the vast majority of the current players like Wilcox and staff.

Larno
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

KoreAmBear said:

calumnus said:

Cal Strong! said:

The players said the same things about Tedford and Dykes. What sort of player would be dumb enough to slam their current coach in the media?


And Gilbertson and Holmoe. The disgruntled players keep it private, at least until they transfer or graduate.

However, I have no doubt that Wilcox is personally liked by the vast majority of the players. He seems like a very like-able person, and not all coaches are.


Well here's one (gone a while ago) that doesn't like Wilcox. Loyal to Sonny?





Yes, seems like Vic Enwere and Tre Watson too, though their tweets are more cryptic, so it is not clear if it was Wilcox or Baldwin they had issues with.
There are always going to be somewhat disgruntled players on every team and most don't speak out.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NVBear78 said:

71Bear said:

4thGenCal said:

71Bear said:

3146gabby said:



As to all 3 communities - optimists, pessimists, realists - it always seems a zero sum game in the analysis.

Reality is not what we need, but what is realistic in getting those needs filled.

There are serious extant limitations for football.e.g., narrowness in recruiting because of academic requirements, lack of historic success, too frequent turnover in coaches, etc. etc.

All of which has limited who would come here to coach. We are not going to get a nick saban.

I see significantly more plusses in Wilcox than negatives especially when factoring in what is reality right now. That the players buy in, don't give up, understand the many values of playing FB @ an academic institution like Cal, respond to adversity, and extol what is a one for all mentality, is big for me. But that is just me.



First of all, the academic issue is absolute bull****. Stanford has commitments from 22 players, including 8 four stars and currently ranks 11th in the country. Cal has commitments from 10 players, including zero four stars and ranks 65th in the country. Source: 247 Sports. Note: I understand the size of a class varies due to availability of scholarships. However, the quality is something that shouldn't vary. It should always be stellar.

There is absolutely no reason that Cal cannot sign a Top 20 class every year, occasionally breaking into the Top Ten depending on the strength of the California-based class. If Stanford can sign a strong class, so can Cal. Period.

Historic success, particularly in the recent past, is a very big hurdle. That can be addressed by finding a "pied piper" type of recruit. Russell White is an excellent example of a recruit who caused others to think, "why not?" He led a resurgence of Cal football.

Turnover of coaches - absolutely an issue. Cal has long been known as the "graveyard of coaches". The key is hiring a guy who wants to be at Cal, understands the relationship of athletics to other departments within the campus community, and is an able coach.

While I have some significant concerns about Wilcox, I fully support bringing him back next year. My biggest concerns are whether he can bring in the talent necessary to compete for a conference championship and whether he can hire assistants who are capable of executing a complex game plan and motivating players to reach their maximum potential, this means hiring from a pool that includes only young, innovative coaches (retreads need not apply). At this time, I would not consider extending his contract. If he can produce an eight win season in 2022, that will be a very good sign given the talent that will be available.


Academic restrictions are real and impact the recruiting pool Cal can go after - its a simple fact. There are VERY few exceptions made for a sub 3.0 Gpa and those include a gaunlet for the prospective student/athlete to go thru (including facing a panel of administrators/professor/compliance/AD etc to address potential academic course load concerns etc). Yes that Stanford pulls in high level Student athletes and that is the sole exception (relative to competitive D1 programs) Stanford is simply a different playing field in many ways. Cal very rarely wins out head to head regardless of the situation. The other issues not mentioned where Cal is woefully behind the Top 25 schools and the majority of conference members, is housing ( difficult to find close to campus - 10 players housed 15 minutes away off campus and in tough areas due to lower cost. Overall quality of housing is below average and very expensive for a schlorship player receiving $1700/month - the basketball model for Cal is unique (in that a few passionate alums stepped up to provide quality close to campus housing at a affordable cost). Second issue is the salaries for All of the assistants and Especially the lower level assistant recruiting/strength/support coaches, is extremely low relative to our conference members. IE SC pays $175k to a support coach that Cal for the same position, is able to pay just $75K to. Yes there recently was 8 generous Bear Backers who have put together an annual bump of $250K (each of next 3 seasons) toward the Assistant coaches pool and that helps certainly - but again the delta between Cal and the majority of schools is much greater than is commonly known.
Thank you for posting the usual laundry list of excuses.

In fact, from an academic perspective, there are a number of very strong public and private universities that have successfully paired their academic prowess with equally strong athletic programs. Anyone who cites academics as a problem for Cal's athletic program is just making excuses.



So the reason we have been to so many Rose Bowls in the last fifty years is it is easy to win at Cal and there are no excuses for not winning? Every single coach we hired was a bum apparently and we never picked anybody good?


Mike White almost got us to a Rose Bowl and would have eventually, but he was fired (presumably for cheating). He then got Illinois to a Rose Bowl.

Bruce Snyder almost got Cal to a Rose Bowl and would have if we retained him, but we let him go to ASU where he then got them to a Rose Bowl.

We probably would have gotten there if we just promoted his OC Mariucci, but we hired Keith Gilbertson instead.

Jeff Tedford got us to #2 in the country according to Sagarin in only his 3rd year, normally easily a Rose Bowl if USC is not #1 and undefeated. He almost got there in 2006 too. And if we had in either year more would have followed.

So the main reason we have not gone to a Rose Bowl over the last 50 years is: 1) not retaining two good coaches who would have taken us there, 2) some bad luck/bad timing and football mistakes under a third and 3) bad coaching hires in Theder, Kapp, Gilberson, Holmoe, Dykes and Wilcox.

It is very simple. We can challenge for championships with good coaches, we can be bad with bad coaches and be mediocre with mediocre coaches.

However, whenever we have bad or mediocre coaches we prolong their stay longer than they would be allowed to stay elsewhere because plenty of people buy into the excuse that it "is impossible to win at Cal."
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.