GMP 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?

---

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.

---

I don't think Dykes ever regained his stature with the players after the Ted Agu tragedy. I could be mistaken, but I think that is a major source the current unhappiness for some of the players of that era (Enwere and others).

Wilcox has built a strong culture. They players respect him and feel respected. They play HARD and never give up. And off the field, they seem to comport themselves in a way that reflects positively on the university. Both the coaching staff and players deserve a ton of credit.

If only Cal more consistently played to its full potential and won more regularly. At this point, they have to hope the culture attracts better talent.

BearGoggles said:

---

GMP 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?

---

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.

---

I don't think Dykes ever regained his stature with the players after the Ted Agu tragedy. I could be mistaken, but I think that is a major source the current unhappiness for some of the players of that era (Enwere and others).

Wilcox has built a strong culture. They players respect him and feel respected. They play HARD and never give up. And off the field, they seem to comport themselves in a way that reflects positively on the university. Both the coaching staff and players deserve a ton of credit.

If only Cal more consistently played to its full potential and won more regularly. At this point, they have to hope the culture attracts better talent.

---

Vic Enwere lost playing time to Patrick Laird when Wilcox took over. That could be a source of discontentment when one perceives it as not being fair.

71Bear said:

---

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.

---

Here are the Top Ten FBS schools that are listed among the Top 35 overall (regardless of the Athletic Division in which they compete) in both the Directors Cup and the USNews Academic ranking:

(in no particular order…)

Stanford (private)
Michigan (public)
North Carolina (public)
Florida (public)
USC (private)
Virginia (public)
UCLA (public)
Notre Dame (private)
Duke (private)
Northwestern (private)

As I stated in my post…

"There are a number of very strong public and private universities that have successfully paired their academic prowess with equally strong athletic programs".

Cal is certainly an equal in the classroom to all these schools. However, the Bears' athletic program is lagging. Heck, I would be quite happy if Cal was as successful athletically as any of these programs. Unfortunately, the Bears' program is behind all ten of them.

More specifically, on the football field, Cal does not consistently measure up to seven of the ten listed above (excl. Northwestern, Duke and UVa). There is no excuse. Cal should be competitive with the other seven. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the reality that, given the academic support provided to athletes, Cal is no more difficult to navigate than the other seven.

In essence, I believe that Cal can consistently compete with their peers IF they determine they want to compete. If the Administration determines that they do not want to field a championship-level football program, the university should stop wasting resources and close down the program.

---

By "the Administration" we are talking Knowlton and his boss Christ? Knowlton put up with a horrible basketball program in his brief stint at Air Force and made no changes. He almost kept Jones another year. He then hired a search firm, looked at Fox's .500 record and two one and dones in 9 years at Georgia and hoped he could replicate that here.

As for Christ, we had the worst year i can remember in football, men's and women's basketball and she gave Knowlton an 8 year extension.

They will care as it continues to erode the bottom line, but blame will be placed elsewhere. The problem is, even if they want to win I have no faith they have any competency in achieving that aim.

The only hope I see is if a powerful donor or donors assert their power and bankroll change. Unfortunately what I've seen of the donor insiders is they gladly join in the excuse making for losing, believing the malarkey that winning at Cal is impossible, or at least without giving more money to "The Administration" and maybe building more buildings. I'm not sure an aggressive booster would be tolerated.

Cal Strong! said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

GMP 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?

---

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.

---

I don't think Dykes ever regained his stature with the players after the Ted Agu tragedy. I could be mistaken, but I think that is a major source the current unhappiness for some of the players of that era (Enwere and others).

Wilcox has built a strong culture. They players respect him and feel respected. They play HARD and never give up. And off the field, they seem to comport themselves in a way that reflects positively on the university. Both the coaching staff and players deserve a ton of credit.

If only Cal more consistently played to its full potential and won more regularly. At this point, they have to hope the culture attracts better talent.

---

If the culture so strong as compared to cultures under other coaches, why did/do so many players transfer?

If the culture so strong, why it consistently produce a losing record?

Either you looking at this through rose-colored goggles, or, alternatively, culture no really matter all that much.

---

This is how dumb you sound, FYI.

calumnus said:

---

71Bear said:

---

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.

---

Here are the Top Ten FBS schools that are listed among the Top 35 overall (regardless of the Athletic Division in which they compete) in both the Directors Cup and the USNews Academic ranking:

(in no particular order…)

Stanford (private)
Michigan (public)
North Carolina (public)
Florida (public)
USC (private)
Virginia (public)
UCLA (public)
Notre Dame (private)
Duke (private)
Northwestern (private)

As I stated in my post…

"There are a number of very strong public and private universities that have successfully paired their academic prowess with equally strong athletic programs".

Cal is certainly an equal in the classroom to all these schools. However, the Bears' athletic program is lagging. Heck, I would be quite happy if Cal was as successful athletically as any of these programs. Unfortunately, the Bears' program is behind all ten of them.

More specifically, on the football field, Cal does not consistently measure up to seven of the ten listed above (excl. Northwestern, Duke and UVa). There is no excuse. Cal should be competitive with the other seven. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the reality that, given the academic support provided to athletes, Cal is no more difficult to navigate than the other seven.

In essence, I believe that Cal can consistently compete with their peers IF they determine they want to compete. If the Administration determines that they do not want to field a championship-level football program, the university should stop wasting resources and close down the program.

---

By "the Administration" we are talking Knowlton and his boss Christ? Knowlton put up with a horrible basketball program in his brief stint at Air Force and made no changes. He almost kept Jones another year. He then hired a search firm, looked at Fox's .500 record and two one and dones in 9 years at Georgia and hoped he could replicate that here.

As for Christ, we had the worst year i can remember in football, men's and women's basketball and she gave Knowlton an 8 year extension.

They will care as it continues to erode the bottom line, but blame will be placed elsewhere. The problem is, even if they want to win I have no faith they have any competency in achieving that aim.

The only hope I see is if a powerful donor or donors assert their power and bankroll change. Unfortunately what I've seen of the donor insiders is they gladly join in the excuse making for losing, believing the malarkey that winning at Cal is impossible, or at least without giving more money to "The Administration" and maybe building more buildings. I'm not sure an aggressive booster would be tolerated.

---

Calumnus enjoy your detailed and historical perspective especially on the bball front. Point of disagreement toward the notion that Cal "should be" competitive with ND, Florida, Michigan,USC (heck even the donor levels at NC are far greater than Cal). "Money does not talk, it Shouts"". Simply the fact/impact. The gap of Coaches/ assistants/strength/conditioning/support personell /recruiting budget is Huge (2-3X minimum and with lower cost of living as well - Stanford has their key coaches housing costs covered) and then those schools above, do have easier admission standards - again confirmed. Heck most posters here have no idea how Duke gets in marginal academic players with every class (separate agreed upon arrangement between Coach K and the Chancellor to admit one per class that does not meet the standard admission bar there- which means a team roster usually has 3 players minimum) Agreed on having more donors step up - we don't. A lot of fans/alums who critisize freely (and in many cases valid) but the vast majority of those comments are not from those putting their money toward Football and Basketball. Recently as stated, a group of us did put forth monies toward a 3 year commitment to help with Football salaries/support coaches etc, but it is not easy to get the funds earmarked as designated.- though we were successful. Donor's want Cal to win and it galls me deeply that we have not been able to be a consistent top half of conf contender in both of the major sports. Bball is woefully behind all but 4 D1 schools by not having a practice facility (that is a Huge recruiting detriment) but the approval to draw up plans, has been given by the Chancellor after passing all of the campus related approvals needed. Within the year there will be a campaign to raise funds so this needed facility can be built - hopefully those that decry the program are loyal toward their school and donate whatever amount they can comfortably do. Heck we can't take it to our grave and family members/other personal causes should be helped certainly, but hopefully supporters will believe that they are absolutely hugely helping their university by contributing needed funds.

I started this mess, altho not a new one on this board.

I have practiced law for 40+ years and so try to be logical [I have no illusion about our profession; my own experience is only with civil rights attorneys, a terrific lot...] but yes I digress...

Putting aside whether Wilcox is or is not the right guy, we know it is highly unlikely that the next coach is going to come from the upper tier of coaches...Therefore the only way to judge Wilcox is not simply on his record but the likely alternative.

With a full analysis of the +/- of Wilcox and given the alternatives, I have little faith it would be significantly better. But it could be worse or at least back to square one and with someone no more likely to move us forward than Wilcox.

Wilcox has built something, albeit short of what we dream it to be....I see no realistic alternative....

71Bear said:

---

3146gabby said:

---

I started this mess, altho not a new one on this board.

I have practiced law for 40+ years and so try to be logical [I have no illusion about our profession; my own experience is only with civil rights attorneys, a terrific lot...] but yes I digress...

Putting aside whether Wilcox is or is not the right guy, we know it is highly unlikely that the next coach is going to come from the upper tier of coaches...Therefore the only way to judge Wilcox is not simply on his record but the likely alternative.

With a full analysis of the +/- of Wilcox and given the alternatives, I have little faith it would be significantly better. But it could be worse or at least back to square one and with someone no more likely to move us forward than Wilcox.

Wilcox has built something, albeit short of what we dream it to be....I see no realistic alternative....

---

I agree there is no realistic alternative (in this hiring cycle).

The #1 issue that people overlook when calling for the ouster of the head coach is "Now what?". You need to have a clear understanding of who is realistically available, whether they are a clear upgrade, and, most importantly, their potential interest level in the job. All that must occur before you take action against the incumbent. I have read a number of posts here that ignore that critical part of the process.

---

"Now what" is that we would have to hire a replacement that has a higher ceiling than Wilcox. It's not reasonable to expect Cal fans to know who all the possibilities are, they're mostly people that we don't think about (lower level head coaches, P5 assistants, perhaps a rabbit out of the hat). As fans we see a lot of what our staff produces and can reasonably judge their effectiveness and potential.

As far as nobody available in this hiring cycle, that seems really far fetched to me. There is not a single coach out there who would take the Cal job in this cycle that has a higher ceiling than Wilcox? Nobody out there at all who in the next year or so will take a P5 head coaching job and within a few years of taking that job will win *gasp* more conference games than they lose?

Look at two of our conference opponents who had arguably weaker programs than we did 15 years ago and are not traditional powers. They went out and found guys who were crushing it in the Pioneer league (Harbaugh) and Colonial league (Chip Kelly) and built themselves into national powerhouses. The next Harbaugh, the next Kelly, the next Urban Meyer, the next etc are out there and would take the Cal job.

And yes, the next coach could be worse. Wilcox does seem to have a floor around 4 or 5 wins (though depending on what happens in offseason he may challenge that floor next year). But so what? If you're in a bad relationship do you stay in it because the next relationship could be worse? Sure they cheat on you and mooch off you financially but maybe the next person would be violent? After all, you can't name the exact person you'd end up in a relationship with if you dump this loser so you should stick it out and maybe if they just change their friend group again they'll stop sleeping around and get a job.

71Bear said:

---

Stanford (private)
Michigan (public)
North Carolina (public)
Florida (public)
USC (private)
Virginia (public)
UCLA (public)
Notre Dame (private)
Duke (private)
Northwestern (private)

---

We could argue about whether these are Cal's peers (I think Florida is not), but let's break it down:

Stanford (private) - Private school with significant advantages over Cal in attracting highest level recruits - including much easier academics once admitted and better housing, facilities, and alumni network. Cal's only potential advantage is to take recruits Furd would not (e.g., Russell White, Marshawn, etc.). Yet Cal is crippling itself by not doing that.

Michigan (public) - We agree, this is the model. And as I pointed out, they have drastically different admissions policies than Cal.

North Carolina (public) - Blueblood in basketball - not a fair comparison exactly. But I think Cal could compete with the right resources (practice facility). Not particularly successful in football. Also, I think we know the admissions/academic requirements for athletes are less stringent.

Florida (public) - Not a peer when it comes to admissions or academic rigor. But successful in athletics for sure (though not as much of late).

USC (private) - Not a peer when it comes to admissions or academic rigor for athletes. Obviously a blueblood program with massive $$ for football. I would argue they underachieve in basketball (but recruit well).

Virginia (public) - A peer institution. Very successful in basketball - not in football (pretty similar to Cal or worse).

UCLA (public) - again - another model. They have drastically different admissions policies than Cal - why?.

Notre Dame (private) - Obviously a blueblood program with massive $$ for football. Lots of advantages in football. In basketball, not particularly successful (but better than Cal).

Duke (private) - A blue blood in basketball, but note that they literally admit anyone Coach K wants. Not successful in football (worse than Cal in recent years).

Northwestern (private) - I think this is probably the real target for Cal - or perhaps Wisconsin. NW is typically a middling team with ups and downs, but every so often they make a rose bowl.

My conclusions as to football and mens basketball:

1. All of the above schools significantly alter admissions requirements for athletes. Even Furd - they are able to attract the best academic recruits who even still would not otherwise be admitted to Furd or Cal absent athletics.

2. Cal handicaps itself by imposing admissions standards that are different than most if not all of these schools. Why?

3. Cal should be able to do better in hoops, where due to roster size it is easier to build an elite team. Lack of financial commitment seems to be the biggest issue, with admissions also playing a part (Cuonzo couldn't get his elite recruits admitted).

4. Cal institutionally needs to do a better job offering athletes the support and amenities they have at peer institutions. This is partly a $$ issue and partly an institutional issue - faculty hostility and refusal to give athletes preferential treatment in some respects. Also this implicates the COB. Bottom line, this needs to come from Christ, but she (and her predecessors) have not shown the backbone to take on the entrenched interests.

5. With the portal, Cal needs to relax admissions policies and find better options for grad transfers. Re grad transfers, this falls on Christ as well.

If this were a private business, compensation of Cal employees and funding of their projects would be tied (in part) to the success of revenue sports. Imagine how quickly that would change entrenched interests at Cal. In essence, that is what happens at UCLA, Michigan, and the other schools where the faculty/admin recognize the importance of football and hoops to the university, both financially and culturally.

It makes no difference who the OC is or what scheme they run if the OL can't consistently BLOCK on RUNS & PASSES. The root cause is the OL folks. Blaming Baldwin, or Musgrave is pointless. Perhaps some of these young guys will develop further over the off-season: Jemtegaard, Rohme, Swinney, Johnson. For our last game, Cal had a walk-on freshman as the 2-deep. That ain't getting it done.

Cal can bring in any OC, or change HC, but nothing is going to change on O unless and until Cal has 8 - 10 serviceable PAC12 offensive linemen. It really isn't that complicated. Cal has a good D and slightly below average STs.

GMP said:

---

This is how dumb you sound, FYI.

---

GMP no know what words mean! He think he make fun of Cal Strong for way he write when Cal Strong pumped up about Cal football. But in strong reality, he really just make fun of himself for no being literate.

Dumb means unable to speak. One cannot "sound" dumb because "dumb" indicate the absence of sound.

GMP posting WEAK today! GMP ILLITERATE today! But Cal not illiterate . . . Cal not weak. Cal know what "dumb" means. Cal no internet pervert.

GMP need to stop being weak . . . stop being illiterate . . . stop being internet pervert!

Be STRONG like Cal . . . be LITERATE like Cal . . . and Cal Strong!

CAL STRONG!!!!

UrsineMaximus said:

---

It makes no difference who the OC is or what scheme they run if the OL can't consistently BLOCK on RUNS & PASSES. The root cause is the OL folks. Blaming Baldwin, or Musgrave is pointless. Perhaps some of these young guys will develop further over the off-season: Jemtegaard, Rohme, Swinney, Johnson. For our last game, Cal had a walk-on freshman as the 2-deep. That ain't getting it done.

Cal can bring in any OC, or change HC, but nothing is going to change on O unless and until Cal has 8 - 10 serviceable PAC12 offensive linemen. It really isn't that complicated. Cal has a good D and slightly below average STs.

---

Who do you think hires an OL coach and works to prioritize OL recruiting?

BearGoggles said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Stanford (private)
Michigan (public)
North Carolina (public)
Florida (public)
USC (private)
Virginia (public)
UCLA (public)
Notre Dame (private)
Duke (private)
Northwestern (private)

---

We could argue about whether these are Cal's peers (I think Florida is not), but let's break it down:

Stanford (private) - Private school with significant advantages over Cal in attracting highest level recruits - including much easier academics once admitted and better housing, facilities, and alumni network. Cal's only potential advantage is to take recruits Furd would not (e.g., Russell White, Marshawn, etc.). Yet Cal is crippling itself by not doing that.

Michigan (public) - We agree, this is the model. And as I pointed out, they have drastically different admissions policies than Cal.

North Carolina (public) - Blueblood in basketball - not a fair comparison exactly. But I think Cal could compete with the right resources (practice facility). Not particularly successful in football. Also, I think we know the admissions/academic requirements for athletes are less stringent.

Florida (public) - Not a peer when it comes to admissions or academic rigor. But successful in athletics for sure (though not as much of late).

USC (private) - Not a peer when it comes to admissions or academic rigor for athletes. Obviously a blueblood program with massive $$ for football. I would argue they underachieve in basketball (but recruit well).

Virginia (public) - A peer institution. Very successful in basketball - not in football (pretty similar to Cal or worse).

UCLA (public) - again - another model. They have drastically different admissions policies than Cal - why?.

Notre Dame (private) - Obviously a blueblood program with massive $$ for football. Lots of advantages in football. In basketball, not particularly successful (but better than Cal).

Duke (private) - A blue blood in basketball, but note that they literally admit anyone Coach K wants. Not successful in football (worse than Cal in recent years).

Northwestern (private) - I think this is probably the real target for Cal - or perhaps Wisconsin. NW is typically a middling team with ups and downs, but every so often they make a rose bowl.

My conclusions as to football and mens basketball:

1. All of the above schools significantly alter admissions requirements for athletes. Even Furd - they are able to attract the best academic recruits who even still would not otherwise be admitted to Furd or Cal absent athletics.

2. Cal handicaps itself by imposing admissions standards that are different than most if not all of these schools. Why?

3. Cal should be able to do better in hoops, where due to roster size it is easier to build an elite team. Lack of financial commitment seems to be the biggest issue, with admissions also playing a part (Cuonzo couldn't get his elite recruits admitted).

4. Cal institutionally needs to do a better job offering athletes the support and amenities they have at peer institutions. This is partly a $$ issue and partly an institutional issue - faculty hostility and refusal to give athletes preferential treatment in some respects. Also this implicates the COB. Bottom line, this needs to come from Christ, but she (and her predecessors) have not shown the backbone to take on the entrenched interests.

5. With the portal, Cal needs to relax admissions policies and find better options for grad transfers. Re grad transfers, this falls on Christ as well.

If this were a private business, compensation of Cal employees and funding of their projects would be tied (in part) to the success of revenue sports. Imagine how quickly that would change entrenched interests at Cal. In essence, that is what happens at UCLA, Michigan, and the other schools where the faculty/admin recognize the importance of football and hoops to the university, both financially and culturally.

---

Excellent post with accurate comments and plan - Chancellor/Administration needs to influence the occasional admission requests from the two major sports HC, for those young men who show promise, are athletically gifted and have shown ability to overcome personal adversity.

calumnus said:

---

4thGenCal said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Stanford (private)
Michigan (public)
North Carolina (public)
Florida (public)
USC (private)
Virginia (public)
UCLA (public)
Notre Dame (private)
Duke (private)
Northwestern (private)

---

We could argue about whether these are Cal's peers (I think Florida is not), but let's break it down:

Stanford (private) - Private school with significant advantages over Cal in attracting highest level recruits - including much easier academics once admitted and better housing, facilities, and alumni network. Cal's only potential advantage is to take recruits Furd would not (e.g., Russell White, Marshawn, etc.). Yet Cal is crippling itself by not doing that.

Michigan (public) - We agree, this is the model. And as I pointed out, they have drastically different admissions policies than Cal.

North Carolina (public) - Blueblood in basketball - not a fair comparison exactly. But I think Cal could compete with the right resources (practice facility). Not particularly successful in football. Also, I think we know the admissions/academic requirements for athletes are less stringent.

Florida (public) - Not a peer when it comes to admissions or academic rigor. But successful in athletics for sure (though not as much of late).

USC (private) - Not a peer when it comes to admissions or academic rigor for athletes. Obviously a blueblood program with massive $$ for football. I would argue they underachieve in basketball (but recruit well).

Virginia (public) - A peer institution. Very successful in basketball - not in football (pretty similar to Cal or worse).

UCLA (public) - again - another model. They have drastically different admissions policies than Cal - why?.

Notre Dame (private) - Obviously a blueblood program with massive $$ for football. Lots of advantages in football. In basketball, not particularly successful (but better than Cal).

Duke (private) - A blue blood in basketball, but note that they literally admit anyone Coach K wants. Not successful in football (worse than Cal in recent years).

Northwestern (private) - I think this is probably the real target for Cal - or perhaps Wisconsin. NW is typically a middling team with ups and downs, but every so often they make a rose bowl.

My conclusions as to football and mens basketball:

1. All of the above schools significantly alter admissions requirements for athletes. Even Furd - they are able to attract the best academic recruits who even still would not otherwise be admitted to Furd or Cal absent athletics.

2. Cal handicaps itself by imposing admissions standards that are different than most if not all of these schools. Why?

3. Cal should be able to do better in hoops, where due to roster size it is easier to build an elite team. Lack of financial commitment seems to be the biggest issue, with admissions also playing a part (Cuonzo couldn't get his elite recruits admitted).

4. Cal institutionally needs to do a better job offering athletes the support and amenities they have at peer institutions. This is partly a $$ issue and partly an institutional issue - faculty hostility and refusal to give athletes preferential treatment in some respects. Also this implicates the COB. Bottom line, this needs to come from Christ, but she (and her predecessors) have not shown the backbone to take on the entrenched interests.

5. With the portal, Cal needs to relax admissions policies and find better options for grad transfers. Re grad transfers, this falls on Christ as well.

If this were a private business, compensation of Cal employees and funding of their projects would be tied (in part) to the success of revenue sports. Imagine how quickly that would change entrenched interests at Cal. In essence, that is what happens at UCLA, Michigan, and the other schools where the faculty/admin recognize the importance of football and hoops to the university, both financially and culturally.

---

Excellent post with accurate comments and plan - Chancellor/Administration needs to influence the occasional admission requests from the two major sports HC, for those young men who show promise, are athletically gifted and have shown ability to overcome personal adversity.

---

We are all in agreement. How to make it happen?

---

Until the Chancellor decides to address the topic, nothing will happen. Given there is no interest on her part to do so, it is really a dead issue.

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Not going to take sides in the Wilcox saga. I don't know whether to keep him or to boot him. I figure we would keep him just because we aren't going to pay his salary.

I will say this. Cal is unique. We are a public university. We are most often the #1 public university in America and the world. But - with that comes standards. With that comes prestige, tradition. Perhaps even an aura. All of that is academic related. And for most alumni - that is where the emphasis lies. And it feeds into my next point: will.

The big difference between all those schools listed and Cal? Will. The desire to be better in sports. And you know what? Its not there. What little will there is to be better comes with a catch: be better in sports on a discount.

I see comparisons about our program with others in the conference and how its unacceptable to be 4th or 5th in the division. But you know what? That's our level. It is. It really is. Because there is no will to be better. Yes the players have desire. Yes the coaches do to. But if we're not recruiting 4-star and up - well, these are a good bunch of kids I'm sure and they're trying their best. But their skill level isn't what it is compared to the powers in the conference.

And I'm sure Wilcox is a good guy and has the players behind him. Great! But if you're not recruiting 4 and 5 star talent, then you better be one hell of a coach to be competitive. I don't know if he's that kind of coach.

So we meander during the season. Our record of 5-7 isn't a surprise to me. Maybe we should be 6-6 because of the Arizona fiasco. But - this is where the team is. And that's where it will stay. We may get lucky with an 8-4 season here or there but that's not an expectation. No way. And there's no turning the corner with this program either. Because there's no will to confirm, celebrate and demand more from the occasional 8-4 record.

So - I'm not sure what all the whining is about. This is Cal football. We love the team, but there's no administrative will to be successful beyond the occasional bid to the Boca Raton Bowl. We shouldn't be surprised at this.

---

First, why would there be "administrative will" to win in major sports? They are not Cal alums, they are not die hard Cal fans. They went to school elsewhere and now work for Cal. Christ's mission is clearly on the academic side (as it should be).

The only reason "the administration" would care about winning is pressure/encouragement from major donors. If Christ thought that winning versus losing would lead to a significant increase in donations, or if she understood that continued losing would become a financial drain on the university, then she would care. Otherwise, winning is just a "nice" thing if you get but not something she is going to worry about. In some ways our unconditional support of the team and program, and excuse making for mediocrity, just lets the administration think the stats quo works.

---

Then why have sports at all? Just end the half pregnant bullcrap. We should play to win and not for a participation trophy.

calbear93 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Not going to take sides in the Wilcox saga. I don't know whether to keep him or to boot him. I figure we would keep him just because we aren't going to pay his salary.

I will say this. Cal is unique. We are a public university. We are most often the #1 public university in America and the world. But - with that comes standards. With that comes prestige, tradition. Perhaps even an aura. All of that is academic related. And for most alumni - that is where the emphasis lies. And it feeds into my next point: will.

The big difference between all those schools listed and Cal? Will. The desire to be better in sports. And you know what? Its not there. What little will there is to be better comes with a catch: be better in sports on a discount.

I see comparisons about our program with others in the conference and how its unacceptable to be 4th or 5th in the division. But you know what? That's our level. It is. It really is. Because there is no will to be better. Yes the players have desire. Yes the coaches do to. But if we're not recruiting 4-star and up - well, these are a good bunch of kids I'm sure and they're trying their best. But their skill level isn't what it is compared to the powers in the conference.

And I'm sure Wilcox is a good guy and has the players behind him. Great! But if you're not recruiting 4 and 5 star talent, then you better be one hell of a coach to be competitive. I don't know if he's that kind of coach.

So we meander during the season. Our record of 5-7 isn't a surprise to me. Maybe we should be 6-6 because of the Arizona fiasco. But - this is where the team is. And that's where it will stay. We may get lucky with an 8-4 season here or there but that's not an expectation. No way. And there's no turning the corner with this program either. Because there's no will to confirm, celebrate and demand more from the occasional 8-4 record.

So - I'm not sure what all the whining is about. This is Cal football. We love the team, but there's no administrative will to be successful beyond the occasional bid to the Boca Raton Bowl. We shouldn't be surprised at this.

---

First, why would there be "administrative will" to win in major sports? They are not Cal alums, they are not die hard Cal fans. They went to school elsewhere and now work for Cal. Christ's mission is clearly on the academic side (as it should be).

The only reason "the administration" would care about winning is pressure/encouragement from major donors. If Christ thought that winning versus losing would lead to a significant increase in donations, or if she understood that continued losing would become a financial drain on the university, then she would care. Otherwise, winning is just a "nice" thing if you get but not something she is going to worry about. In some ways our unconditional support of the team and program, and excuse making for mediocrity, just lets the administration think the stats quo works.

---

Then why have sports at all? Just end the half pregnant bullcrap. We should play to win and not for a participation trophy.

---

You really think Cal sports is for and driven by "the administration"? That is my point. The administrations at Oregon and Stanford were driven to pursue championship level football by alums and major donors. That is the way it works. Academic administrators generally don't suddenly decide they want to pursue championship football without pressure to do so. Waiting for that to happen is futile. It is we, the fans and boosters who need to make change happen.

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Not going to take sides in the Wilcox saga. I don't know whether to keep him or to boot him. I figure we would keep him just because we aren't going to pay his salary.

I will say this. Cal is unique. We are a public university. We are most often the #1 public university in America and the world. But - with that comes standards. With that comes prestige, tradition. Perhaps even an aura. All of that is academic related. And for most alumni - that is where the emphasis lies. And it feeds into my next point: will.

The big difference between all those schools listed and Cal? Will. The desire to be better in sports. And you know what? Its not there. What little will there is to be better comes with a catch: be better in sports on a discount.

I see comparisons about our program with others in the conference and how its unacceptable to be 4th or 5th in the division. But you know what? That's our level. It is. It really is. Because there is no will to be better. Yes the players have desire. Yes the coaches do to. But if we're not recruiting 4-star and up - well, these are a good bunch of kids I'm sure and they're trying their best. But their skill level isn't what it is compared to the powers in the conference.

And I'm sure Wilcox is a good guy and has the players behind him. Great! But if you're not recruiting 4 and 5 star talent, then you better be one hell of a coach to be competitive. I don't know if he's that kind of coach.

So we meander during the season. Our record of 5-7 isn't a surprise to me. Maybe we should be 6-6 because of the Arizona fiasco. But - this is where the team is. And that's where it will stay. We may get lucky with an 8-4 season here or there but that's not an expectation. No way. And there's no turning the corner with this program either. Because there's no will to confirm, celebrate and demand more from the occasional 8-4 record.

So - I'm not sure what all the whining is about. This is Cal football. We love the team, but there's no administrative will to be successful beyond the occasional bid to the Boca Raton Bowl. We shouldn't be surprised at this.

---

First, why would there be "administrative will" to win in major sports? They are not Cal alums, they are not die hard Cal fans. They went to school elsewhere and now work for Cal. Christ's mission is clearly on the academic side (as it should be).

The only reason "the administration" would care about winning is pressure/encouragement from major donors. If Christ thought that winning versus losing would lead to a significant increase in donations, or if she understood that continued losing would become a financial drain on the university, then she would care. Otherwise, winning is just a "nice" thing if you get but not something she is going to worry about. In some ways our unconditional support of the team and program, and excuse making for mediocrity, just lets the administration think the stats quo works.

---

The last sentence in your post sums up the current situation beautifully because it is the unvarnished truth.