There's an interesting discussion going on in reddit\CFB concerning NIL, which opened my eyes.

I had always presumed that NIL would allow athletes to get a share of the wealth that they bring to their school through their talents. You do well on the field, you get a percentage of the sales of jerseys with your name on it, and the use of your image in a video game.

Well, it's that. But it's also an above-board way of paying recruits. Even though Mr High School Big Shot hasn't done anything for State U yet, boosters can set up a perfectly legitimate NIL funding source, to entice him to come to State.

Yes ... I was that naive.

Which leads me to my question: does Cal actually have any boosters willing to play in this new game? (It's not like we were a big player in the old corrupt version.)

The answer is yes and no.

Yes, Cal has boosters who are willing to enter this new arena. Some of them have already done so, including some people associated with this website. I applaud them for their efforts and hope there are more like them in the future; but the answer is also no, we likely don't have boosters who are willing to play the new game as aggressively as boosters from other schools.

We also don't have an administration that's willing to turn over control to boosters. In fact we have the exact opposite. We have an administration that home-grew one of the most aggressive recruiters in the country and responded to his efforts by codifying requirements that would severely limit the effectiveness of anyone trying to emulate his approach now.

The big question is: Would our administration reject highly rated and highly qualified athletes simply because they were being paid large sums for NIL? That has not been tested, although it is absolutely where we should be targeting our efforts. There are actually a lot of high 4 and 5 star kids who have a 3.0+ HS GPA. The problem is they aren't primarily focused on academics because they also have a set of skills that the market will reward generously and quickly if they can make it. No academic degree will pay tens of millions day one out of college. Cal needs to recognize and embrace this reality and we as boosters should organize to use NIL to get as many of these kids as we can to come to Cal.

WalterSobchak said:

---

The big question is: Would our administration reject highly rated and highly qualified athletes simply because they were being paid large sums for NIL? That has not been tested, although it is absolutely where we should be targeting our efforts. There are actually a lot of high 4 and 5 star kids who have a 3.0+ HS GPA.

---

Highly unlikely that is a relevant question.

At every highly selective college, even the Ivies, Stanford, Northwestern, and Notre Dame, a coach in a key sport gets xx picks who are guaranteed admission if they meet minimum requirements, however defined. (And that xx can be a really small number, and will vary by sport: football & hockey get more at Harvard, whereas swimming is expected to bring up their GPA and full payers.) There is no reason to assume that Wilox does not have teh same handful of near-guaranteed admission tips. And since 4* & 5* aren't beating down the doors of Sproul Hall, Wilcox likely has the authority to bring in any 4* or 5* that he can recruit, again, as long as they meet the minimum admission requirement.

OP: A school like Cal certainly does not have the boosters to compete in the NIL race, and therefore for the Rose Bowl. USC, Oregon, UW and UCLA will win nearly every time; the latter is limited by UC admissions, however. (I've been saying that for years, but many/most(?) on BI disagree. Bi'ers seem to believe that being #2 public will be of value to a 5*, but that is wearing blue and gold glasses. As Monty said on the p12 basketball game last week, no high recruits ask about academics anymore. Jaylen Brown's are once in a generation.)

WalterSobchak said:

---

The answer is yes and no.

Yes, Cal has boosters who are willing to enter this new arena. Some of them have already done so, including some people associated with this website. I applaud them for their efforts and hope there are more like them in the future; but the answer is also no, we likely don't have boosters who are willing to play the new game as aggressively as boosters from other schools.

We also don't have an administration that's willing to turn over control to boosters. In fact we have the exact opposite. We have an administration that home-grew one of the most aggressive recruiters in the country and responded to his efforts by codifying requirements that would severely limit the effectiveness of anyone trying to emulate his approach now.

The big question is: Would our administration reject highly rated and highly qualified athletes simply because they were being paid large sums for NIL? That has not been tested, although it is absolutely where we should be targeting our efforts. There are actually a lot of high 4 and 5 star kids who have a 3.0+ HS GPA. The problem is they aren't primarily focused on academics because they also have a set of skills that the market will reward generously and quickly if they can make it. No academic degree will pay tens of millions day one out of college. Cal needs to recognize and embrace this reality and we as boosters should organize to use NIL to get as many of these kids as we can to come to Cal.

---

Maybe JW has had slots for some special 4* and 5* recruits but the must reach some academic grade requirements and they must study when they get here. That will be a big turn-off for the many star recruits who are out there.
That is also a fact of life. That is why we read that most Cal Athletic recruits repeat the mantra that "Cal gets you ready for life after football"
IMO that is a good selling point since that day will come for ALL star recruits, sooner for most, later for a very few.

LOL Cal's not #2 but keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better dog.

WalterSobchak said:

---

LOL Cal's not #2 but keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better dog.

---

The ranking that I follow most for undergrads is USNews and, unfortunately (and most disappointing) UCLA moved ahead of Cal in their ranking a few years ago. Regardless, 4* and 5* players don't care one whit about rankings, which many on BI refuse to accept.

(Surprised that you are unaware of UCLA's rise, or Cal's drop.)

https://www.dailycal.org/2018/09/13/uc-berkeley-ranks-below-ucla-as-2nd-best-public-school-in-us/

GivemTheAxe said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

The answer is yes and no.

Yes, Cal has boosters who are willing to enter this new arena. Some of them have already done so, including some people associated with this website. I applaud them for their efforts and hope there are more like them in the future; but the answer is also no, we likely don't have boosters who are willing to play the new game as aggressively as boosters from other schools.

We also don't have an administration that's willing to turn over control to boosters. In fact we have the exact opposite. We have an administration that home-grew one of the most aggressive recruiters in the country and responded to his efforts by codifying requirements that would severely limit the effectiveness of anyone trying to emulate his approach now.

The big question is: Would our administration reject highly rated and highly qualified athletes simply because they were being paid large sums for NIL? That has not been tested, although it is absolutely where we should be targeting our efforts. There are actually a lot of high 4 and 5 star kids who have a 3.0+ HS GPA. The problem is they aren't primarily focused on academics because they also have a set of skills that the market will reward generously and quickly if they can make it. No academic degree will pay tens of millions day one out of college. Cal needs to recognize and embrace this reality and we as boosters should organize to use NIL to get as many of these kids as we can to come to Cal.

---

Maybe JW has had slots for some special 4* and 5* recruits but the must reach some academic grade requirements and they must study when they get here. That will be a big turn-off for the many star recruits who are out there.
That is also a fact of life. That is why we read that most Cal Athletic recruits repeat the mantra that "Cal gets you ready for life after football"
IMO that is a good selling point since that day will come for ALL star recruits, sooner for most, later for a very few.

---

Right, which is my point. We won't be able to compete for teh Rose Bowl w/o some better talent. 2* & 3* guys just aren't gonna beat 'SC and Oregon.

USNews actually publishes two rankings. Take a look a both.

Personally, I believe the best and most accurate by far college ranking is the one published by Forbes a few months ago :p

GivemTheAxe said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

The answer is yes and no.

Yes, Cal has boosters who are willing to enter this new arena. Some of them have already done so, including some people associated with this website. I applaud them for their efforts and hope there are more like them in the future; but the answer is also no, we likely don't have boosters who are willing to play the new game as aggressively as boosters from other schools.

We also don't have an administration that's willing to turn over control to boosters. In fact we have the exact opposite. We have an administration that home-grew one of the most aggressive recruiters in the country and responded to his efforts by codifying requirements that would severely limit the effectiveness of anyone trying to emulate his approach now.

The big question is: Would our administration reject highly rated and highly qualified athletes simply because they were being paid large sums for NIL? That has not been tested, although it is absolutely where we should be targeting our efforts. There are actually a lot of high 4 and 5 star kids who have a 3.0+ HS GPA. The problem is they aren't primarily focused on academics because they also have a set of skills that the market will reward generously and quickly if they can make it. No academic degree will pay tens of millions day one out of college. Cal needs to recognize and embrace this reality and we as boosters should organize to use NIL to get as many of these kids as we can to come to Cal.

---

Maybe JW has had slots for some special 4* and 5* recruits but the must reach some academic grade requirements and they must study when they get here. That will be a big turn-off for the many star recruits who are out there.
That is also a fact of life. That is why we read that most Cal Athletic recruits repeat the mantra that "Cal gets you ready for life after football"
IMO that is a good selling point since that day will come for ALL star recruits, sooner for most, later for a very few.

---

Yes! Excellent selling point but even more aggressively, it can be asserted that the Cal experience trains you to better succeed at the next level. Cal probably has as high of a success rate of players maximizing their earning potential and careers at the professional as any other college.

This is due to the emotional intelligence that the environment breeds. You are expected to handled your handle your business on and off the field at the next level like a professional. You will be better trained to deal with this by figuring out how to thrive at Cal. The difference here is you will have available help and guidance that will provide support while still requiring you to do it yourself.

Eventually to succeed you will have to be able to perform without all the pampering you received at every level of your experience prior to Cal. Might as well start learning how to juggle it all now while the stakes are lower and you have support and guidance that isn't biased looking at you as some kind of gravytrain.

JSC 76 said:

---

There's an interesting discussion going on in reddit\CFB concerning NIL, which opened my eyes.

I had always presumed that NIL would allow athletes to get a share of the wealth that they bring to their school through their talents. You do well on the field, you get a percentage of the sales of jerseys with your name on it, and the use of your image in a video game.

Well, it's that. But it's also an above-board way of paying recruits. Even though Mr High School Big Shot hasn't done anything for State U yet, boosters can set up a perfectly legitimate NIL funding source, to entice him to come to State.

Yes ... I was that naive.

Which leads me to my question: does Cal actually have any boosters willing to play in this new game? (It's not like we were a big player in the old corrupt version.)

---

There are also deals that are happening because of the brand of the school and/or the brand of the sport, not just because of the support of the boosters.
Had this been around during the Cal time of Missy Franklin, she would have pulled dollars at a level that comparable to a high level football player. Again, relative to her own brand and the Cal swimming brand...

edwinbear said:

---

USNews actually publishes two rankings. Take a look a both.

Personally, I believe the best and most accurate by far college ranking is the one published by Forbes a few months ago :p

---

Yes, I'm aware of USNew's Global Ranking, which is based primarily on research, so a great list for potential PhD students. In contrast, the regular USNews college rankings is based on (supposedly) things that are important to undergrads.

(Love the recent Forbes compilation, but Forbes changes its methodology too frequently for my taste..)

Big Dog said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

USNews actually publishes two rankings. Take a look a both.

Personally, I believe the best and most accurate by far college ranking is the one published by Forbes a few months ago :p

---

Yes, I'm aware of USNew's Global Ranking, which is based primarily on research, so a great list for potential PhD students. In contrast, the regular USNews college rankings is based on (supposedly) things that are important to undergrads.

(Love the recent Forbes compilation, but Forbes changes its methodology too frequently for my taste..)

---

As opposed to USN&WR whose rankings change literally every year and are almost tailor made to knock a school like Cal? Average alumni giving rate? For a school without a medical school you'll never win with a criteria like that in the mix. And "class size index" is 8% of the score? Yeah apologies that Cal is actually trying to meet the demand for it's services by using ultra large lecture halls for it's world leading CS degree. Sorry, not sorry.

I'll also just say you can ask anyone (literally anyone) in Europe or Asia or the Middle East if they'd rather their kid went to Berkeley or UCLA and they'd all say the same thing. "What's a UCLA"?

Cal has challenges, but UCLA talking points cherry picking one 2nd place ranking from one publication doesn't change facts on the ground. Forbes says we're the best school in the world, public or private. I don't think you need to be a master salesperson to sell the value of a Cal degree to a recruit.

Sebastabear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

USNews actually publishes two rankings. Take a look a both.

Personally, I believe the best and most accurate by far college ranking is the one published by Forbes a few months ago :p

---

Yes, I'm aware of USNew's Global Ranking, which is based primarily on research, so a great list for potential PhD students. In contrast, the regular USNews college rankings is based on (supposedly) things that are important to undergrads.

(Love the recent Forbes compilation, but Forbes changes its methodology too frequently for my taste..)

---

As opposed to USN&WR whose rankings change literally every year and are almost tailor made to knock a school like Cal? Average alumni giving rate? For a school without a medical school you'll never win with a criteria like that in the mix. And "class size index" is 8% of the score? Yeah apologies that Cal is actually trying to meet the demand for it's services by using ultra large lecture halls for it's world leading CS degree. Sorry, not sorry.

I'll also just say you can ask anyone (literally anyone) in Europe or Asia or the Middle East if they'd rather their kid went to Berkeley or UCLA and they'd all say the same thing. "What's a UCLA"?

Cal has challenges, but UCLA talking points cherry picking one 2nd place ranking from one publication doesn't change facts on the ground. Forbes says we're the best school in the world, public or private. I don't think you need to be a master salesperson to sell the value of a Cal degree to a recruit.

---

I think this encapsulates the issues. For example, several programs do recruit international players quite well relying on Cal's international rep (unfortunately, men' basketball isn't one for them). None of this applies much to football, where things like program visibility and performance, compensation, etc. drive recruiting of top players. Wilcox is selling academics with his OKG approach, but that is, with few exceptions, a 3 star game. Doesn't mean Cal can't win at that approach either - schools like Wisky have had some success.

In that regard, time to see if SC and Oregon can actually buy some good recruits, in what has become a second tier conference.

Sebastabear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

USNews actually publishes two rankings. Take a look a both.

Personally, I believe the best and most accurate by far college ranking is the one published by Forbes a few months ago :p

---

Yes, I'm aware of USNew's Global Ranking, which is based primarily on research, so a great list for potential PhD students. In contrast, the regular USNews college rankings is based on (supposedly) things that are important to undergrads.

(Love the recent Forbes compilation, but Forbes changes its methodology too frequently for my taste..)

---

As opposed to USN&WR whose rankings change literally every year and are almost tailor made to knock a school like Cal? Average alumni giving rate? For a school without a medical school you'll never win with a criteria like that in the mix. And "class size index" is 8% of the score? Yeah apologies that Cal is actually trying to meet the demand for it's services by using ultra large lecture halls for it's world leading CS degree. Sorry, not sorry.

I'll also just say you can ask anyone (literally anyone) in Europe or Asia or the Middle East if they'd rather their kid went to Berkeley or UCLA and they'd all say the same thing. "What's a UCLA"?

---

I have no doubt that is true, but so what? This is a FOOTBALL thread. Not too many in Europe, Asia or the Middle East have heard of the Rose Bowl either. How many of those aforementioned have heard of NIL? Besides an occasional punter from Down Under, how many 4* & 5* footballers are internationals?

Big Dog said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

USNews actually publishes two rankings. Take a look a both.

Personally, I believe the best and most accurate by far college ranking is the one published by Forbes a few months ago :p

---

Yes, I'm aware of USNew's Global Ranking, which is based primarily on research, so a great list for potential PhD students. In contrast, the regular USNews college rankings is based on (supposedly) things that are important to undergrads.

(Love the recent Forbes compilation, but Forbes changes its methodology too frequently for my taste..)

---

As opposed to USN&WR whose rankings change literally every year and are almost tailor made to knock a school like Cal? Average alumni giving rate? For a school without a medical school you'll never win with a criteria like that in the mix. And "class size index" is 8% of the score? Yeah apologies that Cal is actually trying to meet the demand for it's services by using ultra large lecture halls for it's world leading CS degree. Sorry, not sorry.

I'll also just say you can ask anyone (literally anyone) in Europe or Asia or the Middle East if they'd rather their kid went to Berkeley or UCLA and they'd all say the same thing. "What's a UCLA"?

---

I have no doubt that is true, but so what? This is a FOOTBALL thread. Not too many in Europe, Asia or the Middle East have heard of the Rose Bowl either. How many of those aforementioned have heard of NIL? Besides an occasional punter from Down Under, how many 4* & 5* footballers are internationals?

---

I use Europe et al just to illustrate the point because that's where the Berkeley academic brand over UCLA reaches its apotheosis. But it's the same idea within the U.S. Do you really think if you asked 100 people in Ohio that the majority of them would say UCLA is a better school than Berkeley? Michigan? Texas? Louisiana? My point is that even without getting into the schizophrenic USN&WR analysis, the Berkeley academic brand sells itself. Across the world and across the country. And I'll again say you can't dismiss Forbes ranking (best school in the world) as changing their criteria too frequently when USN&WR does the exact same thing and seems to have worked hard to find criteria specifically disadvantageous to a massive urban public school operating with extreme geographic constraints. Hard to imagine those hitting anyone harder than us.

It is what it is, but let's not pretend that Cal has nothing to sell on the academics. That's simply not true. We do and if we're not doing it well that's on us. But there continue to be great opportunities for us to target academically minded kids over anyone - especially UCLA.

Sebastabear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

USNews actually publishes two rankings. Take a look a both.

Personally, I believe the best and most accurate by far college ranking is the one published by Forbes a few months ago :p

---

Yes, I'm aware of USNew's Global Ranking, which is based primarily on research, so a great list for potential PhD students. In contrast, the regular USNews college rankings is based on (supposedly) things that are important to undergrads.

(Love the recent Forbes compilation, but Forbes changes its methodology too frequently for my taste..)

---

As opposed to USN&WR whose rankings change literally every year and are almost tailor made to knock a school like Cal? Average alumni giving rate? For a school without a medical school you'll never win with a criteria like that in the mix. And "class size index" is 8% of the score? Yeah apologies that Cal is actually trying to meet the demand for it's services by using ultra large lecture halls for it's world leading CS degree. Sorry, not sorry.

I'll also just say you can ask anyone (literally anyone) in Europe or Asia or the Middle East if they'd rather their kid went to Berkeley or UCLA and they'd all say the same thing. "What's a UCLA"?

---

I have no doubt that is true, but so what? This is a FOOTBALL thread. Not too many in Europe, Asia or the Middle East have heard of the Rose Bowl either. How many of those aforementioned have heard of NIL? Besides an occasional punter from Down Under, how many 4* & 5* footballers are internationals?

---

I use Europe et al just to illustrate the point because that's where the Berkeley academic brand over UCLA reaches its apotheosis. But it's the same idea within the U.S. Do you really think if you asked 100 people in Ohio that the majority of them would say UCLA is a better school than Berkeley? Michigan? Texas? Louisiana? My point is that even without getting into the schizophrenic USN&WR analysis, the Berkeley academic brand sells itself. Across the world and across the country. And I'll again say you can't dismiss Forbes ranking (best school in the world) as changing their criteria too frequently when USN&WR does the exact same thing and seems to have worked hard to find criteria specifically disadvantageous to a massive urban public school operating with extreme geographic constraints. Hard to imagine those hitting anyone harder than us.

It is what it is, but let's not pretend that Cal has nothing to sell on the academics. That's simply not true. We do and if we're not doing it well that's on us. But there continue to be great opportunities for us to target academically minded kids over anyone - especially UCLA.

---

"let's not pretend that Cal has nothing to sell on the academics"

Nobody has said any such thing.

"But there continue to be great opportunities for us to target academically minded kids"

Perhaps true, but as even Monty noted on a telecast a week ago, top recruits are not asking about academics. We cannot win the P12 much less a Rose Bowl with 2* & 3* academic minded recruits.

(As an aside, I would suggest that UCLA has more of a sports-culture and alums willing to shell out cash for NIL, but that is pure fact-free opinion.)

Big Dog said:

---

We cannot win the P12 much less a Rose Bowl with 2* & 3* academic minded recruits.

---

Did you actually read what I wrote before you responded to it? Just curious.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

USNews actually publishes two rankings. Take a look a both.

Personally, I believe the best and most accurate by far college ranking is the one published by Forbes a few months ago :p

---

Yes, I'm aware of USNew's Global Ranking, which is based primarily on research, so a great list for potential PhD students. In contrast, the regular USNews college rankings is based on (supposedly) things that are important to undergrads.

(Love the recent Forbes compilation, but Forbes changes its methodology too frequently for my taste..)

---

As opposed to USN&WR whose rankings change literally every year and are almost tailor made to knock a school like Cal? Average alumni giving rate? For a school without a medical school you'll never win with a criteria like that in the mix. And "class size index" is 8% of the score? Yeah apologies that Cal is actually trying to meet the demand for it's services by using ultra large lecture halls for it's world leading CS degree. Sorry, not sorry.

I'll also just say you can ask anyone (literally anyone) in Europe or Asia or the Middle East if they'd rather their kid went to Berkeley or UCLA and they'd all say the same thing. "What's a UCLA"?

Cal has challenges, but UCLA talking points cherry picking one 2nd place ranking from one publication doesn't change facts on the ground. Forbes says we're the best school in the world, public or private. I don't think you need to be a master salesperson to sell the value of a Cal degree to a recruit.

---

I think this encapsulates the issues. For example, several programs do recruit international players quite well relying on Cal's international rep (unfortunately, men' basketball isn't one for them). None of this applies much to football, where things like program visibility and performance, compensation, etc. drive recruiting of top players. Wilcox is selling academics with his OKG approach, but that is, with few exceptions, a 3 star game. Doesn't mean Cal can't win at that approach either - schools like Wisky have had some success.

In that regard, time to see if SC and Oregon can actually buy some good recruits, in what has become a second tier conference.

---

The myth of Wisconsin needs to be addressed . Their recruiting classes are consistently ranked in the Top 30 or 40, the 2021 class was ranked #16, with 1 Five Star and 5 Four Stars.

Over 4 years recruiting like that yiu should be able to have a 4 or 5 star at nearly every position. It is essentially Tedford at his early peak.

They also have had Top 20 offenses as recently as 2018 and 2019.

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

USNews actually publishes two rankings. Take a look a both.

Personally, I believe the best and most accurate by far college ranking is the one published by Forbes a few months ago :p

---

Yes, I'm aware of USNew's Global Ranking, which is based primarily on research, so a great list for potential PhD students. In contrast, the regular USNews college rankings is based on (supposedly) things that are important to undergrads.

(Love the recent Forbes compilation, but Forbes changes its methodology too frequently for my taste..)

---

As opposed to USN&WR whose rankings change literally every year and are almost tailor made to knock a school like Cal? Average alumni giving rate? For a school without a medical school you'll never win with a criteria like that in the mix. And "class size index" is 8% of the score? Yeah apologies that Cal is actually trying to meet the demand for it's services by using ultra large lecture halls for it's world leading CS degree. Sorry, not sorry.

I'll also just say you can ask anyone (literally anyone) in Europe or Asia or the Middle East if they'd rather their kid went to Berkeley or UCLA and they'd all say the same thing. "What's a UCLA"?

Cal has challenges, but UCLA talking points cherry picking one 2nd place ranking from one publication doesn't change facts on the ground. Forbes says we're the best school in the world, public or private. I don't think you need to be a master salesperson to sell the value of a Cal degree to a recruit.

---

I think this encapsulates the issues. For example, several programs do recruit international players quite well relying on Cal's international rep (unfortunately, men' basketball isn't one for them). None of this applies much to football, where things like program visibility and performance, compensation, etc. drive recruiting of top players. Wilcox is selling academics with his OKG approach, but that is, with few exceptions, a 3 star game. Doesn't mean Cal can't win at that approach either - schools like Wisky have had some success.

In that regard, time to see if SC and Oregon can actually buy some good recruits, in what has become a second tier conference.

---

The myth of Wisconsin needs to be addressed . Their recruiting classes are consistently ranked in the Top 30 or 40, the 2021 class was ranked #16, with 1 Five Star and 5 Four Stars.

Over 4 years recruiting like that yiu should be able to have a 4 or 5 star at nearly every position. It is essentially Tedford at his early peak.

They also have had Top 20 offenses as recently as 2018 and 2019.

---

You may be correct, but with the info you provided in this post you didn't debunk any myths.

Sebastabear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

USNews actually publishes two rankings. Take a look a both.

Personally, I believe the best and most accurate by far college ranking is the one published by Forbes a few months ago :p

---

Yes, I'm aware of USNew's Global Ranking, which is based primarily on research, so a great list for potential PhD students. In contrast, the regular USNews college rankings is based on (supposedly) things that are important to undergrads.

(Love the recent Forbes compilation, but Forbes changes its methodology too frequently for my taste..)

---

As opposed to USN&WR whose rankings change literally every year and are almost tailor made to knock a school like Cal? Average alumni giving rate? For a school without a medical school you'll never win with a criteria like that in the mix. And "class size index" is 8% of the score? Yeah apologies that Cal is actually trying to meet the demand for it's services by using ultra large lecture halls for it's world leading CS degree. Sorry, not sorry.

I'll also just say you can ask anyone (literally anyone) in Europe or Asia or the Middle East if they'd rather their kid went to Berkeley or UCLA and they'd all say the same thing. "What's a UCLA"?

---

I have no doubt that is true, but so what? This is a FOOTBALL thread. Not too many in Europe, Asia or the Middle East have heard of the Rose Bowl either. How many of those aforementioned have heard of NIL? Besides an occasional punter from Down Under, how many 4* & 5* footballers are internationals?

---

I use Europe et al just to illustrate the point because that's where the Berkeley academic brand over UCLA reaches its apotheosis. But it's the same idea within the U.S. Do you really think if you asked 100 people in Ohio that the majority of them would say UCLA is a better school than Berkeley? Michigan? Texas? Louisiana? My point is that even without getting into the schizophrenic USN&WR analysis, the Berkeley academic brand sells itself. Across the world and across the country. And I'll again say you can't dismiss Forbes ranking (best school in the world) as changing their criteria too frequently when USN&WR does the exact same thing and seems to have worked hard to find criteria specifically disadvantageous to a massive urban public school operating with extreme geographic constraints. Hard to imagine those hitting anyone harder than us.

It is what it is, but let's not pretend that Cal has nothing to sell on the academics. That's simply not true. We do and if we're not doing it well that's on us. But there continue to be great opportunities for us to target academically minded kids over anyone - especially UCLA.

---

So is your point we should beat UCLA on one of many factors that an athlete might care about? Great.

You seem to disregard that it doesn't seem to be particularly high for most top tier recruits as a priority. Does Vanderbilt win a lot of 4 and 5 star recruiting battles in the sec? What about northwestern in big10? Guess they just need to do a better job of selling academics.

aws56 said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

USNews actually publishes two rankings. Take a look a both.

Personally, I believe the best and most accurate by far college ranking is the one published by Forbes a few months ago :p

---

Yes, I'm aware of USNew's Global Ranking, which is based primarily on research, so a great list for potential PhD students. In contrast, the regular USNews college rankings is based on (supposedly) things that are important to undergrads.

(Love the recent Forbes compilation, but Forbes changes its methodology too frequently for my taste..)

---

As opposed to USN&WR whose rankings change literally every year and are almost tailor made to knock a school like Cal? Average alumni giving rate? For a school without a medical school you'll never win with a criteria like that in the mix. And "class size index" is 8% of the score? Yeah apologies that Cal is actually trying to meet the demand for it's services by using ultra large lecture halls for it's world leading CS degree. Sorry, not sorry.

I'll also just say you can ask anyone (literally anyone) in Europe or Asia or the Middle East if they'd rather their kid went to Berkeley or UCLA and they'd all say the same thing. "What's a UCLA"?

---

I have no doubt that is true, but so what? This is a FOOTBALL thread. Not too many in Europe, Asia or the Middle East have heard of the Rose Bowl either. How many of those aforementioned have heard of NIL? Besides an occasional punter from Down Under, how many 4* & 5* footballers are internationals?

---

I use Europe et al just to illustrate the point because that's where the Berkeley academic brand over UCLA reaches its apotheosis. But it's the same idea within the U.S. Do you really think if you asked 100 people in Ohio that the majority of them would say UCLA is a better school than Berkeley? Michigan? Texas? Louisiana? My point is that even without getting into the schizophrenic USN&WR analysis, the Berkeley academic brand sells itself. Across the world and across the country. And I'll again say you can't dismiss Forbes ranking (best school in the world) as changing their criteria too frequently when USN&WR does the exact same thing and seems to have worked hard to find criteria specifically disadvantageous to a massive urban public school operating with extreme geographic constraints. Hard to imagine those hitting anyone harder than us.

It is what it is, but let's not pretend that Cal has nothing to sell on the academics. That's simply not true. We do and if we're not doing it well that's on us. But there continue to be great opportunities for us to target academically minded kids over anyone - especially UCLA.

---

So is your point we should beat UCLA on one of many factors that an athlete might care about? Great.

You seem to disregard that it doesn't seem to be particularly high for most top tier recruits as a priority. Does Vanderbilt win a lot of 4 and 5 star recruiting battles in the sec? What about northwestern in big10? Guess they just need to do a better job of selling academics.

---

Yes, that's exactly my point and what I specifically was responding to. We shouldn't lose a kid who cares about academics to UCLA over . . . academics.

But I fully stipulate and acknowledge the point that for a lot of the top tier recruits academics aren't the driver. I don't think though our NIL program will leapfrog everyone (who is also going to throw money at this). We will still need to focus on what we have to offer (academics) while having a robust enough NIL program to stay in the game. Other schools will compete with what they have. For Oregon it's dressing up like highlighter pens. For Stanford it's getting a master class in smug. And for UCLA it's plagiarism (songs, mascots, etc).

Bottom line we need to have a strong NIL program or we should just throw in the towel because NIL is quickly going to be basic table stakes just to get in the game. But we'll still need to play to our strengths. And if we aren't then that's on us.

GMP said:

---

calumnus said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

USNews actually publishes two rankings. Take a look a both.

Personally, I believe the best and most accurate by far college ranking is the one published by Forbes a few months ago :p

---

Yes, I'm aware of USNew's Global Ranking, which is based primarily on research, so a great list for potential PhD students. In contrast, the regular USNews college rankings is based on (supposedly) things that are important to undergrads.

(Love the recent Forbes compilation, but Forbes changes its methodology too frequently for my taste..)

---

As opposed to USN&WR whose rankings change literally every year and are almost tailor made to knock a school like Cal? Average alumni giving rate? For a school without a medical school you'll never win with a criteria like that in the mix. And "class size index" is 8% of the score? Yeah apologies that Cal is actually trying to meet the demand for it's services by using ultra large lecture halls for it's world leading CS degree. Sorry, not sorry.

I'll also just say you can ask anyone (literally anyone) in Europe or Asia or the Middle East if they'd rather their kid went to Berkeley or UCLA and they'd all say the same thing. "What's a UCLA"?

Cal has challenges, but UCLA talking points cherry picking one 2nd place ranking from one publication doesn't change facts on the ground. Forbes says we're the best school in the world, public or private. I don't think you need to be a master salesperson to sell the value of a Cal degree to a recruit.

---

I think this encapsulates the issues. For example, several programs do recruit international players quite well relying on Cal's international rep (unfortunately, men' basketball isn't one for them). None of this applies much to football, where things like program visibility and performance, compensation, etc. drive recruiting of top players. Wilcox is selling academics with his OKG approach, but that is, with few exceptions, a 3 star game. Doesn't mean Cal can't win at that approach either - schools like Wisky have had some success.

In that regard, time to see if SC and Oregon can actually buy some good recruits, in what has become a second tier conference.

---

The myth of Wisconsin needs to be addressed . Their recruiting classes are consistently ranked in the Top 30 or 40, the 2021 class was ranked #16, with 1 Five Star and 5 Four Stars.

Over 4 years recruiting like that yiu should be able to have a 4 or 5 star at nearly every position. It is essentially Tedford at his early peak.

They also have had Top 20 offenses as recently as 2018 and 2019.

---

You may be correct, but with the info you provided in this post you didn't debunk any myths.

---

Yea, Cal needs to be in the top 30s or 40s?

Cal and Whisky ratings per 247

Cal Whisky

2018 42. 46
2019 43. 29
2020 39. 26
2021 28. 16

I'm not including 2022 for anyone, because of the C-19 impact and because teams moved to the portal and there does not seem to be a combined recruit/portal index. Both Cal and Whisky had small classes and thus had horrible rated classes. I didn't include 2017 because they was basically Sonny's recruiting.

But for an established program, Whisky's recruiting rankings suck, and are not much better than mediicore Cal.. I think the numbers demonstrate my point, and Whisky recruiting probably represents the ceiling for an OGK. approach.

JT was having top 10 and top 20 classes during his prime, so I don't understand the JT reference at all.

Sebastabear said:

---

aws56 said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Big Dog said:

---

edwinbear said:

---

USNews actually publishes two rankings. Take a look a both.

Personally, I believe the best and most accurate by far college ranking is the one published by Forbes a few months ago :p

---

Yes, I'm aware of USNew's Global Ranking, which is based primarily on research, so a great list for potential PhD students. In contrast, the regular USNews college rankings is based on (supposedly) things that are important to undergrads.

(Love the recent Forbes compilation, but Forbes changes its methodology too frequently for my taste..)

---

As opposed to USN&WR whose rankings change literally every year and are almost tailor made to knock a school like Cal? Average alumni giving rate? For a school without a medical school you'll never win with a criteria like that in the mix. And "class size index" is 8% of the score? Yeah apologies that Cal is actually trying to meet the demand for it's services by using ultra large lecture halls for it's world leading CS degree. Sorry, not sorry.

I'll also just say you can ask anyone (literally anyone) in Europe or Asia or the Middle East if they'd rather their kid went to Berkeley or UCLA and they'd all say the same thing. "What's a UCLA"?

---

I have no doubt that is true, but so what? This is a FOOTBALL thread. Not too many in Europe, Asia or the Middle East have heard of the Rose Bowl either. How many of those aforementioned have heard of NIL? Besides an occasional punter from Down Under, how many 4* & 5* footballers are internationals?

---

I use Europe et al just to illustrate the point because that's where the Berkeley academic brand over UCLA reaches its apotheosis. But it's the same idea within the U.S. Do you really think if you asked 100 people in Ohio that the majority of them would say UCLA is a better school than Berkeley? Michigan? Texas? Louisiana? My point is that even without getting into the schizophrenic USN&WR analysis, the Berkeley academic brand sells itself. Across the world and across the country. And I'll again say you can't dismiss Forbes ranking (best school in the world) as changing their criteria too frequently when USN&WR does the exact same thing and seems to have worked hard to find criteria specifically disadvantageous to a massive urban public school operating with extreme geographic constraints. Hard to imagine those hitting anyone harder than us.

It is what it is, but let's not pretend that Cal has nothing to sell on the academics. That's simply not true. We do and if we're not doing it well that's on us. But there continue to be great opportunities for us to target academically minded kids over anyone - especially UCLA.

---

So is your point we should beat UCLA on one of many factors that an athlete might care about? Great.

You seem to disregard that it doesn't seem to be particularly high for most top tier recruits as a priority. Does Vanderbilt win a lot of 4 and 5 star recruiting battles in the sec? What about northwestern in big10? Guess they just need to do a better job of selling academics.

---

Yes, that's exactly my point and what I specifically was responding to. We shouldn't lose a kid who cares about academics to UCLA over . . . academics.

But I fully stipulate and acknowledge the point that for a lot of the top tier recruits academics aren't the driver. I don't think though our NIL program will leapfrog everyone (who is also going to throw money at this). We will still need to focus on what we have to offer (academics) while having a robust enough NIL program to stay in the game. Other schools will compete with what they have. For Oregon it's dressing up like highlighter pens. For Stanford it's getting a master class in smug. And for UCLA it's plagiarism (songs, mascots, etc).

Bottom line we need to have a strong NIL program or we should just throw in the towel because NIL is quickly going to be basic table stakes just to get in the game. But we'll still need to play to our strengths. And if we aren't then that's on us.

---

Totally agree with your points above.

I think it is also likely that for some recruits, who do have academics relatively high on their list, the difference between Cal and a Michigan, UCLA, Stanford, etc. on academics is not enough to be viewed as material vs other things a recruit might care about like proximity to home, winning tradition, program trajectory, etc. Cal has to win on other criteria when they are going after kids who are considering these types of schools.

I do also worry about NIL or lack of one vs. other schools.