I know there is some sense of "Finally" with some fans now that Musgrave and McClure are gone, but it's not going to change anything. Truthfully, even replacing the head coach wouldn't change anything.

Cal athletics, whether by sheer incompetence or by malfeasance disguised as incompetence, is irrelevant in the two major sports in a conference that is rapidly becoming irrelevant. The time to fight for the administration to be serious about the importance of a strong athletics program in the money-making sports was long ago when the conference was being mismanaged by Larry Scott. It's honestly too late for Cal to fix the built-in forces at the university that have alighted against big-time athletics for years. The landscape of college athletics have changed into a few Haves and many more Have Nots. Even if we started taking this stuff more seriously, we are financially way behind where the rest of college athletics is now.

Cal is a mid-major school in football and basketball in a conference that is all but a mid-major conference now.

Fine. Just embrace it and quit whining. Oregon, Washington and Utah are the three major programs in the PAC10. Good luck to them. The rest can continue, joining with other nonprofessional teams. I do not care one bit.

Apathetic Bear said:

---

I know there is some sense of "Finally" with some fans now that Musgrave and McClure are gone, but it's not going to change anything. Truthfully, even replacing the head coach wouldn't change anything.

Cal athletics, whether by sheer incompetence or by malfeasance disguised as incompetence, is irrelevant in the two major sports in a conference that is rapidly becoming irrelevant. The time to fight for the administration to be serious about the importance of a strong athletics program in the money-making sports was long ago when the conference was being mismanaged by Larry Scott. It's honestly too late for Cal to fix the built-in forces at the university that have alighted against big-time athletics for years. The landscape of college athletics have changed into a few Haves and many more Have Nots. Even if we started taking this stuff more seriously, we are financially way behind where the rest of college athletics is now.

Cal is a mid-major school in football and basketball in a conference that is all but a mid-major conference now.

---

Not true. How did we get so many skill players that could start at other P5 schools like Ott, Plummer, J Mike, H Hunter and many on defense? It's our O line that's hurting and that's usually not built on 5*s but talent and functional evaluation. Along with bad coaching we had a lot of injuries at key places. Good coaching would right the ship. When I see programs like Northwestern consistently having decent seasons and making decent bowl games (I know not this year) with the occasional great season, I don't see why we can't do that.

KoreAmBear said:

---

Apathetic Bear said:

---

I know there is some sense of "Finally" with some fans now that Musgrave and McClure are gone, but it's not going to change anything. Truthfully, even replacing the head coach wouldn't change anything.

Cal athletics, whether by sheer incompetence or by malfeasance disguised as incompetence, is irrelevant in the two major sports in a conference that is rapidly becoming irrelevant. The time to fight for the administration to be serious about the importance of a strong athletics program in the money-making sports was long ago when the conference was being mismanaged by Larry Scott. It's honestly too late for Cal to fix the built-in forces at the university that have alighted against big-time athletics for years. The landscape of college athletics have changed into a few Haves and many more Have Nots. Even if we started taking this stuff more seriously, we are financially way behind where the rest of college athletics is now.

Cal is a mid-major school in football and basketball in a conference that is all but a mid-major conference now.

---

Not true. How did we get so many skill players that could start at other P5 schools like Ott, Plummer, J Mike, H Hunter and many on defense? It's our O line that's hurting and that's usually not built on 5*s but talent and functional evaluation. Along with bad coaching we had a lot of injuries at key places. Good coaching would right the ship. When I see programs like Northwestern consistently having decent seasons and making decent bowl games (I know not this year) with the occasional great season, I don't see why we can't do that.

---

I agree.
The problem is that a solid 3* officers be line player can often provide adequate protection is he receives good coaching.
Cal's O-line is well below adequate and can be called HORRID. That might be the players fault. But to me it appears they have poor coaching. I have seen so many missed blocks and players out of position it is ridiculous.

Second the OC refused to acknowledge (maybe even didn't recognize) the glaring weaknesses of the OLine. He kept Plummer in the pocket. Plummer reminded me of the goat that was tied to a stake in the middle of a dinosaur pen as in Jurassic Park.

I am not an Xs and Os guy. But I have paid attention to college football for many years. All the pundits I have heard say that if your team has a porous OLine the coach should make up for that fact by having th QB roll out so as to buy a few precious seconds to find an open receiver. Try misdirection. Work out of the shotgun. If you have a fast running back. Try pitch outs. Spread out the opposing D-line and try and to find holes for cutback running. Set up unusual plays like halfback passes. Fake the handoff and go for the short pass. Most of all BE CREATIVE.

That has been up for discussion for CAL UCLA forever pub budgets in a major pro sports mkt
It is tough to classify those $ sports as mid major, when virtually every coach in the country would trade their current recruiting grounds for CA.

A place/budget like Cal must hire as smart, though it is not a tough task, as the other West Coast teams.
The non power 5 coordinator that everyone in the biz knows is ready for the next step: then replace him 3 yrs later with just as smart of OC prospect because the last guy got his next step at HC Tusla ect...Replenish

It has always come down to the coaching.. everywhere. Alabama was mediocre with all the support imaginable before Saban. Texas just pulls the trigger to fire quicker than Cal. but same results in last 15 yrs?
TX, same academics basically except 100k in the stands, so more $..and still win/lose mud fights in Bowl games w/ CAL 10-9?, 13-10 ?.... but no lack of NFL evaluators on hand

WORST is sticking w/ Cosby/Baldwin/Mus. Obviously Holmoe & Wilcox are too nice
Maybe budget but it is such a waste, and as others have pointed out, NO ONE IN CONTROL SEES THESE PROBLEMS IN SPRING/FALL CAMP?
there was no "plan B" . Same Off game plan every game.....never the adjustment in play calling for the OL struggling, with any of these prior guys.

Perhaps our play coordinator this week will realize if the OL can't straight up run blk or pass protect,then counters, draws, screens are the obvious alternative.,,until the D is more hesitant & tired of chasing a QB that doesnt have the ball in a screen dump of or draw play. everyone knows that the extra "pause" to not over pursue then makes the OL more enabled when conventional plays are run.
The OL then gets better by scheme.

Where was the realization in camp, or week 1-3, that whoa, we better change our approach quick or we won't be able to score...any points at all. That would mean we lose.

-Over past 30 yrs, CAL is regularily in top 25 in NFL Players
Pro Fball Focus a couple yrs ago studied programs to determine the most under performing in US. #1 by a wide margin was the Cal Bears.
It measured # of NFL'rs/ wins/ bowls, maybe recruiting base as well.

..I think if your in one of the talent goldmines...you can find an Top OC out of mid majors.

Admin can hurt severely of course:
Hard to ever forget our favorite AD Bockrath , setting Cal back yrs as well as then similarly Alabama: " No Coach Snyder, I don't care if u just almost won the NC, you get no pay raise from $600K. If you don't like it , leave. I found you, I'll find the next Bruce Snyder"

hbear777 said:

---

That has been up for discussion for CAL UCLA forever pub budgets in a major pro sports mkt
It is tough to classify those $ sports as mid major, when virtually every coach in the country would trade their current recruiting grounds for CA.

A place/budget like Cal must hire as smart, though it is not a tough task, as the other West Coast teams.
The non power 5 coordinator that everyone in the biz knows is ready for the next step: then replace him 3 yrs later with just as smart of OC prospect because the last guy got his next step at HC Tusla ect...Replenish

It has always come down to the coaching.. everywhere. Alabama was mediocre with all the support imaginable before Saban. Texas just pulls the trigger to fire quicker than Cal. but same results in last 15 yrs?
TX, same academics basically except 100k in the stands, so more $..and still win/lose mud fights in Bowl games w/ CAL 10-9?, 13-10 ?.... but no lack of NFL evaluators on hand

WORST is sticking w/ Cosby/Baldwin/Mus. Obviously Holmoe & Wilcox are too nice
Maybe budget but it is such a waste, and as others have pointed out, NO ONE IN CONTROL SEES THESE PROBLEMS IN SPRING/FALL CAMP?
there was no "plan B" . Same Off game plan every game.....never the adjustment in play calling for the OL struggling, with any of these prior guys.

Perhaps our play coordinator this week will realize if the OL can't straight up run blk or pass protect,then counters, draws, screens are the obvious alternative.,,until the D is more hesitant & tired of chasing a QB that doesnt have the ball in a screen dump of or draw play. everyone knows that the extra "pause" to not over pursue then makes the OL more enabled when conventional plays are run.
The OL then gets better by scheme.

Where was the realization in camp, or week 1-3, that whoa, we better change our approach quick or we won't be able to score...any points at all. That would mean we lose.

-Over past 30 yrs, CAL is regularily in top 25 in NFL Players
Pro Fball Focus a couple yrs ago studied programs to determine the most under performing in US. #1 by a wide margin was the Cal Bears.
It measured # of NFL'rs/ wins/ bowls, maybe recruiting base as well.

..I think if your in one of the talent goldmines...you can find an Top OC out of mid majors.

Admin can hurt severely of course:
Hard to ever forget our favorite AD Bockrath , setting Cal back yrs as well as then similarly Alabama: " No Coach Snyder, I don't care if u just almost won the NC, you get no pay raise from $600K. If you don't like it , leave. I found you, I'll find the next Bruce Snyder"

---

With all the years Wilcox spent as a DC who studied and schemed against offenses, didn't he ever look at our own offense in numerous practices over the past 3 years and realize something was wrong?

Apathetic Bear said:

---

I know there is some sense of "Finally" with some fans now that Musgrave and McClure are gone, but it's not going to change anything. Truthfully, even replacing the head coach wouldn't change anything.

Cal athletics, whether by sheer incompetence or by malfeasance disguised as incompetence, is irrelevant in the two major sports in a conference that is rapidly becoming irrelevant. The time to fight for the administration to be serious about the importance of a strong athletics program in the money-making sports was long ago when the conference was being mismanaged by Larry Scott. It's honestly too late for Cal to fix the built-in forces at the university that have alighted against big-time athletics for years. The landscape of college athletics have changed into a few Haves and many more Have Nots. Even if we started taking this stuff more seriously, we are financially way behind where the rest of college athletics is now.

Cal is a mid-major school in football and basketball in a conference that is all but a mid-major conference now.

---

Agree when it comes to football - I don't follow basketball. Hire a Nick Saban and see what happens? We've been having this discussion for soooo long it's created a little a culture of excuses and whining. The talent isn't there now for a basement program with the portal and money that we don't have to recruit. Which high school 4 star is going to come to Cal when a portal player is going to jump in his place?? Tired of hearing the OL take the heat for the Bears this season. When the Big Game against a likewise terrible Stanfurd becomes the litmus test for season success, and the goal for next year is to get 6 wins? How long are you going to keep pumping your keyboards??

I read here that he is a good fit. The previous guy was in way over his head.

The problem is the experts in the field basically all agree that Cal is a tough job where coaches go to die due to an unsupportive environment. This was part of the narrative on why Wilcox would have succeeded at Oregon and why Tedford is doing well at FSU. This is further bolstered by the fact that Dykes recently was fired by Cal and is now leading an undefeated team that is slated to play in the Nation Championship Tourney.

Many here have said that athletics at CAL does not get the administrative support that it needs and that the faculty at CAL does not support athletics either. So, my question is, what does athletic support from the administration look like? What does it entail? What is the CAL administration supposed to do? I'll venture to say that probably half of the faculty at almost every university that has big time athletics does not support its athletic teams. Look at UCLA. Does UCLA have the administrative support you talk about? They are running huge deficits. This is the first time in years that they have been relevant in football. Students don't show up in huge numbers. If CAL were to support athletics the way some of you say it should, would that help in hiring a better AD? Would it result in better coaches, better athletes? The coaches we have, the AD, the athletes, come from an available pool that are interested in CAL. And, that pool is not very deep. Dykes is having success at TCU because the the available pool is much deeper and the entrance requirements are almost non existent. Udub, where I live, is having a great year, but Udub also admits over 40% of its applicants.

Just replacing the assistant coaches is not deemed a complete solution by anyone that I know, but when you have Knowlton, Christ, and Wilcox on long term guarantees that would further throw the program awry, you do what you can. I've been around since the fifties as student and fan and the administration at Cal has for the most part always would like to have won, but not such that it clouded the academic reputation. And those are the forces that are in play and have been. Horror of horrors if we had an "Alabama reputation"----that has been feared by the academic side forever. Rumored that the academic side also sees monies to football as taking monies from academics which can be no further from the truth. The two go forward hand in hand.

But at Cal, it is what it is. They'd rather spend hours on a branding decision than solutions to play winning football. So those of us who enjoy Cal football must be satisfied with the middle ground solution of firing two assistants. It is what it is. Seventy years of same old, same old but still hangin'.

Apathetic Bear said:

---

I know there is some sense of "Finally" with some fans now that Musgrave and McClure are gone, but it's not going to change anything. Truthfully, even replacing the head coach wouldn't change anything.

Cal athletics, whether by sheer incompetence or by malfeasance disguised as incompetence, is irrelevant in the two major sports in a conference that is rapidly becoming irrelevant. The time to fight for the administration to be serious about the importance of a strong athletics program in the money-making sports was long ago when the conference was being mismanaged by Larry Scott. It's honestly too late for Cal to fix the built-in forces at the university that have alighted against big-time athletics for years. The landscape of college athletics have changed into a few Haves and many more Have Nots. Even if we started taking this stuff more seriously, we are financially way behind where the rest of college athletics is now.

Cal is a mid-major school in football and basketball in a conference that is all but a mid-major conference now.

---

built in forces? No doubt-if only they would remodel the stadium, and make that Press Box workable for big donors on game day? Oh wait, check that box. Well, the facilities for the football players, like lockerrooms and weight room haven't been re-done in how long? Oh yeah, right, the recruits glow about that. But speaking of recruits-if Cal only put them up at a decent hotel, and gave them a great experience? Wait,what? They stay at the Claremont? Dinners in San Francisco?
Academic athletic support is clearly lacking?? You mean, there wasn't a big effort recently in that area? Well, doesn't matter, there is no 5th year certificate program to keep players around anyway....oh, yeah, we did just add that didn't we....But Cal isn't going to get to recruit the less academic kids!! Except, that even that has gotten more flexible of late, and the 80/20 requirement is a bit more in play for the coach to decide.
The alleged excuses of the 80s, 90s etc. have run their course. Winning solves a lot of problems. Get good coaches, especially ones that can recruit. The Head Football coaching position is endowed. Behind SEC schools financially sure? Conference at a cross roads? Couldn't agree more, especially as you see California kids starting at key positions outside of the conference.
But spend a game day in the AD's box...check out what Cal players have as resources, including the guidance of life after ball, and how the Cameron Institute matches with what other "big time" schools have to offer.
It's on the field. Coaching, recruiting. Make smart decisions, not just, "who can we afford" excuses....
And yes-moving to the Big 10 would get an awful lot of attention...

mbBear said:

---

Apathetic Bear said:

---

I know there is some sense of "Finally" with some fans now that Musgrave and McClure are gone, but it's not going to change anything. Truthfully, even replacing the head coach wouldn't change anything.

Cal athletics, whether by sheer incompetence or by malfeasance disguised as incompetence, is irrelevant in the two major sports in a conference that is rapidly becoming irrelevant. The time to fight for the administration to be serious about the importance of a strong athletics program in the money-making sports was long ago when the conference was being mismanaged by Larry Scott. It's honestly too late for Cal to fix the built-in forces at the university that have alighted against big-time athletics for years. The landscape of college athletics have changed into a few Haves and many more Have Nots. Even if we started taking this stuff more seriously, we are financially way behind where the rest of college athletics is now.

Cal is a mid-major school in football and basketball in a conference that is all but a mid-major conference now.

---

built in forces? No doubt-if only they would remodel the stadium, and make that Press Box workable for big donors on game day? Oh wait, check that box. Well, the facilities for the football players, like lockerrooms and weight room haven't been re-done in how long? Oh yeah, right, the recruits glow about that. But speaking of recruits-if Cal only put them up at a decent hotel, and gave them a great experience? Wait,what? They stay at the Claremont? Dinners in San Francisco?
Academic athletic support is clearly lacking?? You mean, there wasn't a big effort recently in that area? Well, doesn't matter, there is no 5th year certificate program to keep players around anyway....oh, yeah, we did just add that didn't we....But Cal isn't going to get to recruit the less academic kids!! Except, that even that has gotten more flexible of late, and the 80/20 requirement is a bit more in play for the coach to decide.
The alleged excuses of the 80s, 90s etc. have run their course. Winning solves a lot of problems. Get good coaches, especially ones that can recruit. The Head Football coaching position is endowed. Behind SEC schools financially sure? Conference at a cross roads? Couldn't agree more, especially as you see California kids starting at key positions outside of the conference.
But spend a game day in the AD's box...check out what Cal players have as resources, including the guidance of life after ball, and how the Cameron Institute matches with what other "big time" schools have to offer.
It's on the field. Coaching, recruiting. Make smart decisions, not just, "who can we afford" excuses....
And yes-moving to the Big 10 would get an awful lot of attention...

---

How has the 80/20 rule gotten more flexible as of late? It got much much harder post Tedford. Nobody is arguing we are at the bottom... We are in the middle of most things. We are at the bottom of academic difficulty, practice fields/courts, professor support, and player housing and meals. It is about what we do compared to what the competitive programs do. They cater to their moneymaker.

HateRed said:

---

Many here have said that athletics at CAL does not get the administrative support that it needs and that the faculty at CAL does not support athletics either. So, my question is, what does athletic support from the administration look like? What does it entail? What is the CAL administration supposed to do? I'll venture to say that probably half of the faculty at almost every university that has big time athletics does not support its athletic teams. Look at UCLA. Does UCLA have the administrative support you talk about? They are running huge deficits. This is the first time in years that they have been relevant in football. Students don't show up in huge numbers. If CAL were to support athletics the way some of you say it should, would that help in hiring a better AD? Would it result in better coaches, better athletes? The coaches we have, the AD, the athletes, come from an available pool that are interested in CAL. And, that pool is not very deep. Dykes is having success at TCU because the the available pool is much deeper and the entrance requirements are almost non existent. Udub, where I live, is having a great year, but Udub also admits over 40% of its applicants.

---

UCLA has put together some key transfers ($$$ talks) as well as a fifth year senior QB (who they kept) who is a game-changer. This is their year to compete. They also give away 30,000 tickets per game so their team can be supported while we make freshman pay and players play in an empty stadium. They also spend about $100 per day per player on gourmet meals and control players lives. They had a huge net transfer gain in talent. We broke even but got hurt on the o-line.

I get all that. And, I agree. But, that doesn't answer the questions I posed on my post above.

HateRed said:

---

I get all that. And, I agree. But, that doesn't answer the questions I posed on my post above.

---

If we want to be in the top half of conference, do much of the below... Get a dedicated practice field ASAP. Loosen entrance requirements for players. Control players lives while you spoil the heck out of them. Give them ridiculous housing next to campus. Give them competitive NIL deals. Add grad program focused on sports biz.

HateRed said:

---

Many here have said that athletics at CAL does not get the administrative support that it needs and that the faculty at CAL does not support athletics either. So, my question is, what does athletic support from the administration look like? What does it entail? What is the CAL administration supposed to do? I'll venture to say that probably half of the faculty at almost every university that has big time athletics does not support its athletic teams. Look at UCLA. Does UCLA have the administrative support you talk about? They are running huge deficits. This is the first time in years that they have been relevant in football. Students don't show up in huge numbers. If CAL were to support athletics the way some of you say it should, would that help in hiring a better AD? Would it result in better coaches, better athletes? The coaches we have, the AD, the athletes, come from an available pool that are interested in CAL. And, that pool is not very deep. Dykes is having success at TCU because the the available pool is much deeper and the entrance requirements are almost non existent. Udub, where I live, is having a great year, but Udub also admits over 40% of its applicants.

---

"Support from administration".....

Lots of ways to define that. I also think that it is important (not a lot of BI fans do) just how much things are CHANGING in the landscape and thus what counted as support in the past might not move the needle today....

1) Flexibility in classes and assignments. This doesn't mean basketweaving but it does mean a culture at the faculty level that understands the demands of D1 revenue sports and accomodates scheduling. The recent anecdote about Brown and the Hawaii loss in Basketball isn't determinative but is at least a semi-yellow flag. It just isn't clear whether that was Brown, the faculty member or both.....

2) Especially today entry to MBA programs for grad transfers. WIth the portal and the ability to be immediately eligible never has it been more important that grad transfers have a pathway into a program that matters to them. My understanding is that this remains an issue as Haas.

2.5) Retention of Credits. It is important that a transfer student get as many of his/her hours to transfer as possible. This isn't really a CAL issue, more of a UC but I could see this being a burden if say a Junior losses a year of credits unless there is LOTS of support explaining how they will be able to matriculate in a reasonable period of time.

3) As you point out - admit rates are an issue. Simple math and probability suggests that the narrower the funnel at the top the more challenging it will be to secure commitments. This point is particularly a topic I am passionate about because I think MANY on BI misread Cal's ecosystem position. For the general student bdy Cal is a top 10 university in the world and seen as such. While the "yeild" rate suggests that many Cal students don't make UCB their top choice it does suggest that Frosh are looking at it in the same universe of Furd, Ivies, CalTech, MIT, etc.

But for sports that is NOT the case. OUr "head to heads" are almost always against big land grant schools on the west coast. We have almost NEVER won a competitive head to head against Furd and at least in Basketball and Baseball also rarely win heads to head against Ivies.

And thus the benchmark really needs to be UCLA, Michigan, Wisconsin, U of W, Texas for admission requirements. Ours for D1 revenue atheletes should be no worse or no higher than those schools. Trying to compete against those other "R1s" with arms tied is just criminally stupid.

Every time Cal has bad coaching, we learn that Cal cannot win for structural reasons. Then when a better coach is hired, it turns out that Cal can win.

Cal is not going to be Alabama in football or Duke in basketball, but it can do better. We don't know how much better until the right coaches are found.

sluggo said:

---

Every time Cal has bad coaching, we learn that Cal cannot win for structural reasons. Then when a better coach is hired, it turns out that Cal can win.

Cal is not going to be Alabama in football or Duke in basketball, but it can do better. We don't know how much better until the right coaches are found.

---

We had some good seasons 20 years ago. Unfortunately, those teams killed our APR, and then Cal went nuclear on admissions requirements. The coach also got burnt out and developed heart issues, likely from lack of delegation and dealing with the same crap Sonny Dykes spoke against. He was able to then go to a better environment and still coaches with success.

socaltownie said:

---

HateRed said:

---

Many here have said that athletics at CAL does not get the administrative support that it needs and that the faculty at CAL does not support athletics either. So, my question is, what does athletic support from the administration look like? What does it entail? What is the CAL administration supposed to do? I'll venture to say that probably half of the faculty at almost every university that has big time athletics does not support its athletic teams. Look at UCLA. Does UCLA have the administrative support you talk about? They are running huge deficits. This is the first time in years that they have been relevant in football. Students don't show up in huge numbers. If CAL were to support athletics the way some of you say it should, would that help in hiring a better AD? Would it result in better coaches, better athletes? The coaches we have, the AD, the athletes, come from an available pool that are interested in CAL. And, that pool is not very deep. Dykes is having success at TCU because the the available pool is much deeper and the entrance requirements are almost non existent. Udub, where I live, is having a great year, but Udub also admits over 40% of its applicants.

---

"Support from administration".....

Lots of ways to define that. I also think that it is important (not a lot of BI fans do) just how much things are CHANGING in the landscape and thus what counted as support in the past might not move the needle today....

1) Flexibility in classes and assignments. This doesn't mean basketweaving but it does mean a culture at the faculty level that understands the demands of D1 revenue sports and accomodates scheduling. The recent anecdote about Brown and the Hawaii loss in Basketball isn't determinative but is at least a semi-yellow flag. It just isn't clear whether that was Brown, the faculty member or both.....

2) Especially today entry to MBA programs for grad transfers. WIth the portal and the ability to be immediately eligible never has it been more important that grad transfers have a pathway into a program that matters to them. My understanding is that this remains an issue as Haas.

2.5) Retention of Credits. It is important that a transfer student get as many of his/her hours to transfer as possible. This isn't really a CAL issue, more of a UC but I could see this being a burden if say a Junior losses a year of credits unless there is LOTS of support explaining how they will be able to matriculate in a reasonable period of time.

3) As you point out - admit rates are an issue. Simple math and probability suggests that the narrower the funnel at the top the more challenging it will be to secure commitments. This point is particularly a topic I am passionate about because I think MANY on BI misread Cal's ecosystem position. For the general student bdy Cal is a top 10 university in the world and seen as such. While the "yeild" rate suggests that many Cal students don't make UCB their top choice it does suggest that Frosh are looking at it in the same universe of Furd, Ivies, CalTech, MIT, etc.

But for sports that is NOT the case. OUr "head to heads" are almost always against big land grant schools on the west coast. We have almost NEVER won a competitive head to head against Furd and at least in Basketball and Baseball also rarely win heads to head against Ivies.

And thus the benchmark really needs to be UCLA, Michigan, Wisconsin, U of W, Texas for admission requirements. Ours for D1 revenue atheletes should be no worse or no higher than those schools. Trying to compete against those other "R1s" with arms tied is just criminally stupid.

---

If there is resistance to what you want to do, increasing the push against your opposition will only result in your opposition's increasing his push against you to keep you from making progress. Instead, reduce your opponent's resistance.

So, is the faculty the big opposition to revenue sports? If so, Knowlton needs to do things that reduce their opposition. This would take creativity that he may not have or resources he perceives not to have. But, he must do some classic brainstorming to come up with ideas.

For example, many faculty, especially those whose opposition is public, see our athletes as less worthy of a Cal education and in that vein, less refined or intellectual as the other students. So, set up a series of conclaves in which the faculty can get to know the athletes personally, speak with them, exchange views, etc. Increase the benefits to faculty that would make them insiders to the sports/programs.

If it's not being done already, start the same kinds of interchanges between athletes and other stake holders.

Help them all to see the ways in which investments of all kinds in athletics benefit them. This may already be done, but not on a personal basis. Just reports and letters won't cut it.

The AD needs to expand the range of things that will draw in a greater range of heretofore ignored segments of the Cal community and give them a stake in our success.

How can you boast of excellence in one area while denigrating and bringing down others. If an institution strives to be excellent, it must strive for it in every one of its endeavors, otherwise, it is just compromising its values.

oski003 said:

---

sluggo said:

---

Every time Cal has bad coaching, we learn that Cal cannot win for structural reasons. Then when a better coach is hired, it turns out that Cal can win.

Cal is not going to be Alabama in football or Duke in basketball, but it can do better. We don't know how much better until the right coaches are found.

---

We had some good seasons 20 years ago. Unfortunately, those teams killed our APR, and then Cal went nuclear on admissions requirements. The coach also got burnt out and developed heart issues, likely from lack of delegation and dealing with the same crap Sonny Dykes spoke against. He was able to then go to a better environment and still coaches with success.

---

The 20 years ago just shows that Cal hangs on to coaches way too long, as that only covers three coaches. I am sure before Tedford came in we heard that Cal could not win. Then when Tedford left I heard that Cal can't win. Dykes rebuilt the disaster Tedford left, had some success, and might have succeeded further if not for his wandering eye. And then Wilcox is not very good at his job.

Get the right coaches, and Cal will do better, I am sure of it.

sluggo said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sluggo said:

---

Every time Cal has bad coaching, we learn that Cal cannot win for structural reasons. Then when a better coach is hired, it turns out that Cal can win.

Cal is not going to be Alabama in football or Duke in basketball, but it can do better. We don't know how much better until the right coaches are found.

---

We had some good seasons 20 years ago. Unfortunately, those teams killed our APR, and then Cal went nuclear on admissions requirements. The coach also got burnt out and developed heart issues, likely from lack of delegation and dealing with the same crap Sonny Dykes spoke against. He was able to then go to a better environment and still coaches with success.

---

The 20 years ago just shows that Cal hangs on to coaches way too long, as that only covers three coaches. I am sure before Tedford came in we heard that Cal could not win. Then when Tedford left I heard that Cal can't win. Dykes rebuilt the disaster Tedford left, had some success, and might have succeeded further if not for his wandering eye. And then Wilcox is not very good at his job.

Get the right coaches, and Cal will do better, I am sure of it.

---

Tedford and Dykes are head coaches that are both currently first in their league and one of them has their team undefeated and ranked number 4 in the country.

We held onto them too long???

IMHO, expressed before, we should have made Tedford take a one-year sabbatical to get healthy, given him more academic support (which he supposedly asked for, but was turned down), and moved on from there. Not only did we lose him, but I think that whole situation created a rift between Cal and the coaching fraternity, who believed the school threw Tedford under the bus unjustifiably. That's why, even after building all the new facilities, we ended up with Dykes as the new coach from Louisiana Tech, even though I think most of us expected we would have better candidates.

Obviously, that's all water under the bridge now. We just have to hope Wilcox understands what he needs to do as far as getting a more dynamic offense, and proceeds accordingly.

oski003 said:

---

sluggo said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sluggo said:

---

Every time Cal has bad coaching, we learn that Cal cannot win for structural reasons. Then when a better coach is hired, it turns out that Cal can win.

Cal is not going to be Alabama in football or Duke in basketball, but it can do better. We don't know how much better until the right coaches are found.

---

We had some good seasons 20 years ago. Unfortunately, those teams killed our APR, and then Cal went nuclear on admissions requirements. The coach also got burnt out and developed heart issues, likely from lack of delegation and dealing with the same crap Sonny Dykes spoke against. He was able to then go to a better environment and still coaches with success.

---

The 20 years ago just shows that Cal hangs on to coaches way too long, as that only covers three coaches. I am sure before Tedford came in we heard that Cal could not win. Then when Tedford left I heard that Cal can't win. Dykes rebuilt the disaster Tedford left, had some success, and might have succeeded further if not for his wandering eye. And then Wilcox is not very good at his job.

Get the right coaches, and Cal will do better, I am sure of it.

---

Tedford and Dykes are head coaches that are both currently first in their league and one of them has their team undefeated and ranked number 4 in the country.

We held onto them too long???

---

Late Tedford was a disaster on and off the field. Yes, too long on him. Dykes indirectly chose to leave, so that was not a choice.

So yes, too long on Tedford and too long on Wilcox.

sluggo said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sluggo said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sluggo said:

---

Every time Cal has bad coaching, we learn that Cal cannot win for structural reasons. Then when a better coach is hired, it turns out that Cal can win.

Cal is not going to be Alabama in football or Duke in basketball, but it can do better. We don't know how much better until the right coaches are found.

---

We had some good seasons 20 years ago. Unfortunately, those teams killed our APR, and then Cal went nuclear on admissions requirements. The coach also got burnt out and developed heart issues, likely from lack of delegation and dealing with the same crap Sonny Dykes spoke against. He was able to then go to a better environment and still coaches with success.

---

The 20 years ago just shows that Cal hangs on to coaches way too long, as that only covers three coaches. I am sure before Tedford came in we heard that Cal could not win. Then when Tedford left I heard that Cal can't win. Dykes rebuilt the disaster Tedford left, had some success, and might have succeeded further if not for his wandering eye. And then Wilcox is not very good at his job.

Get the right coaches, and Cal will do better, I am sure of it.

---

Tedford and Dykes are head coaches that are both currently first in their league and one of them has their team undefeated and ranked number 4 in the country.

We held onto them too long???

---

Late Tedford was a disaster on and off the field. Yes, too long on him. Dykes indirectly chose to leave, so that was not a choice.

So yes, too long on Tedford and too long on Wilcox.

---

Dykes wouldn't have wanted to leave if the University supported a winning culture; hence, the topic. Also, you don't fire a coach and pay a buyout because "they want to leave ". That is inept management. We could use that money on things that being value.

oski003 said:

---

sluggo said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sluggo said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sluggo said:

---

Every time Cal has bad coaching, we learn that Cal cannot win for structural reasons. Then when a better coach is hired, it turns out that Cal can win.

Cal is not going to be Alabama in football or Duke in basketball, but it can do better. We don't know how much better until the right coaches are found.

---

We had some good seasons 20 years ago. Unfortunately, those teams killed our APR, and then Cal went nuclear on admissions requirements. The coach also got burnt out and developed heart issues, likely from lack of delegation and dealing with the same crap Sonny Dykes spoke against. He was able to then go to a better environment and still coaches with success.

---

The 20 years ago just shows that Cal hangs on to coaches way too long, as that only covers three coaches. I am sure before Tedford came in we heard that Cal could not win. Then when Tedford left I heard that Cal can't win. Dykes rebuilt the disaster Tedford left, had some success, and might have succeeded further if not for his wandering eye. And then Wilcox is not very good at his job.

Get the right coaches, and Cal will do better, I am sure of it.

---

Tedford and Dykes are head coaches that are both currently first in their league and one of them has their team undefeated and ranked number 4 in the country.

We held onto them too long???

---

Late Tedford was a disaster on and off the field. Yes, too long on him. Dykes indirectly chose to leave, so that was not a choice.

So yes, too long on Tedford and too long on Wilcox.

---

Dykes wouldn't have wanted to leave if the University supported a winning culture; hence, the topic. Also, you don't fire a coach and pay a buyout because "they want to leave ". That is inept management. We could use that money on things that being value.

---

It wasn't "the University" it was the fans. He was hated by the fans. It was in the comments section of newspapers and especially on this website. He got nasty emails. People calling for his head all the time. Calling him names. We can argue whether that was justified or not, but don't try to say it was "lack of academic support" when we had great APRs under him, or lack of "admissions support" when he was bringing in 4 and even 5 star players, plus rebuilding the defense with solid defensive players. He was simply hated by the fans, especially the "insiders" who did not like him or his "gimmicky" offense and thought he had peaked in 2015 and "was only successful due to Goff." The fans/donors put pressure on the AD, Dykes knew he could get fired and he did. Why would you want to stay somewhere you know you are not wanted and could (and did) soon get fired?

This ^^^

oski003 said:

---

sluggo said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sluggo said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sluggo said:

---

Every time Cal has bad coaching, we learn that Cal cannot win for structural reasons. Then when a better coach is hired, it turns out that Cal can win.

Cal is not going to be Alabama in football or Duke in basketball, but it can do better. We don't know how much better until the right coaches are found.

---

We had some good seasons 20 years ago. Unfortunately, those teams killed our APR, and then Cal went nuclear on admissions requirements. The coach also got burnt out and developed heart issues, likely from lack of delegation and dealing with the same crap Sonny Dykes spoke against. He was able to then go to a better environment and still coaches with success.

---

The 20 years ago just shows that Cal hangs on to coaches way too long, as that only covers three coaches. I am sure before Tedford came in we heard that Cal could not win. Then when Tedford left I heard that Cal can't win. Dykes rebuilt the disaster Tedford left, had some success, and might have succeeded further if not for his wandering eye. And then Wilcox is not very good at his job.

Get the right coaches, and Cal will do better, I am sure of it.

---

Tedford and Dykes are head coaches that are both currently first in their league and one of them has their team undefeated and ranked number 4 in the country.

We held onto them too long???

---

Late Tedford was a disaster on and off the field. Yes, too long on him. Dykes indirectly chose to leave, so that was not a choice.

So yes, too long on Tedford and too long on Wilcox.

---

Dykes wouldn't have wanted to leave if the University supported a winning culture; hence, the topic. Also, you don't fire a coach and pay a buyout because "they want to leave ". That is inept management. We could use that money on things that being value.

---

1. Sonny did not like the fact that Cal insisted that its players be authentic STUDENTS (who take their education seriously) and not just pretend students. If this is what you mean by "supporting a winning culture", then maybe you are right.

2. Sonny was born and raised in a setting where Texas Football ( not just UT football) was everything. It is unlikely he would have stayed at most PAC-12 schools if a Texas school with a long history of college football had come knocking on his door.

As for Tedford being at Cal too long. Yes he was. He was burnt out because he was a micro manager.
After getting away from being a HC at Cal he was able to recharge his batteries. Unfortunately he had burned too many bridges for him self with higher-ups in the Academic Senate.

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. We will be having the same talking points next year, and the next year, and when my grandson graduates from Cal in 2038. By then BI will be but a memory.

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sluggo said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sluggo said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sluggo said:

---

Every time Cal has bad coaching, we learn that Cal cannot win for structural reasons. Then when a better coach is hired, it turns out that Cal can win.

Cal is not going to be Alabama in football or Duke in basketball, but it can do better. We don't know how much better until the right coaches are found.

---

We had some good seasons 20 years ago. Unfortunately, those teams killed our APR, and then Cal went nuclear on admissions requirements. The coach also got burnt out and developed heart issues, likely from lack of delegation and dealing with the same crap Sonny Dykes spoke against. He was able to then go to a better environment and still coaches with success.

---

The 20 years ago just shows that Cal hangs on to coaches way too long, as that only covers three coaches. I am sure before Tedford came in we heard that Cal could not win. Then when Tedford left I heard that Cal can't win. Dykes rebuilt the disaster Tedford left, had some success, and might have succeeded further if not for his wandering eye. And then Wilcox is not very good at his job.

Get the right coaches, and Cal will do better, I am sure of it.

---

Tedford and Dykes are head coaches that are both currently first in their league and one of them has their team undefeated and ranked number 4 in the country.

We held onto them too long???

---

Late Tedford was a disaster on and off the field. Yes, too long on him. Dykes indirectly chose to leave, so that was not a choice.

So yes, too long on Tedford and too long on Wilcox.

---

Dykes wouldn't have wanted to leave if the University supported a winning culture; hence, the topic. Also, you don't fire a coach and pay a buyout because "they want to leave ". That is inept management. We could use that money on things that being value.

---

It wasn't "the University" it was the fans. He was hated by the fans. It was in the comments section of newspapers and especially on this website. He got nasty emails. People calling for his head all the time. Calling him names. We can argue whether that was justified or not, but don't try to say it was "lack of academic support" when we had great APRs under him, or lack of "admissions support" when he was bringing in 4 and even 5 star players, plus rebuilding the defense with solid defensive players. He was simply hated by the fans, especially the "insiders" who did not like him or his "gimmicky" offense and thought he had peaked in 2015 and "was only successful due to Goff." The fans/donors put pressure on the AD, Dykes knew he could get fired and he did. Why would you want to stay somewhere you know you are not wanted and could (and did) soon get fired?

---

I think that Dykes dissatisfaction with Cal was a "Chicken and the Egg" quandary.
Many fans hated Dykes because he was always shopping around for a better HC position.
Dykes was always shopping around for a new HC position because the fans hated him.

Which came first.

I witnessed several times Sonny being insulted by adults his age and older, WHILE OUT WITH HIS FAMILY!

People in texas are full of themselves, but at least they fake friendliness well.

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sluggo said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sluggo said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sluggo said:

---

Every time Cal has bad coaching, we learn that Cal cannot win for structural reasons. Then when a better coach is hired, it turns out that Cal can win.

Cal is not going to be Alabama in football or Duke in basketball, but it can do better. We don't know how much better until the right coaches are found.

---

We had some good seasons 20 years ago. Unfortunately, those teams killed our APR, and then Cal went nuclear on admissions requirements. The coach also got burnt out and developed heart issues, likely from lack of delegation and dealing with the same crap Sonny Dykes spoke against. He was able to then go to a better environment and still coaches with success.

---

The 20 years ago just shows that Cal hangs on to coaches way too long, as that only covers three coaches. I am sure before Tedford came in we heard that Cal could not win. Then when Tedford left I heard that Cal can't win. Dykes rebuilt the disaster Tedford left, had some success, and might have succeeded further if not for his wandering eye. And then Wilcox is not very good at his job.

Get the right coaches, and Cal will do better, I am sure of it.

---

Tedford and Dykes are head coaches that are both currently first in their league and one of them has their team undefeated and ranked number 4 in the country.

We held onto them too long???

---

Late Tedford was a disaster on and off the field. Yes, too long on him. Dykes indirectly chose to leave, so that was not a choice.

So yes, too long on Tedford and too long on Wilcox.

---

Dykes wouldn't have wanted to leave if the University supported a winning culture; hence, the topic. Also, you don't fire a coach and pay a buyout because "they want to leave ". That is inept management. We could use that money on things that being value.

---

It wasn't "the University" it was the fans. He was hated by the fans. It was in the comments section of newspapers and especially on this website. He got nasty emails. People calling for his head all the time. Calling him names. We can argue whether that was justified or not, but don't try to say it was "lack of academic support" when we had great APRs under him, or lack of "admissions support" when he was bringing in 4 and even 5 star players, plus rebuilding the defense with solid defensive players. He was simply hated by the fans, especially the "insiders" who did not like him or his "gimmicky" offense and thought he had peaked in 2015 and "was only successful due to Goff." The fans/donors put pressure on the AD, Dykes knew he could get fired and he did. Why would you want to stay somewhere you know you are not wanted and could (and did) soon get fired?

---

I will add dumb, unsupporting fanbase to the lack of support Sonny got. He got 2-4 four stars a year, despite the lack of support, good for middle of the pack. One year he pulled Demetrius Robinson, wr. Dykes came up the ranks as one of the best wr coaches in the nation.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

I witnessed several times Sonny being insulted by adults his age and older, WHILE OUT WITH HIS FAMILY!

People in texas are full of themselves, but at least they fake friendliness well.

---

Is this the same Texas where the fans put "For Sale" signs on your house when you lose a couple of games?

Rushinbear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

HateRed said:

---

Many here have said that athletics at CAL does not get the administrative support that it needs and that the faculty at CAL does not support athletics either. So, my question is, what does athletic support from the administration look like? What does it entail? What is the CAL administration supposed to do? I'll venture to say that probably half of the faculty at almost every university that has big time athletics does not support its athletic teams. Look at UCLA. Does UCLA have the administrative support you talk about? They are running huge deficits. This is the first time in years that they have been relevant in football. Students don't show up in huge numbers. If CAL were to support athletics the way some of you say it should, would that help in hiring a better AD? Would it result in better coaches, better athletes? The coaches we have, the AD, the athletes, come from an available pool that are interested in CAL. And, that pool is not very deep. Dykes is having success at TCU because the the available pool is much deeper and the entrance requirements are almost non existent. Udub, where I live, is having a great year, but Udub also admits over 40% of its applicants.

---

"Support from administration".....

Lots of ways to define that. I also think that it is important (not a lot of BI fans do) just how much things are CHANGING in the landscape and thus what counted as support in the past might not move the needle today....

1) Flexibility in classes and assignments. This doesn't mean basketweaving but it does mean a culture at the faculty level that understands the demands of D1 revenue sports and accomodates scheduling. The recent anecdote about Brown and the Hawaii loss in Basketball isn't determinative but is at least a semi-yellow flag. It just isn't clear whether that was Brown, the faculty member or both.....

2) Especially today entry to MBA programs for grad transfers. WIth the portal and the ability to be immediately eligible never has it been more important that grad transfers have a pathway into a program that matters to them. My understanding is that this remains an issue as Haas.

2.5) Retention of Credits. It is important that a transfer student get as many of his/her hours to transfer as possible. This isn't really a CAL issue, more of a UC but I could see this being a burden if say a Junior losses a year of credits unless there is LOTS of support explaining how they will be able to matriculate in a reasonable period of time.

3) As you point out - admit rates are an issue. Simple math and probability suggests that the narrower the funnel at the top the more challenging it will be to secure commitments. This point is particularly a topic I am passionate about because I think MANY on BI misread Cal's ecosystem position. For the general student bdy Cal is a top 10 university in the world and seen as such. While the "yeild" rate suggests that many Cal students don't make UCB their top choice it does suggest that Frosh are looking at it in the same universe of Furd, Ivies, CalTech, MIT, etc.

But for sports that is NOT the case. OUr "head to heads" are almost always against big land grant schools on the west coast. We have almost NEVER won a competitive head to head against Furd and at least in Basketball and Baseball also rarely win heads to head against Ivies.

And thus the benchmark really needs to be UCLA, Michigan, Wisconsin, U of W, Texas for admission requirements. Ours for D1 revenue atheletes should be no worse or no higher than those schools. Trying to compete against those other "R1s" with arms tied is just criminally stupid.

---

If there is resistance to what you want to do, increasing the push against your opposition will only result in your opposition's increasing his push against you to keep you from making progress. Instead, reduce your opponent's resistance.

So, is the faculty the big opposition to revenue sports? If so, Knowlton needs to do things that reduce their opposition. This would take creativity that he may not have or resources he perceives not to have. But, he must do some classic brainstorming to come up with ideas.

For example, many faculty, especially those whose opposition is public, see our athletes as less worthy of a Cal education and in that vein, less refined or intellectual as the other students. So, set up a series of conclaves in which the faculty can get to know the athletes personally, speak with them, exchange views, etc. Increase the benefits to faculty that would make them insiders to the sports/programs.

If it's not being done already, start the same kinds of interchanges between athletes and other stake holders.

Help them all to see the ways in which investments of all kinds in athletics benefit them. This may already be done, but not on a personal basis. Just reports and letters won't cut it.

The AD needs to expand the range of things that will draw in a greater range of heretofore ignored segments of the Cal community and give them a stake in our success.

How can you boast of excellence in one area while denigrating and bringing down others. If an institution strives to be excellent, it must strive for it in every one of its endeavors, otherwise, it is just compromising its values.

---

The truth is that most faculty at Cal, as at many other universities, don't spend much time thinking about athletics one way or the other. I'm on the faculty and one of the things I enjoy about going to Cal games is seeing some of my colleagues in other departments and catching up with them at half time. There are plenty of faculty who are Cal sports fans. Since they live close to campus, many like me have put their kids in Cal sports camps in summertime and have taken them to games since they were very young. If you are going to generalize, I think lots of faculty have a degree of unease about bending admission standards too much and about the privileged status of athletes (preferential admission, tuition, room and board covered, special study center in a campus with underfunded and understaffed advising for regular undergraduates, and their new professional status in the context of a surprisingly large number of food- and housing-insecure regular students). Overall, in my experience most faculty don't spend much time thinking about athletics though.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sluggo said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sluggo said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sluggo said:

---

Every time Cal has bad coaching, we learn that Cal cannot win for structural reasons. Then when a better coach is hired, it turns out that Cal can win.

Cal is not going to be Alabama in football or Duke in basketball, but it can do better. We don't know how much better until the right coaches are found.

---

We had some good seasons 20 years ago. Unfortunately, those teams killed our APR, and then Cal went nuclear on admissions requirements. The coach also got burnt out and developed heart issues, likely from lack of delegation and dealing with the same crap Sonny Dykes spoke against. He was able to then go to a better environment and still coaches with success.

---

The 20 years ago just shows that Cal hangs on to coaches way too long, as that only covers three coaches. I am sure before Tedford came in we heard that Cal could not win. Then when Tedford left I heard that Cal can't win. Dykes rebuilt the disaster Tedford left, had some success, and might have succeeded further if not for his wandering eye. And then Wilcox is not very good at his job.

Get the right coaches, and Cal will do better, I am sure of it.

---

Tedford and Dykes are head coaches that are both currently first in their league and one of them has their team undefeated and ranked number 4 in the country.

We held onto them too long???

---

Late Tedford was a disaster on and off the field. Yes, too long on him. Dykes indirectly chose to leave, so that was not a choice.

So yes, too long on Tedford and too long on Wilcox.

---

Dykes wouldn't have wanted to leave if the University supported a winning culture; hence, the topic. Also, you don't fire a coach and pay a buyout because "they want to leave ". That is inept management. We could use that money on things that being value.

---

It wasn't "the University" it was the fans. He was hated by the fans. It was in the comments section of newspapers and especially on this website. He got nasty emails. People calling for his head all the time. Calling him names. We can argue whether that was justified or not, but don't try to say it was "lack of academic support" when we had great APRs under him, or lack of "admissions support" when he was bringing in 4 and even 5 star players, plus rebuilding the defense with solid defensive players. He was simply hated by the fans, especially the "insiders" who did not like him or his "gimmicky" offense and thought he had peaked in 2015 and "was only successful due to Goff." The fans/donors put pressure on the AD, Dykes knew he could get fired and he did. Why would you want to stay somewhere you know you are not wanted and could (and did) soon get fired?

---

I think that Dykes dissatisfaction with Cal was a "Chicken and the Egg" quandary.
Many fans hated Dykes because he was always shopping around for a better HC position.
Dykes was always shopping around for a new HC position because the fans hated him.

Which came first.

---

The fans hated him from the start. Year 1. Again, justified or not (and that year was horrific) that is the fact. Everything else is revisionist history.