Cal84 said:

---

Looking at the situation from a big picture standpoint, I will say that the one thing Wilcox has been successful in is growing the assistant coaches compensation pool.

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal84 said:

---

>Our problem is not that we don't pay enough, our problem is that we make poor hires and then overpay them and give them unwarranted contract extensions even after poor performance.


There is some truth in what you say, but it remains the case that last year, Wilcox was the 7th highest paid HC in the P12. And his record more or less reflected that. He wasn't being massively overpaid. A better argument can be made that he was overpaid relative to results this year. But his pay bump sort of reflected the fact that he was being chased by biggest pocketbook team in the conference in the off season. Overall one can not argue that the administration of Cal Athletics has covered themselves in glory with their hiring decisions. But neither is the argument that "if we just made better hires everything would be fine" very pursuasive. There are deep structural problems with Cal Athletics that prevent Cal from being able to attract top HCs. And since those were purposely left unaddressed, it should come as no surprise that we have arrived at this, the final train station on the journey.

---

How many P5 schools (in the last 50 years at least) ever gave a coach with a losing record over his first 5 seasons, including a losing record the last two seasons, an extension for six more years? It was unprecedented. No other school does that. Look at all the far more successful coaches that have been cut loose, or resigned.

---

Rushinbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal84 said:

---

>Our problem is not that we don't pay enough, our problem is that we make poor hires and then overpay them and give them unwarranted contract extensions even after poor performance.


There is some truth in what you say, but it remains the case that last year, Wilcox was the 7th highest paid HC in the P12. And his record more or less reflected that. He wasn't being massively overpaid. A better argument can be made that he was overpaid relative to results this year. But his pay bump sort of reflected the fact that he was being chased by biggest pocketbook team in the conference in the off season. Overall one can not argue that the administration of Cal Athletics has covered themselves in glory with their hiring decisions. But neither is the argument that "if we just made better hires everything would be fine" very pursuasive. There are deep structural problems with Cal Athletics that prevent Cal from being able to attract top HCs. And since those were purposely left unaddressed, it should come as no surprise that we have arrived at this, the final train station on the journey.

---

How many P5 schools (in the last 50 years at least) ever gave a coach with a losing record over his first 5 seasons, including a losing record the last two seasons, an extension for six more years? It was unprecedented. No other school does that. Look at all the far more successful coaches that have been cut loose, or resigned.

---

Beemer? The Northwestern guy? The exceptions prove the rule.

Knowlton was being lazy with someone else's money. He didn't want to go through the hiring process in the next few years (since he didn't have a list of candidates and faced spending money on useless recruiting consultants).

---

Big C said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

So many people on this board argued his 6 year extension after last year was warranted.

It was crazy and completely unnecessary even if you thought Wilcox could "get us to a bowl this year."

---

An extension after they dynamics of the last off-season was not completely unwarranted. Giving a fully guaranteed extension was completely unwarranted.

---

A brand new coach usually gets a five-year contract. Continuing coaches usually get extensions so that they never appear to be in the last year or two of their contract, to project stability for recruiting purposes. It is absolutely beyond me why we would extend Wilcox out to six years. I could see four years... maybe someone could talk me into five, if I were in a weak moment... but six? Why?

(yes, of course, an extension with a favorable buyout is a different story)

---

Cal84 said:

---

>So you think the problem is we don't pay Wilcox enough?

Never said that.

>Just hire good coaches and keep them when they succeed and cut them loose when they don't. It really is not more complicated than that.

It is more complicated than that. Particularly when you aren't able to hire good coaches. And while you may perceive that statement as referring to the willingness of Cal Athletics to pay up, it's more, much more than that. Namely what P5 caliber staff would come to a school that they know is likely to be a G5 school in 14 months? And one that even at the G5 level will be saddled with excessive non-revenue expenses that must come by pulling away football revenues? The only coaching personnel you'd get would be lower tier people who you hope will be unicorns. That's not the simple, uncomplicated strategy that you make it out to be. It's a huge longshot strategy.

I'll put it another way. If it was so simple to be successful, then why hasn't Cal football been successful? You'll argue that it's because Cal Athletics administration is incompetent. And I can't argue against that. But even incompetent managers love easy, zero pain solutions. In fact those are the ones they gravitate towards. You think Knowlton wouldn't love a button labeled "Press This And Everything Will be Fixed"? LOL, he'd be pressing that button every second. Firing Wilcox may or may not be a good idea. But I guarantee you it would not fix the problems that Cal Athletics has. Those problems go far, far deeper than one person.

---

upsetof86 said:

---

Big C said:

---

Cal_79 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

So many people on this board argued his 6 year extension after last year was warranted.

It was crazy and completely unnecessary even if you thought Wilcox could "get us to a bowl this year."

---

An extension after they dynamics of the last off-season was not completely unwarranted. Giving a fully guaranteed extension was completely unwarranted.

---

A brand new coach usually gets a five-year contract. Continuing coaches usually get extensions so that they never appear to be in the last year or two of their contract, to project stability for recruiting purposes. It is absolutely beyond me why we would extend Wilcox out to six years. I could see four years... maybe someone could talk me into five, if I were in a weak moment... but six? Why?

(yes, of course, an extension with a favorable buyout is a different story)

---

And don't we have to believe Wilcox and his agent asked if not demanded these terms at some level? Our good guy is more like a really shrewd guy.

---

Cal84 said:

---

I'm pretty negative on Cal Athletics trajectory overall. But it is worth noting that Cal played fUCLA, SuC and Notre Blame to within a score. So in the short run (i.e. in the last year of the P12), I could see Cal going 4-5 or 5-4 in the conference. And with non-conference wins, onto a lower tier bowl. Does that warrant a big extension? Doesn't seem like it. But ironically, in some ways locking up Wilcox looks better now than it did last year. Simply because with the school headed to G5 status and zero NIL money, Cal couldn't get a serious HC anyway. Instead Cal has a HC that Oregon wanted to hire. Uh.... hmmm....that's good....probably?

Looking at the situation from a big picture standpoint, I will say that the one thing Wilcox has been successful in is growing the assistant coaches compensation pool. The bad part is that in another year it will need to be restructured. The average HC in the Mountain West earns $1.2 mill/year. Wilcox is earning $4.75 mill/yr on average over his 6 yr contract. It's probably back end loaded, but still - in order to be competitive his salary needs to be cut in half. Assistant coach compensation pool (currently $4.6 mill/yr) needs to be cut in half. If 50% of those savings gets put in a football only NIL pool, then at least we'd have the firepower to be successful as a G5 school. More probable however is that those funds would be used to delay the elimination of additional non-revenue sports. Meh. At that point, I hope Wilcox just goes full obstinate and rejects any reduction in his salary thereby torpedoing as many non-revenue sports as possible. Just because.

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Cal84 said:

---

I'm pretty negative on Cal Athletics trajectory overall. But it is worth noting that Cal played fUCLA, SuC and Notre Blame to within a score. So in the short run (i.e. in the last year of the P12), I could see Cal going 4-5 or 5-4 in the conference. And with non-conference wins, onto a lower tier bowl. Does that warrant a big extension? Doesn't seem like it. But ironically, in some ways locking up Wilcox looks better now than it did last year. Simply because with the school headed to G5 status and zero NIL money, Cal couldn't get a serious HC anyway. Instead Cal has a HC that Oregon wanted to hire. Uh.... hmmm....that's good....probably?

Looking at the situation from a big picture standpoint, I will say that the one thing Wilcox has been successful in is growing the assistant coaches compensation pool. The bad part is that in another year it will need to be restructured. The average HC in the Mountain West earns $1.2 mill/year. Wilcox is earning $4.75 mill/yr on average over his 6 yr contract. It's probably back end loaded, but still - in order to be competitive his salary needs to be cut in half. Assistant coach compensation pool (currently $4.6 mill/yr) needs to be cut in half. If 50% of those savings gets put in a football only NIL pool, then at least we'd have the firepower to be successful as a G5 school. More probable however is that those funds would be used to delay the elimination of additional non-revenue sports. Meh. At that point, I hope Wilcox just goes full obstinate and rejects any reduction in his salary thereby torpedoing as many non-revenue sports as possible. Just because.

---

Which is why the extension made no sense. The financial dynamics of football are in serious flux for most of college football and definitely for Cal and I seriously wonder if Cal sees that. NIL is a gamechanger. The nosedive in interest in college football on the West Coast is a gamechanger. USC and UCLA getting on a lifeboat only accelerates a lot of what was already coming. Our television and conference money are going to go down. We will not have the exposure to bring in big advertising dollars. Tying up P5 coaching salary expenses for years when we may (likely) be forced into a significantly worse financial position made no sense. And no, I don't think Wilcox was going anywhere. (nor do I think it really mattered if he did)

I know people say "we have to pay for the stadium", but that money is already spent. If we are headed to G5 status as you say, it is what it is. The question isn't whether we can pay for the stadium. We probably can't. The question is maximizing our investment/minimizing our losses. I can see how paying Wilcox in the very near term may do that, (if you can't attract a better coach with what you have to offer), but I don't think that is a sure bet over the life of his contract, nor do I think we really needed to extend him.

My suspicion is that Cal's decisions are not driven by long term success on the field, but by short term dollars. They pay the coach not what he is worth, but the amount they think they need to in a P5 conference not to be a joke. We could get the same results paying the $1.2M that the MWC does, but we would be telling the donors we have thrown in the towel and would lose more in donations than the $3.5 we would save. Pure speculation on my part, but I suspect they learned that lesson with basketball. I think hiring Wyking Jones at a salary that was more than he could have gotten elsewhere, but was chump change for a P12 coach, was Cal throwing in the towel on basketball and saying we have to field a team but we don't have to pay to make it good. I think Jones did exactly what they expected he would do. They just didn't realize the impact that would have on donors. Its not the losing. Its blatantly not trying. So we pay to keep up the charade and keep the donations flowing as best we can. I just don't know if that will work if we are part of a conference where even if we win the conference (which we won't) we still might not be top 20.

---

calumnus said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Cal84 said:

---

I'm pretty negative on Cal Athletics trajectory overall. But it is worth noting that Cal played fUCLA, SuC and Notre Blame to within a score. So in the short run (i.e. in the last year of the P12), I could see Cal going 4-5 or 5-4 in the conference. And with non-conference wins, onto a lower tier bowl. Does that warrant a big extension? Doesn't seem like it. But ironically, in some ways locking up Wilcox looks better now than it did last year. Simply because with the school headed to G5 status and zero NIL money, Cal couldn't get a serious HC anyway. Instead Cal has a HC that Oregon wanted to hire. Uh.... hmmm....that's good....probably?

Looking at the situation from a big picture standpoint, I will say that the one thing Wilcox has been successful in is growing the assistant coaches compensation pool. The bad part is that in another year it will need to be restructured. The average HC in the Mountain West earns $1.2 mill/year. Wilcox is earning $4.75 mill/yr on average over his 6 yr contract. It's probably back end loaded, but still - in order to be competitive his salary needs to be cut in half. Assistant coach compensation pool (currently $4.6 mill/yr) needs to be cut in half. If 50% of those savings gets put in a football only NIL pool, then at least we'd have the firepower to be successful as a G5 school. More probable however is that those funds would be used to delay the elimination of additional non-revenue sports. Meh. At that point, I hope Wilcox just goes full obstinate and rejects any reduction in his salary thereby torpedoing as many non-revenue sports as possible. Just because.

---

Which is why the extension made no sense. The financial dynamics of football are in serious flux for most of college football and definitely for Cal and I seriously wonder if Cal sees that. NIL is a gamechanger. The nosedive in interest in college football on the West Coast is a gamechanger. USC and UCLA getting on a lifeboat only accelerates a lot of what was already coming. Our television and conference money are going to go down. We will not have the exposure to bring in big advertising dollars. Tying up P5 coaching salary expenses for years when we may (likely) be forced into a significantly worse financial position made no sense. And no, I don't think Wilcox was going anywhere. (nor do I think it really mattered if he did)

I know people say "we have to pay for the stadium", but that money is already spent. If we are headed to G5 status as you say, it is what it is. The question isn't whether we can pay for the stadium. We probably can't. The question is maximizing our investment/minimizing our losses. I can see how paying Wilcox in the very near term may do that, (if you can't attract a better coach with what you have to offer), but I don't think that is a sure bet over the life of his contract, nor do I think we really needed to extend him.

My suspicion is that Cal's decisions are not driven by long term success on the field, but by short term dollars. They pay the coach not what he is worth, but the amount they think they need to in a P5 conference not to be a joke. We could get the same results paying the $1.2M that the MWC does, but we would be telling the donors we have thrown in the towel and would lose more in donations than the $3.5 we would save. Pure speculation on my part, but I suspect they learned that lesson with basketball. I think hiring Wyking Jones at a salary that was more than he could have gotten elsewhere, but was chump change for a P12 coach, was Cal throwing in the towel on basketball and saying we have to field a team but we don't have to pay to make it good. I think Jones did exactly what they expected he would do. They just didn't realize the impact that would have on donors. Its not the losing. Its blatantly not trying. So we pay to keep up the charade and keep the donations flowing as best we can. I just don't know if that will work if we are part of a conference where even if we win the conference (which we won't) we still might not be top 20.

---

I agree with everything you wrote except using Jones as your example. When coaches leave assistants are promoted all the time, both at Cal and elsewhere. If Mooch had been promoted when Snyder left it would have been a good move. If Travis DeCuire had been promoted when Monty retired you would not make this argument. Promoting Jones was a bad move line promoting Holmoe was a bad move only because they were bad coaches. At least Jones was a complete unknown. We knew Holmoe was a horrible DC, why would he be a better HC?

As for Jones's salary, I WISH we had only paid him a low salary, with incentives, favorable to Cal. He was paid over a $1 million a year. It cost us a lot of money to fire him after only two years. Maybe you are thinking of Todd Bozeman who continued to make less than $100k in the years after taking over when Campanelli was fired? Again, taking chances on assistants like Holmoe, DeCuire or Jones or even Gilby, Tedford or Wilcox is not horrible. The initial contract SHOULD be low so Cal mitigates it's risk and the coach can be fired after two years if they are not working out but if the coach is doing great, Cal can then extend them with a contract worthy of a PROVEN coach.

Besides, Jones was hired by an AD who was temporary, only in there two years and donated his salary back to the department. Jones was only there two years. He left behind a roster that would have been good over the last three years. The new AD fired him when the results were horrible. All that is easily overcome if the new AD does not make a horrible hire and extend him.

All schools take chances on unproven coaches. The key is then firing them wuickly when they don't show potential greatness. Cal does the opposite: we extend guys like Holmoe and Wilcox. If Knowlton had followed up firing Jones with a good hire, even if unproven, thst would be normal. Instead he hired a guy that has proven he is not great at a high level and has extended him. He gave Wilcox a 6 year extension and raise after 5 years of losing.

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Cal84 said:

---

I'm pretty negative on Cal Athletics trajectory overall. But it is worth noting that Cal played fUCLA, SuC and Notre Blame to within a score. So in the short run (i.e. in the last year of the P12), I could see Cal going 4-5 or 5-4 in the conference. And with non-conference wins, onto a lower tier bowl. Does that warrant a big extension? Doesn't seem like it. But ironically, in some ways locking up Wilcox looks better now than it did last year. Simply because with the school headed to G5 status and zero NIL money, Cal couldn't get a serious HC anyway. Instead Cal has a HC that Oregon wanted to hire. Uh.... hmmm....that's good....probably?

Looking at the situation from a big picture standpoint, I will say that the one thing Wilcox has been successful in is growing the assistant coaches compensation pool. The bad part is that in another year it will need to be restructured. The average HC in the Mountain West earns $1.2 mill/year. Wilcox is earning $4.75 mill/yr on average over his 6 yr contract. It's probably back end loaded, but still - in order to be competitive his salary needs to be cut in half. Assistant coach compensation pool (currently $4.6 mill/yr) needs to be cut in half. If 50% of those savings gets put in a football only NIL pool, then at least we'd have the firepower to be successful as a G5 school. More probable however is that those funds would be used to delay the elimination of additional non-revenue sports. Meh. At that point, I hope Wilcox just goes full obstinate and rejects any reduction in his salary thereby torpedoing as many non-revenue sports as possible. Just because.

---

Which is why the extension made no sense. The financial dynamics of football are in serious flux for most of college football and definitely for Cal and I seriously wonder if Cal sees that. NIL is a gamechanger. The nosedive in interest in college football on the West Coast is a gamechanger. USC and UCLA getting on a lifeboat only accelerates a lot of what was already coming. Our television and conference money are going to go down. We will not have the exposure to bring in big advertising dollars. Tying up P5 coaching salary expenses for years when we may (likely) be forced into a significantly worse financial position made no sense. And no, I don't think Wilcox was going anywhere. (nor do I think it really mattered if he did)

I know people say "we have to pay for the stadium", but that money is already spent. If we are headed to G5 status as you say, it is what it is. The question isn't whether we can pay for the stadium. We probably can't. The question is maximizing our investment/minimizing our losses. I can see how paying Wilcox in the very near term may do that, (if you can't attract a better coach with what you have to offer), but I don't think that is a sure bet over the life of his contract, nor do I think we really needed to extend him.

My suspicion is that Cal's decisions are not driven by long term success on the field, but by short term dollars. They pay the coach not what he is worth, but the amount they think they need to in a P5 conference not to be a joke. We could get the same results paying the $1.2M that the MWC does, but we would be telling the donors we have thrown in the towel and would lose more in donations than the $3.5 we would save. Pure speculation on my part, but I suspect they learned that lesson with basketball. I think hiring Wyking Jones at a salary that was more than he could have gotten elsewhere, but was chump change for a P12 coach, was Cal throwing in the towel on basketball and saying we have to field a team but we don't have to pay to make it good. I think Jones did exactly what they expected he would do. They just didn't realize the impact that would have on donors. Its not the losing. Its blatantly not trying. So we pay to keep up the charade and keep the donations flowing as best we can. I just don't know if that will work if we are part of a conference where even if we win the conference (which we won't) we still might not be top 20.

---

I agree with everything you wrote except using Jones as your example. When coaches leave assistants are promoted all the time, both at Cal and elsewhere. If Mooch had been promoted when Snyder left it would have been a good move. If Travis DeCuire had been promoted when Monty retired you would not make this argument. Promoting Jones was a bad move line promoting Holmoe was a bad move only because they were bad coaches. At least Jones was a complete unknown. We knew Holmoe was a horrible DC, why would he be a better HC?

As for Jones's salary, I WISH we had only paid him a low salary, with incentives, favorable to Cal. He was paid over a $1 million a year. It cost us a lot of money to fire him after only two years. Maybe you are thinking of Todd Bozeman who continued to make less than $100k in the years after taking over when Campanelli was fired? Again, taking chances on assistants like Holmoe, DeCuire or Jones or even Gilby, Tedford or Wilcox is not horrible. The initial contract SHOULD be low so Cal mitigates it's risk and the coach can be fired after two years if they are not working out but if the coach is doing great, Cal can then extend them with a contract worthy of a PROVEN coach.

Besides, Jones was hired by an AD who was temporary, only in there two years and donated his salary back to the department. Jones was only there two years. He left behind a roster that would have been good over the last three years. The new AD fired him when the results were horrible. All that is easily overcome if the new AD does not make a horrible hire and extend him.

All schools take chances on unproven coaches. The key is then firing them wuickly when they don't show potential greatness. Cal does the opposite: we extend guys like Holmoe and Wilcox. If Knowlton had followed up firing Jones with a good hire, even if unproven, thst would be normal. Instead he hired a guy that has proven he is not great at a high level and has extended him. He gave Wilcox a 6 year extension and raise after 5 years of losing.

---

$1M is chump change for a Pac12 coach. I would argue that football is significantly different with regards to promoting assistants. A P5 coordinator arguably has more relevant experience than a head coach from a lower level. The same is not true for basketball. Further, all of the coaches you named had something you could hang your hat on. Holmoe was a terrible hire, but you had Bill Walsh pumping him up. Gilby was a national championship OC and had HC experience. Tedford coached one of the best offenses in the country. Wilcox had a ton of experience and was well liked from his time at Cal. And all of those guys were openly and actively trying to advance their careers to HC status. As for Decuire, I assume you are referring to hiring him when we hired Cuonzo, since he had 3 years of HC experience when we hired Wyking. Monty had clearly been grooming Decuire for a HC position, and I think he had every belief that he was creating his successor at Cal.

There was simply no reason to think Wyking was ready for a HC job. Or that he has even spent any time getting himself prepared for a head coaching job. I wouldn't be surprised if he never even thought about it until Cal approached him. He certainly wasn't prepared. But, when he was hired I did account for this saying either Cal was going cheap, or Wyking was one of those guys that you get in the building and everyone just knows he is going to succeed. It didn't take long to figure out it wasn't door number two. Now, we might have lucked out and he might have developed, but there was no reason to believe that was going to happen. I stand by my assertion that he was hired because he was cheap and he was there. There is simply no argument for that hire, not even a bad one, if your goal was winning (I can even make a really bad argument for hiring Fox as many here did).

---

LunchTime said:

---

"Cal was a tougher school with less academic support" is just a lie.

In 1991 and 2004 football players had a much lighter academic burden than they do now. It's not even arguable.

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Cal84 said:

---

I'm pretty negative on Cal Athletics trajectory overall. But it is worth noting that Cal played fUCLA, SuC and Notre Blame to within a score. So in the short run (i.e. in the last year of the P12), I could see Cal going 4-5 or 5-4 in the conference. And with non-conference wins, onto a lower tier bowl. Does that warrant a big extension? Doesn't seem like it. But ironically, in some ways locking up Wilcox looks better now than it did last year. Simply because with the school headed to G5 status and zero NIL money, Cal couldn't get a serious HC anyway. Instead Cal has a HC that Oregon wanted to hire. Uh.... hmmm....that's good....probably?

Looking at the situation from a big picture standpoint, I will say that the one thing Wilcox has been successful in is growing the assistant coaches compensation pool. The bad part is that in another year it will need to be restructured. The average HC in the Mountain West earns $1.2 mill/year. Wilcox is earning $4.75 mill/yr on average over his 6 yr contract. It's probably back end loaded, but still - in order to be competitive his salary needs to be cut in half. Assistant coach compensation pool (currently $4.6 mill/yr) needs to be cut in half. If 50% of those savings gets put in a football only NIL pool, then at least we'd have the firepower to be successful as a G5 school. More probable however is that those funds would be used to delay the elimination of additional non-revenue sports. Meh. At that point, I hope Wilcox just goes full obstinate and rejects any reduction in his salary thereby torpedoing as many non-revenue sports as possible. Just because.

---

Which is why the extension made no sense. The financial dynamics of football are in serious flux for most of college football and definitely for Cal and I seriously wonder if Cal sees that. NIL is a gamechanger. The nosedive in interest in college football on the West Coast is a gamechanger. USC and UCLA getting on a lifeboat only accelerates a lot of what was already coming. Our television and conference money are going to go down. We will not have the exposure to bring in big advertising dollars. Tying up P5 coaching salary expenses for years when we may (likely) be forced into a significantly worse financial position made no sense. And no, I don't think Wilcox was going anywhere. (nor do I think it really mattered if he did)

I know people say "we have to pay for the stadium", but that money is already spent. If we are headed to G5 status as you say, it is what it is. The question isn't whether we can pay for the stadium. We probably can't. The question is maximizing our investment/minimizing our losses. I can see how paying Wilcox in the very near term may do that, (if you can't attract a better coach with what you have to offer), but I don't think that is a sure bet over the life of his contract, nor do I think we really needed to extend him.

My suspicion is that Cal's decisions are not driven by long term success on the field, but by short term dollars. They pay the coach not what he is worth, but the amount they think they need to in a P5 conference not to be a joke. We could get the same results paying the $1.2M that the MWC does, but we would be telling the donors we have thrown in the towel and would lose more in donations than the $3.5 we would save. Pure speculation on my part, but I suspect they learned that lesson with basketball. I think hiring Wyking Jones at a salary that was more than he could have gotten elsewhere, but was chump change for a P12 coach, was Cal throwing in the towel on basketball and saying we have to field a team but we don't have to pay to make it good. I think Jones did exactly what they expected he would do. They just didn't realize the impact that would have on donors. Its not the losing. Its blatantly not trying. So we pay to keep up the charade and keep the donations flowing as best we can. I just don't know if that will work if we are part of a conference where even if we win the conference (which we won't) we still might not be top 20.

---

I agree with everything you wrote except using Jones as your example. When coaches leave assistants are promoted all the time, both at Cal and elsewhere. If Mooch had been promoted when Snyder left it would have been a good move. If Travis DeCuire had been promoted when Monty retired you would not make this argument. Promoting Jones was a bad move line promoting Holmoe was a bad move only because they were bad coaches. At least Jones was a complete unknown. We knew Holmoe was a horrible DC, why would he be a better HC?

As for Jones's salary, I WISH we had only paid him a low salary, with incentives, favorable to Cal. He was paid over a $1 million a year. It cost us a lot of money to fire him after only two years. Maybe you are thinking of Todd Bozeman who continued to make less than $100k in the years after taking over when Campanelli was fired? Again, taking chances on assistants like Holmoe, DeCuire or Jones or even Gilby, Tedford or Wilcox is not horrible. The initial contract SHOULD be low so Cal mitigates it's risk and the coach can be fired after two years if they are not working out but if the coach is doing great, Cal can then extend them with a contract worthy of a PROVEN coach.

Besides, Jones was hired by an AD who was temporary, only in there two years and donated his salary back to the department. Jones was only there two years. He left behind a roster that would have been good over the last three years. The new AD fired him when the results were horrible. All that is easily overcome if the new AD does not make a horrible hire and extend him.

All schools take chances on unproven coaches. The key is then firing them wuickly when they don't show potential greatness. Cal does the opposite: we extend guys like Holmoe and Wilcox. If Knowlton had followed up firing Jones with a good hire, even if unproven, thst would be normal. Instead he hired a guy that has proven he is not great at a high level and has extended him. He gave Wilcox a 6 year extension and raise after 5 years of losing.

---

$1M is chump change for a Pac12 coach. I would argue that football is significantly different with regards to promoting assistants. A P5 coordinator arguably has more relevant experience than a head coach from a lower level. The same is not true for basketball. Further, all of the coaches you named had something you could hang your hat on. Holmoe was a terrible hire, but you had Bill Walsh pumping him up. Gilby was a national championship OC and had HC experience. Tedford coached one of the best offenses in the country. Wilcox had a ton of experience and was well liked from his time at Cal. And all of those guys were openly and actively trying to advance their careers to HC status. As for Decuire, I assume you are referring to hiring him when we hired Cuonzo, since he had 3 years of HC experience when we hired Wyking. Monty had clearly been grooming Decuire for a HC position, and I think he had every belief that he was creating his successor at Cal.

There was simply no reason to think Wyking was ready for a HC job. Or that he has even spent any time getting himself prepared for a head coaching job. I wouldn't be surprised if he never even thought about it until Cal approached him. He certainly wasn't prepared. But, when he was hired I did account for this saying either Cal was going cheap, or Wyking was one of those guys that you get in the building and everyone just knows he is going to succeed. It didn't take long to figure out it wasn't door number two. Now, we might have lucked out and he might have developed, but there was no reason to believe that was going to happen. I stand by my assertion that he was hired because he was cheap and he was there. There is simply no argument for that hire, not even a bad one, if your goal was winning (I can even make a really bad argument for hiring Fox as many here did).

---

eastcoastcal said:

---

Re: workload

Will put here what some of my EECS/Business professors have said on the subject- the curve at Cal is now shifted up. Meaning, the average grade received in today's classes is higher than in previous decades (still below what most colleges have, which is mostly As and A minuses compared to B range for Cal).

However, the academic caliber of the student body is significantly increased, especially in the last 10 years. Admissions have gotten so competitive that the average student at Cal is a really excellent student. Top high school grades, extra-curriculars, standardized test scores, resums, etc. As a result, it's competitive to stay ahead of the curve and compete in classes/get into clubs/research.

Take that as you will (and I am just reiterating what I've heard from my professors, please don't take this as the objective truth or anything)

---

LunchTime said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal84 said:

---

>Our problem is not that we don't pay enough, our problem is that we make poor hires and then overpay them and give them unwarranted contract extensions even after poor performance.


There is some truth in what you say, but it remains the case that last year, Wilcox was the 7th highest paid HC in the P12. And his record more or less reflected that. He wasn't being massively overpaid. A better argument can be made that he was overpaid relative to results this year. But his pay bump sort of reflected the fact that he was being chased by biggest pocketbook team in the conference in the off season. Overall one can not argue that the administration of Cal Athletics has covered themselves in glory with their hiring decisions. But neither is the argument that "if we just made better hires everything would be fine" very pursuasive. There are deep structural problems with Cal Athletics that prevent Cal from being able to attract top HCs. And since those were purposely left unaddressed, it should come as no surprise that we have arrived at this, the final train station on the journey.

---

How many P5 schools (in the last 50 years at least) ever gave a coach with a losing record over his first 5 seasons, including a losing record the last two seasons, an extension for six more years? It was unprecedented. No other school does that. Look at all the far more successful coaches that have been cut loose, or resigned.

So you think the problem is we don't pay Wilcox enough?

Troy Taylor is making at most 10% of what Wilcox makes. If you don't overpay and over extend Wilcox we could have tried someone new like Taylor. Then pay more for the coach once they have proven themselves and are generating INCREASED revenue from ticket sales and MAJOR bowl payouts.

Cal has won big with good coaching, in 1991 and 2004 we had Top 10 teams, back when the facilities were $500 million worse, Telegraph was Telegraph, Cal was a tougher school with worse academic support. Just 7 years ago we had the #6 offense in the country, just 4 years ago we had the #6 defense in the country.

In basketball just a few years ago we had 3 McDonald's All Americans on the team, we were undefeated at home and had a #4 seed.

Just hire good coaches and keep them when they succeed and cut them loose when they don't. It really is not more complicated than that. The key is having an AD who knows football and basketball and can hire good cosches. THAT is Cal's problem. Fix that before you complain about anything else at Cal.

---

"Cal was a tougher school with less academic support" is just a lie.

In 1991 and 2004 football players had a much lighter academic burden than they do now. It's not even arguable.

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

eastcoastcal said:

---

Re: workload

Will put here what some of my EECS/Business professors have said on the subject- the curve at Cal is now shifted up. Meaning, the average grade received in today's classes is higher than in previous decades (still below what most colleges have, which is mostly As and A minuses compared to B range for Cal).

However, the academic caliber of the student body is significantly increased, especially in the last 10 years. Admissions have gotten so competitive that the average student at Cal is a really excellent student. Top high school grades, extra-curriculars, standardized test scores, resums, etc. As a result, it's competitive to stay ahead of the curve and compete in classes/get into clubs/research.

Take that as you will (and I am just reiterating what I've heard from my professors, please don't take this as the objective truth or anything)

---

There are only two components of this question that are relevant here:

How hard is it to pass your classes and make progress to graduation? This is the relevant question because as long as athletes do this, they are fine. The question isn't how hard it is to excel. The answer to this question is that it is very clear that it is much easier to pass your classes and graduate at Cal today than in days gone by. A fact that is a good thing. You don't need to flunk students out to provide a good education. The opposite in fact. This doesn't mean the classes are any easier. Just that it is easier to get a passing grade.

How easy is it for an athlete to pass their classes and make progress to graduation? I have no idea the answer to this. I have no idea what "accommodations" were made for athletes in the past (though the 70's were very notorious) and I have no idea what are made today.

I think academic caliber is in the eye of the beholder. But a major difference is that kids are forced to grow up and compete for these spots much earlier. No one in my day was sitting in 8th grade or younger mapping out what extra-curriculars would get them into the college they wanted. As a result, kids that go to elite colleges hit the ground running thinking about internships, jobs, research, prepping for grad school, etc. from the day they walk onto campus. I'm not sure if this is better or worse, but students are definitely prepared outside the classroom much earlier.

---

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

"Cal was a tougher school with less academic support" is just a lie.

In 1991 and 2004 football players had a much lighter academic burden than they do now. It's not even arguable.

---

You state that as if it's a known and accepted fact. Is it? Understand that many of us are not in a position to judge or to know. I've been on this board for 20 years, and I'm not sure I've heard anyone make this argument. The entrance requirements might be tougher today...but why is the workload tougher? What is your evidence?

---

Quote:

---

The NCAA report showed that Cal football graduated just 44 percent of its athletes who entered school from 2003 through 2006

---

calumnus said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal84 said:

---

>Our problem is not that we don't pay enough, our problem is that we make poor hires and then overpay them and give them unwarranted contract extensions even after poor performance.


There is some truth in what you say, but it remains the case that last year, Wilcox was the 7th highest paid HC in the P12. And his record more or less reflected that. He wasn't being massively overpaid. A better argument can be made that he was overpaid relative to results this year. But his pay bump sort of reflected the fact that he was being chased by biggest pocketbook team in the conference in the off season. Overall one can not argue that the administration of Cal Athletics has covered themselves in glory with their hiring decisions. But neither is the argument that "if we just made better hires everything would be fine" very pursuasive. There are deep structural problems with Cal Athletics that prevent Cal from being able to attract top HCs. And since those were purposely left unaddressed, it should come as no surprise that we have arrived at this, the final train station on the journey.

---

How many P5 schools (in the last 50 years at least) ever gave a coach with a losing record over his first 5 seasons, including a losing record the last two seasons, an extension for six more years? It was unprecedented. No other school does that. Look at all the far more successful coaches that have been cut loose, or resigned.

So you think the problem is we don't pay Wilcox enough?

Troy Taylor is making at most 10% of what Wilcox makes. If you don't overpay and over extend Wilcox we could have tried someone new like Taylor. Then pay more for the coach once they have proven themselves and are generating INCREASED revenue from ticket sales and MAJOR bowl payouts.

Cal has won big with good coaching, in 1991 and 2004 we had Top 10 teams, back when the facilities were $500 million worse, Telegraph was Telegraph, Cal was a tougher school with worse academic support. Just 7 years ago we had the #6 offense in the country, just 4 years ago we had the #6 defense in the country.

In basketball just a few years ago we had 3 McDonald's All Americans on the team, we were undefeated at home and had a #4 seed.

Just hire good coaches and keep them when they succeed and cut them loose when they don't. It really is not more complicated than that. The key is having an AD who knows football and basketball and can hire good cosches. THAT is Cal's problem. Fix that before you complain about anything else at Cal.

---

"Cal was a tougher school with less academic support" is just a lie.

In 1991 and 2004 football players had a much lighter academic burden than they do now. It's not even arguable.

---

What data do you have to support this? Back then, lots of non-athletes flunked out. Now very few do. Overall GPAs have increased at Cal. It is much easier to get Cs at Cal now than it was in the past.

Academic support for athletes is demonstrably better now too.

Now, if you are arguing that admission standards for athletes are higher now, I'd agree with you on that. But the guys that are getting in, are progressing and graduating, often even early now.

---

califortunate said:

---

Williams didn't donate his salary. He was installed as a temporary AD and then decided he wanted the job permanently. He was totally unqualified for the job by experience or expertise. He had zero qualifications and was ill-suited not just by background but also by personality and drive. He was lazy, disengaged, and a colossal kick in the balls to anyone supporting Cal athletics. He wasn't qualified to be an AD at a high school, much less a D1 university. I get that you're no fan of Knowlton but he at least had worked in athletics administration and been an AD. It was outrageous that Williams lobbied for and got the permanent slot and many of the lingering structural and tactical challenges we gave are because of it. Stop stating Williams was generous; he kept his salary and a huge chunk of his donations to Cal were made by his former employer, and he got the credit.

---