WalterSobchak said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

After a while, Walter, fans begin to feel like Schmucks. They provide undying support decade in, decade out, only to have their hearts crushed time and time again. My father was shouting "Bring back Torchio!" in the 80's when Cal football continued its futility. He attended Cal during their last glory years. Oh how lucky he realized he WAS. Then he enjoyed the Citrus Bowl and things were looking up. Oops, Holmoecaust bump in the road! But then we enjoyed the Tedford years and things appeared to be on the rise. Oh and then the stadium funding and construction? ON THE RIGHT ...

NOPE! Derailed! My Old Blue father wanted a Rose Bowl before he died. He watched Riley throw our season away in person with my kids in tow. That was the last year he bought season tix. Our entire family finally didn't renew. And it was prescient because the ensuing decade proved to be pretty bleak. With runaway money and Cal doing nothing to address the issues, hope is even lower.

My dad never got that Rose Bowl. He did die after it became a moot point. What a shame.

Two relatives, die-hard fans, have thrown in the towel. Never thought I'd see THAT!

So you think intelligent, well-educated, high-functioning alumni of the world's #1 university should be Schmucks? Should be the suckers, year in and year out? Why do you expect them to play the fool?

You're asking WAY TOO MUCH. Admin should devote the time, energy and funding to football, show results and THEN you'll see the fans fill the stands. With a billion dollar stadium (after interest pmts.), you have NO CHOICE but to do this. Yet the administration has flailed. W-T-F is wrong with them? If they REALLY do expect the stands to be full as a prerequisite for success, then they're dumber than rocks. It doesn't work that way! For these reasons, you have it bass-ackwards, my friend.

My parents took me to my first Cal game on November 20, 1982. We experienced SO MUCH amazing stuff in Memorial stadium. But those memories are fading, as are the alumni. You can only expect so much.

I appreciate your support and desire to see Cal succeed, but please aim your frustration at the administration, not the fans who have been abused enough at this point!

Go Bears!

---

It's possible to have a culture that demands an administration that values sports. Look at all the schools you hate. USC. UW. Oregon. They manage to do it.

---

And the ironic thing is that Carol Folt, USC Prez, hates sports, but she quickly saw the alums and their checkbooks.

WalterSobchak said:

---

It's possible to have a culture that demands an administration that values sports. Look at all the schools you hate. USC. UW. Oregon. They manage to do it.

---

A great many of us have been doing just exactly that for decades: "demanding an administration that values sports." Yet the administration has refused to change. And the megadonors who could bring about that change have stayed silent and compliant.

I bought in generously just short of 3 decades, and things have only gotten worse. Here we are, hoping for a 6-win season from an 8th year coach who is dismissal-proof. My reduced donations to athletics now go solely to NIL (even that will dwindle to zero absent radical change in the next couple of years). Buying in will not bring change, it will validate and encourage the status quo.

Quote:

---

We've been infected by apathy for decades.

---

You keep calling Cal fans apathetic, when that appellation belongs to the administration (and generous megadonors who could speak up a lot more about their displeasure). Cal fans are FED UP, not apathetic. It's curious why you would confound those two almost polar opposite sentiments.

Quote:

---

Look, I get that you feel personally attacked by my opinion but it only goes to prove my point. I haven't changed my position once regardless how insulted you might feel by it.

---

"Insulted"?? Not at all. You sure have a way of misusing words and concepts such as "apathy" and "being insulted." I'm amused. I enjoy shining a bright light on contradictions, misdiagnoses, poorly disguised backtracks, and word misuses.

Big Dog said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

After a while, Walter, fans begin to feel like Schmucks. They provide undying support decade in, decade out, only to have their hearts crushed time and time again. My father was shouting "Bring back Torchio!" in the 80's when Cal football continued its futility. He attended Cal during their last glory years. Oh how lucky he realized he WAS. Then he enjoyed the Citrus Bowl and things were looking up. Oops, Holmoecaust bump in the road! But then we enjoyed the Tedford years and things appeared to be on the rise. Oh and then the stadium funding and construction? ON THE RIGHT ...

NOPE! Derailed! My Old Blue father wanted a Rose Bowl before he died. He watched Riley throw our season away in person with my kids in tow. That was the last year he bought season tix. Our entire family finally didn't renew. And it was prescient because the ensuing decade proved to be pretty bleak. With runaway money and Cal doing nothing to address the issues, hope is even lower.

My dad never got that Rose Bowl. He did die after it became a moot point. What a shame.

Two relatives, die-hard fans, have thrown in the towel. Never thought I'd see THAT!

So you think intelligent, well-educated, high-functioning alumni of the world's #1 university should be Schmucks? Should be the suckers, year in and year out? Why do you expect them to play the fool?

You're asking WAY TOO MUCH. Admin should devote the time, energy and funding to football, show results and THEN you'll see the fans fill the stands. With a billion dollar stadium (after interest pmts.), you have NO CHOICE but to do this. Yet the administration has flailed. W-T-F is wrong with them? If they REALLY do expect the stands to be full as a prerequisite for success, then they're dumber than rocks. It doesn't work that way! For these reasons, you have it bass-ackwards, my friend.

My parents took me to my first Cal game on November 20, 1982. We experienced SO MUCH amazing stuff in Memorial stadium. But those memories are fading, as are the alumni. You can only expect so much.

I appreciate your support and desire to see Cal succeed, but please aim your frustration at the administration, not the fans who have been abused enough at this point!

Go Bears!

---

It's possible to have a culture that demands an administration that values sports. Look at all the schools you hate. USC. UW. Oregon. They manage to do it.

---

And the ironic thing is that Carol Folt, USC Prez, hates sports, but she quickly saw the alums and their checkbooks.

---

That's the leverage that has not been organized into an effective tool. Plus, she'd be fighting years and years of culture.

calumnus said:

---

Bowlesman80 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Those kinds of coaches were offered over the years, but their agents cut off any requests. Teddy had no coaching experience on defense that I am aware of.

---

We keep marching according to exceptions that supposedly prove the rule. For every extremely rare teddy we've stumbled upon by dumb luck, there've been 5-7 wilcoxes that actually prove the rule. We can't keep relying on rare, dumb luck. Instead, radically change our approach to hiring ADs and HCs by helping our sports-ignorant chancelors make informed hiring decisions via the advice of a formally established select group of alumni w/ expertise on our revenue-producing sports.

---

Agree. At a minimum an "advisory board" of Cal alumni to oversee the AD who technically is still hired by the chancellor. However, I think a better way to navigate the coming professionalism of college sports is to outsource the revenue sports to a alumni run organization with decisions made by shareholder proxy or an elected board or president.

As to your other topic:

Three head coaches to hire:

1. A young smart innovative P5 OC with good leadership qualities (White, Tedford, Mooch, Walsh, Shaw).

2. A young head coach that that has had success at a lower level (can be offense or defense)(Snyder, Dykes, Harbaugh, Taylor)

3. A head coach from the NFL that is unemployed at that level but has a personality that would translate to college (Madden, Carrol, Mooch, Walsh, Edwards, Rivera).

Head coaches I would not hire:

1. Young DC, especially if they are not obvious college rah, rah types (Holmoe, Wilcox). They need to prove they can hire an OC and oversee an offense at a lower level. Top OCs are in great demand are expensive and good ones get HC offers (see #1 above).

2. Coaches who have no OC or HC experience (Kapp, Rodgers, Lynch, Pawlawski)

3. Retreads, coaches who were fired at D1 level.

---

I would suggest, insist, that a coalition of donors and alumni be required as a majority membership in a hiring committee that oversees all athletics hires, including AD.

The same committee would oversee contract formulation and any firing decisions.

---

I agree, though the composition of the alumni on the board is important or it could produce similar results. Most of the insiders here rallied around the Wilcox and Fox hires and extensions. Much of the antiquated thinking about sports is shared by a sizable portion of our alumni base especially as it skews older and wealthier. We need people with both the means and a forward thinking vision for Cal's success in the year 2024 and beyond.

---

Wow. An almost completely false statement, particularly with regard to Fox.

falseintellect said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

You want buy in from the fans? Maybe beat teams like auburn first

---

It's supposed to work the other way. This is what's wrong with Cal.

---

Sure, but at some we need a reason.

I used to go to almost every home game but I haven't in years. The school doesn't care about football so why should I waste my money and time?

Hard to get excited about a team whose peak is an 8 win season (and only if we get a favorable schedule and an easy bowl match up). It's been 15 years since we've won 9 games.

---

We won as many as 9 games as recently as 15 years ago?

Bowlesman80 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

Bowlesman80 said:

---

BearHunter said:

---

Oregon fakes a punt with a 300lb lineman from their own 17 yard line. haha.

---

I hate Oregon, but felt good for that lineman.

---

I hate what Tosh did but when are we bringing him in from Oregon?

---

Great question. Maybe when "Berkeley" admin decides that money sports matter.

---

circa 2069. the asteroid will hit just after that...
...because we're Cal.

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Bowlesman80 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Those kinds of coaches were offered over the years, but their agents cut off any requests. Teddy had no coaching experience on defense that I am aware of.

---

We keep marching according to exceptions that supposedly prove the rule. For every extremely rare teddy we've stumbled upon by dumb luck, there've been 5-7 wilcoxes that actually prove the rule. We can't keep relying on rare, dumb luck. Instead, radically change our approach to hiring ADs and HCs by helping our sports-ignorant chancelors make informed hiring decisions via the advice of a formally established select group of alumni w/ expertise on our revenue-producing sports.

---

Agree. At a minimum an "advisory board" of Cal alumni to oversee the AD who technically is still hired by the chancellor. However, I think a better way to navigate the coming professionalism of college sports is to outsource the revenue sports to a alumni run organization with decisions made by shareholder proxy or an elected board or president.

As to your other topic:

Three head coaches to hire:

1. A young smart innovative P5 OC with good leadership qualities (White, Tedford, Mooch, Walsh, Shaw).

2. A young head coach that that has had success at a lower level (can be offense or defense)(Snyder, Dykes, Harbaugh, Taylor)

3. A head coach from the NFL that is unemployed at that level but has a personality that would translate to college (Madden, Carrol, Mooch, Walsh, Edwards, Rivera).

Head coaches I would not hire:

1. Young DC, especially if they are not obvious college rah, rah types (Holmoe, Wilcox). They need to prove they can hire an OC and oversee an offense at a lower level. Top OCs are in great demand are expensive and good ones get HC offers (see #1 above).

2. Coaches who have no OC or HC experience (Kapp, Rodgers, Lynch, Pawlawski)

3. Retreads, coaches who were fired at D1 level.

---

I would suggest, insist, that a coalition of donors and alumni be required as a majority membership in a hiring committee that oversees all athletics hires, including AD.

The same committee would oversee contract formulation and any firing decisions.

---

I agree, though the composition of the alumni on the board is important or it could produce similar results. Most of the insiders here rallied around the Wilcox and Fox hires and extensions. Much of the antiquated thinking about sports is shared by a sizable portion of our alumni base especially as it skews older and wealthier. We need people with both the means and a forward thinking vision for Cal's success in the year 2024 and beyond.

---

Wow. An almost completely false statement, particularly with regard to Fox.

---

I only can go by the postings here. Insiders consistently defended Fox and denigrated all the players that left, immediately upon his hiring and in subsequent years. Fox was defended by shifting blame to Wyking Jones and even Cuonzo Martin.

However, you cannot deny that the insiders were supportive of extending Wilcox to year 11 following losing seasons in years 4 and 5 and a losing record overall because he reportedly turned down Oregon.

Now I am 100% sure that we have alums who are all in on having a winning program using all our advantages in the new landscape (Shocky, Sebasta)… I would just be concerned if the board is composed of people Christ and Knowlton appoint, since they will naturally appoint likeminded and "supportive" individuals.

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Those kinds of coaches were offered over the years, but their agents cut off any requests. Teddy had no coaching experience on defense that I am aware of.

---

We keep marching according to exceptions that supposedly prove the rule. For every extremely rare teddy we've stumbled upon by dumb luck, there've been 5-7 wilcoxes that actually prove the rule. We can't keep relying on rare, dumb luck. Instead, radically change our approach to hiring ADs and HCs by helping our sports-ignorant chancelors make informed hiring decisions via the advice of a formally established select group of alumni w/ expertise on our revenue-producing sports.

---

We don't even have dumb luck anymore...
Oh wait, you're referring to our 2 recent wins against $C and Washington.

heartofthebear said:

---

falseintellect said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

You want buy in from the fans? Maybe beat teams like auburn first

---

It's supposed to work the other way. This is what's wrong with Cal.

---

Sure, but at some we need a reason.

I used to go to almost every home game but I haven't in years. The school doesn't care about football so why should I waste my money and time?

Hard to get excited about a team whose peak is an 8 win season (and only if we get a favorable schedule and an easy bowl match up). It's been 15 years since we've won 9 games.

---

We won as many as 9 games as recently as 15 years ago?

---

Classic, that should be made into a banner and flown over Memorial

Anarchistbear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

falseintellect said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

You want buy in from the fans? Maybe beat teams like auburn first

---

It's supposed to work the other way. This is what's wrong with Cal.

---

Sure, but at some we need a reason.

I used to go to almost every home game but I haven't in years. The school doesn't care about football so why should I waste my money and time?

Hard to get excited about a team whose peak is an 8 win season (and only if we get a favorable schedule and an easy bowl match up). It's been 15 years since we've won 9 games.

---

We won as many as 9 games as recently as 15 years ago?

---

Classic, that should be made into a banner and flown over Memorial

---

Along with a plaque, "We haven't always sucked."

calumnus said:

---

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Bowlesman80 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Those kinds of coaches were offered over the years, but their agents cut off any requests. Teddy had no coaching experience on defense that I am aware of.

---

We keep marching according to exceptions that supposedly prove the rule. For every extremely rare teddy we've stumbled upon by dumb luck, there've been 5-7 wilcoxes that actually prove the rule. We can't keep relying on rare, dumb luck. Instead, radically change our approach to hiring ADs and HCs by helping our sports-ignorant chancelors make informed hiring decisions via the advice of a formally established select group of alumni w/ expertise on our revenue-producing sports.

---

Agree. At a minimum an "advisory board" of Cal alumni to oversee the AD who technically is still hired by the chancellor. However, I think a better way to navigate the coming professionalism of college sports is to outsource the revenue sports to a alumni run organization with decisions made by shareholder proxy or an elected board or president.

As to your other topic:

Three head coaches to hire:

1. A young smart innovative P5 OC with good leadership qualities (White, Tedford, Mooch, Walsh, Shaw).

2. A young head coach that that has had success at a lower level (can be offense or defense)(Snyder, Dykes, Harbaugh, Taylor)

3. A head coach from the NFL that is unemployed at that level but has a personality that would translate to college (Madden, Carrol, Mooch, Walsh, Edwards, Rivera).

Head coaches I would not hire:

1. Young DC, especially if they are not obvious college rah, rah types (Holmoe, Wilcox). They need to prove they can hire an OC and oversee an offense at a lower level. Top OCs are in great demand are expensive and good ones get HC offers (see #1 above).

2. Coaches who have no OC or HC experience (Kapp, Rodgers, Lynch, Pawlawski)

3. Retreads, coaches who were fired at D1 level.

---

I would suggest, insist, that a coalition of donors and alumni be required as a majority membership in a hiring committee that oversees all athletics hires, including AD.

The same committee would oversee contract formulation and any firing decisions.

---

I agree, though the composition of the alumni on the board is important or it could produce similar results. Most of the insiders here rallied around the Wilcox and Fox hires and extensions. Much of the antiquated thinking about sports is shared by a sizable portion of our alumni base especially as it skews older and wealthier. We need people with both the means and a forward thinking vision for Cal's success in the year 2024 and beyond.

---

Wow. An almost completely false statement, particularly with regard to Fox.

---

I only can go by the postings here. Insiders consistently defended Fox and denigrated all the players that left, immediately upon his hiring and in subsequent years. Fox was defended by shifting blame to Wyking Jones and even Cuonzo Martin.

However, you cannot deny that the insiders were supportive of extending Wilcox to year 11 following losing seasons in years 4 and 5 and a losing record overall because he reportedly turned down Oregon.

Now I am 100% sure that we have alums who are all in on having a winning program using all our advantages in the new landscape (Shocky, Sebasta)… I would just be concerned if the board is composed of people Christ and Knowlton appoint, since they will naturally appoint likeminded and "supportive" individuals.

---

I guess that explains why I'm not an insider. I was one of the few who was disappointed that JW did not take the job at Oregon.

Big Dog said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Bowlesman80 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Those kinds of coaches were offered over the years, but their agents cut off any requests. Teddy had no coaching experience on defense that I am aware of.

---

We keep marching according to exceptions that supposedly prove the rule. For every extremely rare teddy we've stumbled upon by dumb luck, there've been 5-7 wilcoxes that actually prove the rule. We can't keep relying on rare, dumb luck. Instead, radically change our approach to hiring ADs and HCs by helping our sports-ignorant chancelors make informed hiring decisions via the advice of a formally established select group of alumni w/ expertise on our revenue-producing sports.

---

Agree. At a minimum an "advisory board" of Cal alumni to oversee the AD who technically is still hired by the chancellor. However, I think a better way to navigate the coming professionalism of college sports is to outsource the revenue sports to a alumni run organization with decisions made by shareholder proxy or an elected board or president.

As to your other topic:

Three head coaches to hire:

1. A young smart innovative P5 OC with good leadership qualities (White, Tedford, Mooch, Walsh, Shaw).

2. A young head coach that that has had success at a lower level (can be offense or defense)(Snyder, Dykes, Harbaugh, Taylor)

3. A head coach from the NFL that is unemployed at that level but has a personality that would translate to college (Madden, Carrol, Mooch, Walsh, Edwards, Rivera).

Head coaches I would not hire:

1. Young DC, especially if they are not obvious college rah, rah types (Holmoe, Wilcox). They need to prove they can hire an OC and oversee an offense at a lower level. Top OCs are in great demand are expensive and good ones get HC offers (see #1 above).

2. Coaches who have no OC or HC experience (Kapp, Rodgers, Lynch, Pawlawski)

3. Retreads, coaches who were fired at D1 level.

---

I would suggest, insist, that a coalition of donors and alumni be required as a majority membership in a hiring committee that oversees all athletics hires, including AD.

The same committee would oversee contract formulation and any firing decisions.

---

I agree, though the composition of the alumni on the board is important or it could produce similar results. Most of the insiders here rallied around the Wilcox and Fox hires and extensions. Much of the antiquated thinking about sports is shared by a sizable portion of our alumni base especially as it skews older and wealthier. We need people with both the means and a forward thinking vision for Cal's success in the year 2024 and beyond.

---

Wow. An almost completely false statement, particularly with regard to Fox.

---

I only can go by the postings here. Insiders consistently defended Fox and denigrated all the players that left, immediately upon his hiring and in subsequent years. Fox was defended by shifting blame to Wyking Jones and even Cuonzo Martin.

However, you cannot deny that the insiders were supportive of extending Wilcox to year 11 following losing seasons in years 4 and 5 and a losing record overall because he reportedly turned down Oregon.

Now I am 100% sure that we have alums who are all in on having a winning program using all our advantages in the new landscape (Shocky, Sebasta)… I would just be concerned if the board is composed of people Christ and Knowlton appoint, since they will naturally appoint likeminded and "supportive" individuals.

---

I guess that explains why I'm not an insider. I was one of the few who was disappointed that JW did not take the job at Oregon.

---

Me too. I do think Insiders get to know the coach personally and if they think he is a nice guy (at least to them) they are naturally relatively more loyal to him than to the players or the program. I also think critics of the AD and coach get ostracized.

bearister said:

---

Post game pressie:

---

I have to admit, I misjudged Coach Prime. He said it was an old fashioned arse kicking, that O's coaches were prepared and that they weren't. I was impressed.