DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Mendoza is good enough alone to get to 6 wins next year. Imagine what he could do with a real team and a real coaching staff.

Such a waste.

---

That's exactly why Jack Plummer left

---

The freshman, in his first game starting, came close to beating one loss ranked OSU, who just whooped UCLA. Losing star running back Ott for the second half and a key turnover doomed the bears, a long with mediocre defense.

---

What's your point? A loss is a loss, no matter how much you try to rationalize it.

---

We should support our coach this year and next and likely can him them if the team is not improving. What is the point of complaining daily as if he really is one of the worst 10 coaches in NCAAF? I sometimes respond to exaggerated negativity. That is my prerogative. I do certainly understand that the odds of Wilcox winning the Pac 12 are close to zero. However, he is a good enough coach to not spend $25 million to get rid of. Do you have any donors in mind that can spend 25 million on canning him then another annual 6-10 million on our next coach, plus NIL?

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Mendoza is good enough alone to get to 6 wins next year. Imagine what he could do with a real team and a real coaching staff.

Such a waste.

---

That's exactly why Jack Plummer left

---

The freshman, in his first game starting, came close to beating one loss ranked OSU, who just whooped UCLA. Losing star running back Ott for the second half and a key turnover doomed the bears, a long with mediocre defense.

---

No he didn't. I know "yes he did, if if if if if."

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Mendoza is good enough alone to get to 6 wins next year. Imagine what he could do with a real team and a real coaching staff.

Such a waste.

---

That's exactly why Jack Plummer left

---

The freshman, in his first game starting, came close to beating one loss ranked OSU, who just whooped UCLA. Losing star running back Ott for the second half and a key turnover doomed the bears, a long with mediocre defense.

---

What's your point? A loss is a loss, no matter how much you try to rationalize it.

---

We should support our coach this year and next and likely can him them if the team is not improving. What is the point of complaining daily as if he really is one of the worst 10 coaches in NCAAF? I sometimes respond to exaggerated negativity. That is my prerogative. I do certainly understand that the odds of Wilcox winning the Pac 12 are close to zero. However, he is a good enough coach to not spend $25 million to get rid of. Do you have any donors in mind that can spend 25 million on canning him then another annual 6-10 million on our next coach, plus NIL?

---

It would take $50 million to replace him, and the UC Berkeley Bears would be in the same place, with a different coach.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

JimSox said:

---

Golden One said:

---

JimSox said:

---

Golden One said:

---

JimSox said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

PaulCali said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

GoOskie said:

---

We just need to be patient and give Wilcox 3 years to build up the defense.

---

Having a good coach is just as important, if not more so. And we have arguably the worst head coach in the Power 5.



"We need stability as we move to the ACC" the reality is we probably add another patsie to next year's schedule, get to 6-6 and a bowl and Wilcox gets an extension. Instead of becoming a contender in the ACC we settle for mediocrity (a level above where we are in the PAC-12).

---

Having a good coach is just as important
This - it doesn't matter what conference we are in. It could be the MWC - the admin is fine with mediocrity so that is where we will always be.

---

On a slightly different note, I'm still trying to figure out how we can afford the ACC, given the shortfall in media rights payments from the ACC and the increased travel costs. Chancellor Christ, of course, will be long gone. I guess she just leaves this problem to the next chancellor. And the problem of Knowlton. Sad.

---

Between the reduced media rights, this coach in place for another 3 (or 4?) years, I think the perfect storm has just transpired to kill off Cal sports. 50 years of not caring about football so I guess it is warranted.

I am honestly unsure whether it is worth contributing to NIL. Even if we get players like Ott, look at what we do to them .... The guy is getting no exposure on a 3 win team. So why give money when it's just going to be wasted?

---

I understand the bitterness but I'm pretty sure that starving the NIL of money will not help us get good players. And having good players is kind of required for winning games.

---

Having a good coach is just as important, if not more so. And we have arguably the worst coach in the power 5.

---

But I'm not sure I see how having worse players gets us a better coach. Anyway you're not under any obligation to contribute, and if you don't want to, that's your choice. I choose differently.

---

A better coach can recruit better players. Wilcox is a terrible recruiter in addition to being a horrible coach.

---

True. But the discussion was about contributing to the NIL.

---

If you give money to a charity to feed the poor and they take your cash, walk over to a meat grinder, and shove it through, is your response to say "I know they just shredded all your cash, but how will the poor get fed if you don't donate?" The poor aren't getting fed either way and in one scenario, you get to keep your money. That is the argument here. No one thinks not donating to the NIL is going to improve the outcome. It is whether they think donating is going to improve the outcome. I make no argument either way. That is a personal choice and an analysis each person has to make about whether they think their money will be used well. But when a person says they don't want to donate because they think their money will be wasted, saying that not donating doesn't help isn't an argument that would convince them. You need to show them that their donation isn't going to be wasted. You haven't addressed that point at all.

---

I'm not trying to convince anyone. I just think it's better to have better players. As you say, personal choice. The good players we have are just being wasted? Let's see what happens if we have a whole lot more of them. I know what happens if you have fewer. Done with this topic.

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Mendoza is good enough alone to get to 6 wins next year. Imagine what he could do with a real team and a real coaching staff.

Such a waste.

---

That's exactly why Jack Plummer left

---

The freshman, in his first game starting, came close to beating one loss ranked OSU, who just whooped UCLA. Losing star running back Ott for the second half and a key turnover doomed the bears, a long with mediocre defense.

---

What's your point? A loss is a loss, no matter how much you try to rationalize it.

---

We should support our coach this year and next and likely can him them if the team is not improving. What is the point of complaining daily as if he really is one of the worst 10 coaches in NCAAF? I sometimes respond to exaggerated negativity. That is my prerogative. I do certainly understand that the odds of Wilcox winning the Pac 12 are close to zero. However, he is a good enough coach to not spend $25 million to get rid of. Do you have any donors in mind that can spend 25 million on canning him then another annual 6-10 million on our next coach, plus NIL?

---

What's the point of supporting him if it's the same either way? He deserves all the ridicule. Maybe he will be shamed to resign. Just as likely of him quitting early as him making a bowl for the rest of his tenure here.

Bowlesman80 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

calumnus said:

---

PaulCali said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

PaulCali said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

GoOskie said:

---

We just need to be patient and give Wilcox 3 years to build up the defense.

---

"We need stability as we move to the ACC" the reality is we probably add another patsie to next year's schedule, get to 6-6 and a bowl and Wilcox gets an extension. Instead of becoming a contender in the ACC we settle for mediocrity (a level above where we are in the PAC-12).

---

This - it doesn't matter what conference we are in. It could be the MWC - the admin is fine with mediocrity so that is where we will always be.

---

On a slightly different note, I'm still trying to figure out how we can afford the ACC, given the shortfall in media rights payments from the ACC and the increased travel costs. Chancellor Christ, of course, will be long gone. I guess she just leaves this problem to the next chancellor. And the problem of Knowlton. Sad.

---

Between the reduced media rights, this coach in place for another 3 (or 4?) years, I think the perfect storm has just transpired to kill off Cal sports. 50 years of not caring about football so I guess it is warranted.

I am honestly unsure whether it is worth contributing to NIL. Even if we get players like Ott, look at what we do to them .... The guy is getting no exposure on a 3 win team. So why give money when it's just going to be wasted?

---

Yeah, I'm afraid the situation is much worse than most people think. Really, my only hope is that we somehow get new a chancellor who really, really supports cal athletics. If you make something a priority, you find a way to make it happen. But I don't think it's likely that we will have such a new chancellor.

---

My out of the box idea is to separate sports from the academic bureaucracy and outsource the revenue sports (or the entire athletics department) to an alumni-run not for profit. Voting shares would be based on contributions encouraging more donations. Eventually, players will be employees of this organization. Football and basketball would be treated like the professional sport that they are, marketed under the brand "California" the home teams of the East Bay.

The baseball team could form a partnership with the Giants to play there in the Spring or play games at the Oakland Coliseum ($1 admission)…. Maybe Cal baseball could even be a Giants minor league team? Players in their minor league system who have the grades for Cal could play professionally and attend college?

The landscape has been completely changed and we need to adapt quickly or die. Cal alums are brilliant innovators. Cal? Other than research, not so much.

---

The model works except the NCAA would never allow it. If you think of the NCAA as a guild/cabal designed to drive AD salaries higher it all starts to make sense.

---

You may have missed the unanimous Supreme Court ruling that college sports is a business, US antitrust laws fully apply and any restriction by the NCAA as a cartel to restrict trade and earnings of players is illegal.

Think about that, the conservatives and the liberals ALL agreed on something.

While it does go beyond "NIL" what the NCAA member institutions fear is the next ruling will declare student athletes "employees" of the university. They will not challenge anything outside of that. People are effectively paying players now, far beyond "compensation for their name, image and likeness."

The NCAA will not risk opposing, the key will be whether whatever conference we are in opposes. However, I think most ACC teams, located near major east coast cities with baseball teams, would be able to do something similar and might well embrace the idea.

---

the NCAA can absolutely restrict the participatioin of whatever the thing you are calling from their sponsored competitions to teams affiliated with accredited 4 year universities as defined by X. Clearly they already do.

---

The NCAA merely enforces whatever rules the participating schools have ratified. Either the NFL creates a stand-alone minor league or we push for minor league teams that affiliate with schools- it's not a ridiculous idea, even if unlikely.

---

Note that my idea was a financial solution for Cal/college baseball.

DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Mendoza is good enough alone to get to 6 wins next year. Imagine what he could do with a real team and a real coaching staff.

Such a waste.

---

That's exactly why Jack Plummer left

---

The freshman, in his first game starting, came close to beating one loss ranked OSU, who just whooped UCLA. Losing star running back Ott for the second half and a key turnover doomed the bears, a long with mediocre defense.

---

What's your point? A loss is a loss, no matter how much you try to rationalize it.

---

We should support our coach this year and next and likely can him them if the team is not improving. What is the point of complaining daily as if he really is one of the worst 10 coaches in NCAAF? I sometimes respond to exaggerated negativity. That is my prerogative. I do certainly understand that the odds of Wilcox winning the Pac 12 are close to zero. However, he is a good enough coach to not spend $25 million to get rid of. Do you have any donors in mind that can spend 25 million on canning him then another annual 6-10 million on our next coach, plus NIL?

---

What's the point of supporting him if it's the same either way? He deserves all the ridicule. Maybe he will be shamed to resign. Just as likely of him quitting early as him making a bowl for the rest of his tenure here.

---

You would be a fool to make that bet. Foolish, doubtful bear. The Bears will likely go bowling next year.

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Mendoza is good enough alone to get to 6 wins next year. Imagine what he could do with a real team and a real coaching staff.

Such a waste.

---

That's exactly why Jack Plummer left

---

The freshman, in his first game starting, came close to beating one loss ranked OSU, who just whooped UCLA. Losing star running back Ott for the second half and a key turnover doomed the bears, a long with mediocre defense.

---

What's your point? A loss is a loss, no matter how much you try to rationalize it.

---

We should support our coach this year and next and likely can him them if the team is not improving. What is the point of complaining daily as if he really is one of the worst 10 coaches in NCAAF? I sometimes respond to exaggerated negativity. That is my prerogative. I do certainly understand that the odds of Wilcox winning the Pac 12 are close to zero. However, he is a good enough coach to not spend $25 million to get rid of. Do you have any donors in mind that can spend 25 million on canning him then another annual 6-10 million on our next coach, plus NIL?

---

What's the point of supporting him if it's the same either way? He deserves all the ridicule. Maybe he will be shamed to resign. Just as likely of him quitting early as him making a bowl for the rest of his tenure here.

---

You would be a fool to make that bet. Foolish, doubtful bear. The Bears will likely go bowling next year.

---

And if they don't?

DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Mendoza is good enough alone to get to 6 wins next year. Imagine what he could do with a real team and a real coaching staff.

Such a waste.

---

That's exactly why Jack Plummer left

---

The freshman, in his first game starting, came close to beating one loss ranked OSU, who just whooped UCLA. Losing star running back Ott for the second half and a key turnover doomed the bears, a long with mediocre defense.

---

What's your point? A loss is a loss, no matter how much you try to rationalize it.

---

We should support our coach this year and next and likely can him them if the team is not improving. What is the point of complaining daily as if he really is one of the worst 10 coaches in NCAAF? I sometimes respond to exaggerated negativity. That is my prerogative. I do certainly understand that the odds of Wilcox winning the Pac 12 are close to zero. However, he is a good enough coach to not spend $25 million to get rid of. Do you have any donors in mind that can spend 25 million on canning him then another annual 6-10 million on our next coach, plus NIL?

---

What's the point of supporting him if it's the same either way? He deserves all the ridicule. Maybe he will be shamed to resign. Just as likely of him quitting early as him making a bowl for the rest of his tenure here.

---

You would be a fool to make that bet. Foolish, doubtful bear. The Bears will likely go bowling next year.

---

And if they don't?

---

If all the games are against the proposed "relegation division " of the ACC, there is a good shot at the cheezit.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Mendoza is good enough alone to get to 6 wins next year. Imagine what he could do with a real team and a real coaching staff.

Such a waste.

---

That's exactly why Jack Plummer left

---

The freshman, in his first game starting, came close to beating one loss ranked OSU, who just whooped UCLA. Losing star running back Ott for the second half and a key turnover doomed the bears, a long with mediocre defense.

---

What's your point? A loss is a loss, no matter how much you try to rationalize it.

---

We should support our coach this year and next and likely can him them if the team is not improving. What is the point of complaining daily as if he really is one of the worst 10 coaches in NCAAF? I sometimes respond to exaggerated negativity. That is my prerogative. I do certainly understand that the odds of Wilcox winning the Pac 12 are close to zero. However, he is a good enough coach to not spend $25 million to get rid of. Do you have any donors in mind that can spend 25 million on canning him then another annual 6-10 million on our next coach, plus NIL?

---

What's the point of supporting him if it's the same either way? He deserves all the ridicule. Maybe he will be shamed to resign. Just as likely of him quitting early as him making a bowl for the rest of his tenure here.

---

You would be a fool to make that bet. Foolish, doubtful bear. The Bears will likely go bowling next year.

---

And if they don't?

---

If all the games are against the proposed "relegation division " of the ACC, there is a good shot at the cheezit.

---

That is almost the biggest danger. Doubtful plays into it with "we will never again go bowling under Wilcox" which begs the "Oh, yes we will" response. The whole thing is a false argument. It sets the bar far too low especially as we keep lowering the bar to the "great early success" of Wilcox making the Cheezit and Redbox bowls with losing conference records.

Now, if we go 6-6 (3-5) or 6-6 (4-4) next year Doubtful will be proven wrong, the Wilcox fans will all celebrate our "great progress and momentum" and if he follows that up with a similar season in 2025, everyone will argue he needs to be given a chance with Mendoza "finally healthy for a full season" as a senior but with only two years on his contract needs to be extended "for recruiting." Rinse and repeat.

My point being the real danger is Wilcox achieves a level of mediocrity in the ACC that most Cal fans find acceptable and fits their belief that better is not possible and then that becomes our reality.

"...fits their belief that better is not possible."

That is the mesmerized groupthink we have unconsciously accepted for since the late 50s.
The reality, the academics repress football hoping it will die.

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Mendoza is good enough alone to get to 6 wins next year. Imagine what he could do with a real team and a real coaching staff.

Such a waste.

---

That's exactly why Jack Plummer left

---

The freshman, in his first game starting, came close to beating one loss ranked OSU, who just whooped UCLA. Losing star running back Ott for the second half and a key turnover doomed the bears, a long with mediocre defense.

---

What's your point? A loss is a loss, no matter how much you try to rationalize it.

---

We should support our coach this year and next and likely can him them if the team is not improving. What is the point of complaining daily as if he really is one of the worst 10 coaches in NCAAF? I sometimes respond to exaggerated negativity. That is my prerogative. I do certainly understand that the odds of Wilcox winning the Pac 12 are close to zero. However, he is a good enough coach to not spend $25 million to get rid of. Do you have any donors in mind that can spend 25 million on canning him then another annual 6-10 million on our next coach, plus NIL?

---

Wilcox may be one of the 10 worst head coaches in NCAA football. Can you name 10 others who are worst over the past 7 years?

Golden One said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Mendoza is good enough alone to get to 6 wins next year. Imagine what he could do with a real team and a real coaching staff.

Such a waste.

---

That's exactly why Jack Plummer left

---

The freshman, in his first game starting, came close to beating one loss ranked OSU, who just whooped UCLA. Losing star running back Ott for the second half and a key turnover doomed the bears, a long with mediocre defense.

---

What's your point? A loss is a loss, no matter how much you try to rationalize it.

---

We should support our coach this year and next and likely can him them if the team is not improving. What is the point of complaining daily as if he really is one of the worst 10 coaches in NCAAF? I sometimes respond to exaggerated negativity. That is my prerogative. I do certainly understand that the odds of Wilcox winning the Pac 12 are close to zero. However, he is a good enough coach to not spend $25 million to get rid of. Do you have any donors in mind that can spend 25 million on canning him then another annual 6-10 million on our next coach, plus NIL?

---

Wilcox may be one of the 10 worst head coaches in NCAA football. Can you name 10 others who are worst over the past 7 years?

---

https://www.si.com/college/cal/news/sporting-news-rankings

Cal Football: Justin Wilcox Ranked 60th Among 133 FBS Coaches by Sporting News

Ken Wilson
Danny Gonzales
Stan Drayton
Mike Bloomgren
Timmy Chang
Joe Moorhead
Scott Loeffler
Ricky Rahne
Butch Jones
Terry Bowden

Thanks!

oski003 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Mendoza is good enough alone to get to 6 wins next year. Imagine what he could do with a real team and a real coaching staff.

Such a waste.

---

That's exactly why Jack Plummer left

---

The freshman, in his first game starting, came close to beating one loss ranked OSU, who just whooped UCLA. Losing star running back Ott for the second half and a key turnover doomed the bears, a long with mediocre defense.

---

What's your point? A loss is a loss, no matter how much you try to rationalize it.

---

We should support our coach this year and next and likely can him them if the team is not improving. What is the point of complaining daily as if he really is one of the worst 10 coaches in NCAAF? I sometimes respond to exaggerated negativity. That is my prerogative. I do certainly understand that the odds of Wilcox winning the Pac 12 are close to zero. However, he is a good enough coach to not spend $25 million to get rid of. Do you have any donors in mind that can spend 25 million on canning him then another annual 6-10 million on our next coach, plus NIL?

---

Wilcox may be one of the 10 worst head coaches in NCAA football. Can you name 10 others who are worst over the past 7 years?

---

https://www.si.com/college/cal/news/sporting-news-rankings

Cal Football: Justin Wilcox Ranked 60th Among 133 FBS Coaches by Sporting News

Ken Wilson
Danny Gonzales
Stan Drayton
Mike Bloomgren
Timmy Chang
Joe Moorhead
Scott Loeffler
Ricky Rahne
Butch Jones
Terry Bowden

Thanks!

---

That"s very debatable. They also have Tedford at 77 and Troy Taylor at 69. I"d take either one of them Wilcox any day of the week over Wilcox. At least Tedford and Taylor have demonstrated multiple years of success as a head coach. Wilcox never has.

Golden One said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Mendoza is good enough alone to get to 6 wins next year. Imagine what he could do with a real team and a real coaching staff.

Such a waste.

---

That's exactly why Jack Plummer left

---

The freshman, in his first game starting, came close to beating one loss ranked OSU, who just whooped UCLA. Losing star running back Ott for the second half and a key turnover doomed the bears, a long with mediocre defense.

---

What's your point? A loss is a loss, no matter how much you try to rationalize it.

---

We should support our coach this year and next and likely can him them if the team is not improving. What is the point of complaining daily as if he really is one of the worst 10 coaches in NCAAF? I sometimes respond to exaggerated negativity. That is my prerogative. I do certainly understand that the odds of Wilcox winning the Pac 12 are close to zero. However, he is a good enough coach to not spend $25 million to get rid of. Do you have any donors in mind that can spend 25 million on canning him then another annual 6-10 million on our next coach, plus NIL?

---

Wilcox may be one of the 10 worst head coaches in NCAA football. Can you name 10 others who are worst over the past 7 years?

---

https://www.si.com/college/cal/news/sporting-news-rankings

Cal Football: Justin Wilcox Ranked 60th Among 133 FBS Coaches by Sporting News

Ken Wilson
Danny Gonzales
Stan Drayton
Mike Bloomgren
Timmy Chang
Joe Moorhead
Scott Loeffler
Ricky Rahne
Butch Jones
Terry Bowden

Thanks!

---

That"s very debatable. They also have Tedford at 77 and Troy Taylor at 69. I"d take either one of them Wilcox any day of the week over Wilcox. At least Tedford and Taylor have demonstrated multiple years of success as a head coach. Wilcox never has.

---

Aside from the Wilcox debate, that list is complete trash.

Golden One said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Mendoza is good enough alone to get to 6 wins next year. Imagine what he could do with a real team and a real coaching staff.

Such a waste.

---

That's exactly why Jack Plummer left

---

The freshman, in his first game starting, came close to beating one loss ranked OSU, who just whooped UCLA. Losing star running back Ott for the second half and a key turnover doomed the bears, a long with mediocre defense.

---

What's your point? A loss is a loss, no matter how much you try to rationalize it.

---

We should support our coach this year and next and likely can him them if the team is not improving. What is the point of complaining daily as if he really is one of the worst 10 coaches in NCAAF? I sometimes respond to exaggerated negativity. That is my prerogative. I do certainly understand that the odds of Wilcox winning the Pac 12 are close to zero. However, he is a good enough coach to not spend $25 million to get rid of. Do you have any donors in mind that can spend 25 million on canning him then another annual 6-10 million on our next coach, plus NIL?

---

Wilcox may be one of the 10 worst head coaches in NCAA football. Can you name 10 others who are worst over the past 7 years?

---

https://www.si.com/college/cal/news/sporting-news-rankings

Cal Football: Justin Wilcox Ranked 60th Among 133 FBS Coaches by Sporting News

Ken Wilson
Danny Gonzales
Stan Drayton
Mike Bloomgren
Timmy Chang
Joe Moorhead
Scott Loeffler
Ricky Rahne
Butch Jones
Terry Bowden

Thanks!

---

That"s very debatable. They also have Tedford at 77 and Troy Taylor at 69. I"d take either one of them Wilcox any day of the week over Wilcox. At least Tedford and Taylor have demonstrated multiple years of success as a head coach. Wilcox never has.

---

Why don't you contact sporting news and publish your list, since you are such an expert? Nice job ignoring the ten worse coaches (there are many others) and focus on one coach who we both agree is better than Wilcox but is ranked lower. Just admit you are wrong and move on to the argument that Wilcox is mediocre and we need better. I'd agree with you there.

Wilcox is a helluva lot worst than mediocre. Terrible seems a more appropriate description. Can we agree on that?

Golden One said:

---

Wilcox is a helluva lot worst than mediocre. Terrible seems a more appropriate description. Can we agree on that?

---

Nope. Sorry, man. I know you want better, but he's not terrible. You are wrong again.

I thought I was being generous in calling him terrible. Some (maybe many) would say he is worst than that.

Golden One said:

---

I thought I was being generous in calling him terrible. Some (maybe many) would say he is worst than that.

---

You aren't being generous in calling him terrible. Some (maybe many) are emotionally irrational.

oski003 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

I thought I was being generous in calling him terrible. Some (maybe many) would say he is worst than that.

---

You aren't being generous in calling him terrible. Some (maybe many) are emotionally irrational.

---

And some (maybe many) are calling the diminishing number of Wilcox apologists emotionally irrational!

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Golden One said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

ducky23 said:

---

Mendoza is good enough alone to get to 6 wins next year. Imagine what he could do with a real team and a real coaching staff.

Such a waste.

---

That's exactly why Jack Plummer left

---

The freshman, in his first game starting, came close to beating one loss ranked OSU, who just whooped UCLA. Losing star running back Ott for the second half and a key turnover doomed the bears, a long with mediocre defense.

---

What's your point? A loss is a loss, no matter how much you try to rationalize it.

---

We should support our coach this year and next and likely can him them if the team is not improving. What is the point of complaining daily as if he really is one of the worst 10 coaches in NCAAF? I sometimes respond to exaggerated negativity. That is my prerogative. I do certainly understand that the odds of Wilcox winning the Pac 12 are close to zero. However, he is a good enough coach to not spend $25 million to get rid of. Do you have any donors in mind that can spend 25 million on canning him then another annual 6-10 million on our next coach, plus NIL?

---

Wilcox may be one of the 10 worst head coaches in NCAA football. Can you name 10 others who are worst over the past 7 years?

---

https://www.si.com/college/cal/news/sporting-news-rankings

Cal Football: Justin Wilcox Ranked 60th Among 133 FBS Coaches by Sporting News

Ken Wilson
Danny Gonzales
Stan Drayton
Mike Bloomgren
Timmy Chang
Joe Moorhead
Scott Loeffler
Ricky Rahne
Butch Jones
Terry Bowden

Thanks!

---

That"s very debatable. They also have Tedford at 77 and Troy Taylor at 69. I"d take either one of them Wilcox any day of the week over Wilcox. At least Tedford and Taylor have demonstrated multiple years of success as a head coach. Wilcox never has.

---

Aside from the Wilcox debate, that list is complete trash.

---

Did Sporting News rank basketball coaches? If so, where was Mark Fox ranked?

calumnus said:

---

BarcaBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

calumnus said:

---

PaulCali said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

PaulCali said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

GoOskie said:

---

We just need to be patient and give Wilcox 3 years to build up the defense.

---

"We need stability as we move to the ACC" the reality is we probably add another patsie to next year's schedule, get to 6-6 and a bowl and Wilcox gets an extension. Instead of becoming a contender in the ACC we settle for mediocrity (a level above where we are in the PAC-12).

---

This - it doesn't matter what conference we are in. It could be the MWC - the admin is fine with mediocrity so that is where we will always be.

---

On a slightly different note, I'm still trying to figure out how we can afford the ACC, given the shortfall in media rights payments from the ACC and the increased travel costs. Chancellor Christ, of course, will be long gone. I guess she just leaves this problem to the next chancellor. And the problem of Knowlton. Sad.

---

Between the reduced media rights, this coach in place for another 3 (or 4?) years, I think the perfect storm has just transpired to kill off Cal sports. 50 years of not caring about football so I guess it is warranted.

I am honestly unsure whether it is worth contributing to NIL. Even if we get players like Ott, look at what we do to them .... The guy is getting no exposure on a 3 win team. So why give money when it's just going to be wasted?

---

Yeah, I'm afraid the situation is much worse than most people think. Really, my only hope is that we somehow get new a chancellor who really, really supports cal athletics. If you make something a priority, you find a way to make it happen. But I don't think it's likely that we will have such a new chancellor.

---

My out of the box idea is to separate sports from the academic bureaucracy and outsource the revenue sports (or the entire athletics department) to an alumni-run not for profit. Voting shares would be based on contributions encouraging more donations. Eventually, players will be employees of this organization. Football and basketball would be treated like the professional sport that they are, marketed under the brand "California" the home teams of the East Bay.

The baseball team could form a partnership with the Giants to play there in the Spring or play games at the Oakland Coliseum ($1 admission)…. Maybe Cal baseball could even be a Giants minor league team? Players in their minor league system who have the grades for Cal could play professionally and attend college?

The landscape has been completely changed and we need to adapt quickly or die. Cal alums are brilliant innovators. Cal? Other than research, not so much.

---

The model works except the NCAA would never allow it. If you think of the NCAA as a guild/cabal designed to drive AD salaries higher it all starts to make sense.

---

You may have missed the unanimous Supreme Court ruling that college sports is a business, US antitrust laws fully apply and any restriction by the NCAA as a cartel to restrict trade and earnings of players is illegal.

Think about that, the conservatives and the liberals ALL agreed on something.

While it does go beyond "NIL" what the NCAA member institutions fear is the next ruling will declare student athletes "employees" of the university. They will not challenge anything outside of that. People are effectively paying players now, far beyond "compensation for their name, image and likeness."

The NCAA will not risk opposing, the key will be whether whatever conference we are in opposes. However, I think most ACC teams, located near major east coast cities with baseball teams, would be able to do something similar and might well embrace the idea.

---

that court will never rule that athletes are employees. They will be designated as independent contractors and get 1099'ed

---

Doubtful. They do not direct their own work. They work very strict hours under the strict direction of highly paid university employee "supervisors", with potentisl injury and long term health impacts, in order produce a joint product that brings in revenue for the university,

The conservatives and liberals all agreed that college sports, especially football and basketball, is a multi $billion business and the players are being exploited. Every single one of them. If you want an idea of the conservatives position (more free market in basis) read Brett Kavanaugh's consenting opinion in which he says players are "employees" and destroys the idea of enforced "amateurism" rhetorically asking (paraphrasing) "where else in America or American history is the business model predicated on having the people who do the actual work producing a roduct worth $millions getting nothing?" Yes, comparing college sports to slavery. And that is from a conservative/libertarian (on some issues) Trump appointee, so you can imagine how the Obama appointees will vote.

That is why the NCAA will do almost anything to stay out of court, They know they will get slaughtered if another case ends up in front of the court. It will take an act of Congress to exempt college sports from the antitrust laws otherwise players as employees is inevitable.

---

nothing you described would prevent the 1099 status. controlling their hours, under strict guidelines, potential injuries. its not a joint product, though. not really. services are provided by the university. athlete provides personal service of performance. 1099. just watch.

i agree that they shouldn't be 1099 and should be W-2, but they will be 1099 in the end

Punch it in again! Let's go!

I think we might cover!

We caught u$c on a low with a delinquent coach. Need to cash in.