Big C said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

Big C said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Bearly Clad said:

---

Whether or not you believe in Wilcox the fact is that this is a team that can win 10 games on our ACC schedule next year with no meaningful improvement. Of course there are some questions (new coaching on offense yet again and some unproven replacements i.e. Saffell/Gilbert) but we had another influx of portal talent and a very favorable 2024 slate.

I think 7-10 wins is the standard and if it's lower end we should be taking the bowl game and increased platform playing east coast teams but biding time until Wilcox has a manageable buyout. If it's 9-10 wins it's a tougher question of whether the program has turned a corner or if the weak schedule did the bulk of the heavy lifting. Regardless, if Wilcox delivers 10 wins next year (very possible given the opponents) we should probably be expecting him to get some offers and be ready to let him walk.

The most important thing is to put this program in a position to survive into the future. Neglecting NIL will not make the job more desirable to any coaching candidates and would leave the team bereft of talent thereby making it even more undesirable. Yes, there are serious issues in the support of the program from the university including, but not constrained to, the chancellor's office, a new AD, and the financial dispersement of supporting too many programs that drain the coffers without providing meaningful ROI.

The big question is: what are the paths to success/survival and is bleeding the program for the sake of pushing out Wilcox beneficial or harmful to those avenues for progress?

---

However, it just points to the critical need to get rid of Knowlton first. We can't have him making the decision whether to fire Wilcox or extend him and heaven forbid he is the one making the next hire. In the meantime we need to stay relevant or we will not have a program anymore.

---

How do you propose getting rid of Knowlton first when his contract has 2 more years more than Wilcox? And no, I don't believe the McKeever investigation will force him out, nor do I think a new chancellor would terminate him 5 years early. The likelihood the new chancellor is anyone but an academic focused status quo leader is slim to none.

---

I know your shtick is to always have the very most negative take possible, but one of the three finalists for new Chancellor is considered to be really good for athletics, specifically revenue sports. And the AD might indeed be eased out early, due to L'Affaire McKeever or who knows whatever else.

Maybe good things will happen for us. It's possible! And we are making inroads in some areas.

---

Who are the three finalists?

---

This is just what I hear (and what WifeIsAFurd has posted here is one of my main sources):

+ Rich Lyons (Haas, in-house), who we want. Only possible negative I've heard for him is that he likes the "Berkeley" brand, which drives some folks here bonkers

+ Somebody big in the Cal EECS Dept (or something like that). No idea their feelings about athletics, but fear the worst.

+ An "outside" candidate (not from Cal)

Apparently, the UC President is by far the major player in this (used to be, the Cal tenured faculty had more of a say... traditionally, they always chose your classic "academic", i.e. what they had done in their research might carry more weight than their ability to lead, which explains the Chancellors we've had such as Heyman or Dirks).


Fun fact: Albert Bowker (Chancellor in the '70s), was NOT considered a "friend of Cal Athletics", but he went to almost every home basketball game, because he liked basketball.

---

Rich Lyons is a really good guy. Approachable, down-to-earth, a musician, and excellent professor, if any of that means anything for a Chancellor. He was a great Dean for Haas Business School.

Bear Naked Ladies said:

---

On the one hand, we are being told time is of the essence. On the other, we are being told that the one thing we definitely can't do with time being of the essence is to get rid of our bad leadership.

---

Are you guys who keep saying this doing a comedy bit or do you really not understand?

I don't think anyone here disagrees that the leadership (Wilcox and/or Knowlton) should be changed . . . if we lived in a perfect world and money was no object. That's not the argument. The argument is that we DON'T HAVE THE MONEY to get rid of those guys right now, so the next best step is to improve the NIL collective.

You want a new coach and AD? Tell us you have someone willing to put up the money for that. Otherwise stop whining.

Cal Strong! said:

---

oskiswifeshusband said:

---

That's such a cal weak take.

Our QB added necessary depth and a potential started with Roger's

RB added depth to an already stacked room.

WR got revamped and is faster and better than it was in 23.

We replaced LB for LB.

Our OL got 2 new quality starter additions.

DL saw 1 addition (hopefully more to come) and no notable exits.

You don't get the top6 portal class with his "bad" players….

Let's not forget there's portal players from last year that will contribute this year.

---

Cal Strong is not convinced with much of this.

• Chandler does not look to be a top-end QB. Neither does Mendoza (though he has certainly showed promise).
• Yes. But that is precisely why he is likely not to make too much of a difference.
• No. We replaced a LB for two LBs (Sirmon and Antz). This is a wash at best.
• No one knows if they will be quality. Hopeful though.

We are not in the top6 of the Portal class. We are ranked #17

---

Portal rankings are based on total numbers, which is a flawed methodology. It rewards quantity over quality.

We are (were at the time I wrote the OP) in the Top 6 for number of 4 and 5 star transfers, which I think is a more significant measure of "transfer strength." We are landing some of the most highly rated transfers, guys other schools want.

Now, my recommendation is that we take fewer HS recruits (all 3 stars so far) and more transfers since we are doing MUCH better with transfers. If we did that we would have quantity and quality and our transfer class ranking would easily be Top 10. That is huge:

Big C said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

Big C said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

calumnus said:

---

I think it is more realistic to think NIL is the difference between 5-7 and 7-5 next year, with a shot at 8-4. It doesn't take much, but the difference is huge.

---

Cal Strong has no idea how this can be considered realistic.

We lost ten 3 stars in the portal and replaced them with five 3 stars and five low-4 stars.

How does this portend a big jump in our record?

---

After they've played in college for a year (or more than that, quite often), their high school ratings are trumped by what they have shown they can do at this level. You know that.

If we lost ten guys that still had eligibility, only two of those I really wanted to stay. Two more, "maybe". The rest are guys who were taking up a scholarship, with only minimal-to-modest production. So, we trade them in -- what amounts to rolling the dice, I will grant you that -- for guys who have shown they can produce at this level. It's likely an upgrade.

If we do as well in the spring portal, we are positioning ourselves for probably 1-2 more wins in 2024. Meanwhile, the buyouts on the long contracts become ever more affordable.

---

The 10 guys we lost all had three star portal rankings. Cal Strong was not referring to their HS rankings.

Yes, some of the guys we lost in the portal didn't get a ton of playing time and didn't have a lot of production. But guess what, the same goes for a lot of the guys we are bringing in.

One of our new "four star" guys recorded just a single tackle in 9 games at East Mississippi JC, then became a running back where he gained 623 yards in a whole season. He won't get too many carries at Cal in our stable. And he is one of the best guys we got.

The point is that we came out of the portal experience this year not much better (if better at all) than we went into it.

---

What I am hearing is that we upgraded,

Who are these "3 star" guys we lost in the portal, besides Elarms-Orr and Hunter? Those two look like our only significant losses. I saw all these guys play this past season (or not even play, in some cases).

TBH, I don't have a great feel as to what the stars mean in the portal ratings (they are ratings, not rankings, I believe). How could some of the guys we lost be 3 stars when they barely produced for us over the years?

---

Cal Strong not sure if he is allowed to post the links. But you will find the info by doing this:

If you search Google or 247 for "Cal Bears 2024 transfer portal" all the outgoing and incoming players and their rankings will pop up.

Since Cal Strong last posted, we have dropped from #17 to #20 in the portal rankings. Search "2024 Transfer Football Team Rankings."

But on the bright side, since Cal Strong last posted, we have risen from #60 to #40 in the overall rankiings. Search 2024 Overall Football Team Rankings."

sycasey said:

---

Bear Naked Ladies said:

---

On the one hand, we are being told time is of the essence. On the other, we are being told that the one thing we definitely can't do with time being of the essence is to get rid of our bad leadership.

---

Are you guys who keep saying this doing a comedy bit or do you really not understand?

I don't think anyone here disagrees that the leadership (Wilcox and/or Knowlton) should be changed . . . if we lived in a perfect world and money was no object. That's not the argument. The argument is that we DON'T HAVE THE MONEY to get rid of those guys right now, so the next best step is to improve the NIL collective.

You want a new coach and AD? Tell us you have someone willing to put up the money for that. Otherwise stop whining.

---

If this is such a life or death moment for Cal sports, then resources would be best put to dealing with what the actual issues are rather than pretending that a bandaid is going to fix the gaping head wound issue around Cal sports. The reason it takes so much money to get rid of these guys is because of that bad leadership. Bad leadership put you in this position. When you have someone in the family who is running up a huge credit card balance that you can't pay, you don't raise money to give them more purchasing power. You take away their credit cards.

But to be honest, I don't view this as being a life or death moment for Cal football. Cal football is dead already, it just doesn't know it yet. The introduction of pay to play has divided college football into a haves group that will continue to shrink with every passing year as the stakes get higher and a have not group that will continue to grow. Any fan that can't see which group we're in is in denial.

Keep it up fellas

bencgilmore said:

---

Keep it up fellas

---

Frankly, this was a good thread until the Cal Strong Experience! hit the stage.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

bencgilmore said:

---

Keep it up fellas

---

Frankly, this was a good thread until the Cal Strong Experience! hit the stage.

---

He'll always be unfrozen caveman CAL fan to me. and what can you expect from a caveman?

Bear Naked Ladies said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Bear Naked Ladies said:

---

On the one hand, we are being told time is of the essence. On the other, we are being told that the one thing we definitely can't do with time being of the essence is to get rid of our bad leadership.

---

Are you guys who keep saying this doing a comedy bit or do you really not understand?

I don't think anyone here disagrees that the leadership (Wilcox and/or Knowlton) should be changed . . . if we lived in a perfect world and money was no object. That's not the argument. The argument is that we DON'T HAVE THE MONEY to get rid of those guys right now, so the next best step is to improve the NIL collective.

You want a new coach and AD? Tell us you have someone willing to put up the money for that. Otherwise stop whining.

---

If this is such a life or death moment for Cal sports, then resources would be best put to dealing with what the actual issues are rather than pretending that a bandaid is going to fix the gaping head wound issue around Cal sports. The reason it takes so much money to get rid of these guys is because of that bad leadership. Bad leadership put you in this position. When you have someone in the family who is running up a huge credit card balance that you can't pay, you don't raise money to give them more purchasing power. You take away their credit cards.

---

While there is much truth here about the bad leadership, it is still completely unhelpful advice for anyone who wants to try helping the program NOW. All you're saying is to just let the team keep getting worse until people get fired. Great.

calumnus said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

oskiswifeshusband said:

---

That's such a cal weak take.

Our QB added necessary depth and a potential started with Roger's

RB added depth to an already stacked room.

WR got revamped and is faster and better than it was in 23.

We replaced LB for LB.

Our OL got 2 new quality starter additions.

DL saw 1 addition (hopefully more to come) and no notable exits.

You don't get the top6 portal class with his "bad" players….

Let's not forget there's portal players from last year that will contribute this year.

---

Cal Strong is not convinced with much of this.

• Chandler does not look to be a top-end QB. Neither does Mendoza (though he has certainly showed promise).
• Yes. But that is precisely why he is likely not to make too much of a difference.
• No. We replaced a LB for two LBs (Sirmon and Antz). This is a wash at best.
• No one knows if they will be quality. Hopeful though.

We are not in the top6 of the Portal class. We are ranked #17

---

Portal rankings are based on total numbers, which is a flawed methodology. It rewards quantity over quality.

We are (were at the time I wrote the OP) in the Top 6 for number of 4 and 5 star transfers, which I think is a more significant measure of "transfer strength." We are landing some of the most highly rated transfers, guys other schools want.

Now, my recommendation is that we take fewer HS recruits (all 3 stars so far) and more transfers since we are doing MUCH better with transfers. If we did that we would have quantity and quality and our transfer class ranking would easily be Top 10. That is huge:

---

We are 6th in On3 ratings which minus out transfers out according to some methodology that they keep private. It is not based on only commits, but commits minus (mystery math) departures.

On 247 and Rivals we are in the Top 25 in Transfer ratings. Those ratings look at only commits.

We have done a better job than most teams at retaining team talent. Credit to Cal Legends.

Bear Naked Ladies said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Bear Naked Ladies said:

---

On the one hand, we are being told time is of the essence. On the other, we are being told that the one thing we definitely can't do with time being of the essence is to get rid of our bad leadership.

---

Are you guys who keep saying this doing a comedy bit or do you really not understand?

I don't think anyone here disagrees that the leadership (Wilcox and/or Knowlton) should be changed . . . if we lived in a perfect world and money was no object. That's not the argument. The argument is that we DON'T HAVE THE MONEY to get rid of those guys right now, so the next best step is to improve the NIL collective.

You want a new coach and AD? Tell us you have someone willing to put up the money for that. Otherwise stop whining.

---

If this is such a life or death moment for Cal sports, then resources would be best put to dealing with what the actual issues are rather than pretending that a bandaid is going to fix the gaping head wound issue around Cal sports. The reason it takes so much money to get rid of these guys is because of that bad leadership. Bad leadership put you in this position. When you have someone in the family who is running up a huge credit card balance that you can't pay, you don't raise money to give them more purchasing power. You take away their credit cards.

But to be honest, I don't view this has as being a life or death moment for Cal football. Cal football is dead already, it just doesn't know it yet. The introduction of pay to play has divided college football into a haves group that will continue to shrink with every passing year as the stakes get higher and a have not group that will continue to grow. Any fan that can't see which group we're in is in denial.

---

That is why we are saying, instead of giving your money to Knowlton (untrustworthy, running up the credit card debt), give it to Sebasta and Cal Legends.

And yes, it is the portal era with essentially pay to play and the whole point of this thread is "CAL IS KILLING IT IN THE PORTAL" we are #6, we are landing more top portal talent (4 and 5 stars) than most of the "haves."

As far as our football program goes, it is not like we were killing it under the old paradigm, so a change could be a good thing. Cal alums are far more innovative than the administrators of our school, so more alumni control is potentially a great thing for us. The expansion to 12 in the CFP is another opportunity heading to the ACC. It is completely conceivable we could have a team that finishes #2 in the ACC and is invited to the playoffs.

Now, if schools are ever able/required to pay the players from their revenues (instead of the current NIL), well yeah, the B1G and SEC will be untouchable.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

bencgilmore said:

---

Keep it up fellas

---

Frankly, this was a good thread until the Cal Strong Experience! hit the stage.

---

Yeah. That terrible experience when a strong poster tells a bunch of weak posters the truth.

We have the 20th best portal class and the 40th best overall class.

How is this working? How is doing the same weak thing a good idea?

sycasey said:

---

Bear Naked Ladies said:

---

On the one hand, we are being told time is of the essence. On the other, we are being told that the one thing we definitely can't do with time being of the essence is to get rid of our bad leadership.

---

Are you guys who keep saying this doing a comedy bit or do you really not understand?

I don't think anyone here disagrees that the leadership (Wilcox and/or Knowlton) should be changed . . . if we lived in a perfect world and money was no object. That's not the argument. The argument is that we DON'T HAVE THE MONEY to get rid of those guys right now, so the next best step is to improve the NIL collective.

You want a new coach and AD? Tell us you have someone willing to put up the money for that. Otherwise stop whining.

---

There no evidence that we are keeping Wilcox b/c we can't afford not to do so.

We have paid huge buyouts after stupid extensions for our last three coaches before Wilcox. It is part of our long tradition of unconditional excellence.

Latest recruiting update:

Based on average stars, we are currently tied with Vandebuilt for #37 in the transfer class.

Overall transfer class, we are 22nd.

Overall class, we are 40.

This is a lot different than tied for #5. It seems like our 4-star guys simply committed a bit earlier than most transfer guys, so our rankings were temporarily high. But now they are low again.

Cal Strong! said:

---

Latest recruiting update:

Based on average stars, we are currently tied with Vandebuilt for #37 in the transfer class.

Overall transfer class, we are 22nd.

Overall class, we are 40.

This is a lot different than tied for #5. It seems like our 4-star guys simply committed a bit earlier than most transfer guys, so our rankings were temporarily high. But now they are low again.

---

There is no doubt that the transfer rankings go up and down daily as players commit elsewhere. The trend for Cal is that they are a player in the transfer market. They have improved the team. They are also headed to a new league. No longer have to play USC, UCLA, UO or UW. They now will play against FSU, Clemson and Miami. And even then only occasionally. They do get FSU and Miami (at home) next season.

So the competition level goes down some. Where does Cal fall in this new league? Hard to say. But the ACC is filled with teams very similar to Cal. BC, GaTech, UVa, Wake Forest, Syracuse, Duke, SMU. And we know where they stack up vs Stanford.

Cal is not a national power. But they can be better. There is a lot of work to be done. But at this point the only thing that the fanbase can really do is contribute to the collective. Build the best roster you can. There will be a new Chancellor named by summer.

That is the moment of truth. Getting support from the top is the only real way to football relevance. Cal can diddle along as they have for decades and lose more than they win. But now with the natural rivalries removed (aside from Stanford) they will have to win or the games will be even less attended than currently. The new administration will have to make decisions on the path forward. And that includes what to do with Knowlton. Those decisions will determine to fate of Cal football.

Wilcox needed to go after 2021. But he was extended. That was a very bad decision. But it is done. Removing him now is costly and Cal is not in position to remove him and pay for another HC. This idea that Ron Rivera will forgo salary as a gift to his beloved alma mater seems remarkably delusional. I would love Rivera around the program. Be an ambassador for the program. Somebody that can help deliver donations for the program. But not a fan of making him the HC.

There are a lot of things happening right now in college football. NIL is starting to get some serious attention from both the NCAA and college administrators, ADs and coaches. Realignment is far from done. There are some movements beginning towards getting the players into a union of sorts and collectively bargain things like compensation, insurance, medical coverage, transfer rules etc. And the CFP is now entering a new phase of TV negotiations.

I think the next few seasons could bring some real dramatic changes. But until the next Chancellor is named and how that person sees the future of Cal athletics I believe supporting the collective is the best way to support the program.

As to transfer rankings. Lets check back in Summer when the rosters are set. There is another window from April 15-30. Spring practice will be in the books. We will know a lot more then. I just remember how excited everybody was about Spav joining and Sam Jackson at QB. Both are gone now. A lot can change. But at this moment in time the roster looks to be somewhat improved. And the schedule they play next year somewhat easier. Enough to get to 8+ wins. We'll see but maybe.

Cal Strong! said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Bear Naked Ladies said:

---

On the one hand, we are being told time is of the essence. On the other, we are being told that the one thing we definitely can't do with time being of the essence is to get rid of our bad leadership.

---

Are you guys who keep saying this doing a comedy bit or do you really not understand?

I don't think anyone here disagrees that the leadership (Wilcox and/or Knowlton) should be changed . . . if we lived in a perfect world and money was no object. That's not the argument. The argument is that we DON'T HAVE THE MONEY to get rid of those guys right now, so the next best step is to improve the NIL collective.

You want a new coach and AD? Tell us you have someone willing to put up the money for that. Otherwise stop whining.

---

There no evidence that we are keeping Wilcox b/c we can't afford not to do so.

We have paid huge buyouts after stupid extensions for our last three coaches before Wilcox. It is part of our long tradition of unconditional excellence.

---

Then go find someone who will pay his buyout, if you think it can be done. We're all rooting for you!

6956bear said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

Latest recruiting update:

Based on average stars, we are currently tied with Vandebuilt for #37 in the transfer class.

Overall transfer class, we are 22nd.

Overall class, we are 40.

This is a lot different than tied for #5. It seems like our 4-star guys simply committed a bit earlier than most transfer guys, so our rankings were temporarily high. But now they are low again.

---

I just remember how excited everybody was about Spav joining and Sam Jackson at QB. Both are gone now. A lot can change. But at this moment in time the roster looks to be somewhat improved. And the schedule they play next year somewhat easier. Enough to get to 8+ wins. We'll see but maybe.

---

There were also many people very dubious about the roster last season despite all the back patting on this board, especially given the lack of OL transfers. I predict we will fit comfortably as a middle of the pack ACC team going forward.

6956bear wrote:

The trend for Cal is that they are a player in the transfer market. They have improved the team.

Not really. Cal Strong sees no hard evidence of this.

Wilcox needed to go after 2021. But he was extended. That was a very bad decision. But it is done. Removing him now is costly and Cal is not in position to remove him and pay for another HC.

Why do y'all keep saying this? What evidence is there that the reason we are keeping Wilcox is that we can't afford to fire him and hire a new coach? Cal Strong has spoken to the Chancellor, and has heard first-hand that this isn't the reason. Is there any evidence to show that she was lying to her staff and Cal Strong? Why do you think we can't afford a new HC?


I just remember how excited everybody was about Spav joining and Sam Jackson at QB.

Cal was not particularly excited about Spav and got chewed out on the board for saying SJV's tape shows an inconsistent thrower and a fast runner that often goes down as soon as a defender gets anywhere near him.




This thread started b/c for a very brief second we were tied for #5 in average star rankings in the transfer portal. This was used to say the collective is working and we need to support it.

Well, those stats were just there for a blink. We are not doing super great in the transfer portal, and our overall recruiting ranking is pretty bad. Yet the evidence doesn't seem to matter to those who just want to throw more money to prop up JW. Funny enough, these are (by in large) the same folks who thought we needed to extend JW or else we would lose him to Oregon.

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Bear Naked Ladies said:

---

On the one hand, we are being told time is of the essence. On the other, we are being told that the one thing we definitely can't do with time being of the essence is to get rid of our bad leadership.

---

The argument is that we DON'T HAVE THE MONEY to get rid of those guys right now, so the next best step is to improve the NIL collective.

You want a new coach and AD? Tell us you have someone willing to put up the money for that. Otherwise stop whining.

---

There no evidence that we are keeping Wilcox b/c we can't afford not to do so.

We have paid huge buyouts after stupid extensions for our last three coaches before Wilcox. It is part of our long tradition of unconditional excellence.

---

Then go find someone who will pay his buyout, if you think it can be done. We're all rooting for you!

---

What good would that do? The Chancellor thinks JK is doing an elite AD, who thinks we have a coveted HC in place.

The problem isn't money. The problem is we have weak personnel but the chancellor thinks they are strong personnel.

So long as a threshold of people are donating to support this regime, the current admin isn't going to change their view on this.

Strong is using 247 ratings. Our average star rating is low because of the Kicker commit and Brady not being rated yet.We are ranked 22nd before Brady is counted in and he is likely going to be a 88 or 89 rating. I don't see how a top 20 transfer class (sure thing after Brady is rated) isn't a good thing.

On3 has Brady rated at 88 (they have lower ratings than 247). On3 has us rated as the 6th best class because they count departures in their ratings, and we don't lose as much talent as most teams.

Cal Strong! said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Bear Naked Ladies said:

---

On the one hand, we are being told time is of the essence. On the other, we are being told that the one thing we definitely can't do with time being of the essence is to get rid of our bad leadership.

---

The argument is that we DON'T HAVE THE MONEY to get rid of those guys right now, so the next best step is to improve the NIL collective.

You want a new coach and AD? Tell us you have someone willing to put up the money for that. Otherwise stop whining.

---

There no evidence that we are keeping Wilcox b/c we can't afford not to do so.

We have paid huge buyouts after stupid extensions for our last three coaches before Wilcox. It is part of our long tradition of unconditional excellence.

---

Then go find someone who will pay his buyout, if you think it can be done. We're all rooting for you!

---

What good would that do? The Chancellor thinks JK is doing an elite AD, who thinks we have a coveted HC in place.

The problem isn't money. The problem is we have weak personnel but the chancellor thinks they are strong personnel.

So long as a threshold of people are donating to support this regime, the current admin isn't going to change their view on this.

---

The current chancellor is retiring. Hence there is probably nothing to be done on that front anyway until a new one is named. Which means Sebastabear is still right that the best thing you can do RIGHT NOW is to support the NIL collective.

calumnus said:

---

Bear Naked Ladies said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Bear Naked Ladies said:

---

On the one hand, we are being told time is of the essence. On the other, we are being told that the one thing we definitely can't do with time being of the essence is to get rid of our bad leadership.

---

Are you guys who keep saying this doing a comedy bit or do you really not understand?

I don't think anyone here disagrees that the leadership (Wilcox and/or Knowlton) should be changed . . . if we lived in a perfect world and money was no object. That's not the argument. The argument is that we DON'T HAVE THE MONEY to get rid of those guys right now, so the next best step is to improve the NIL collective.

You want a new coach and AD? Tell us you have someone willing to put up the money for that. Otherwise stop whining.

---

If this is such a life or death moment for Cal sports, then resources would be best put to dealing with what the actual issues are rather than pretending that a bandaid is going to fix the gaping head wound issue around Cal sports. The reason it takes so much money to get rid of these guys is because of that bad leadership. Bad leadership put you in this position. When you have someone in the family who is running up a huge credit card balance that you can't pay, you don't raise money to give them more purchasing power. You take away their credit cards.

But to be honest, I don't view this has as being a life or death moment for Cal football. Cal football is dead already, it just doesn't know it yet. The introduction of pay to play has divided college football into a haves group that will continue to shrink with every passing year as the stakes get higher and a have not group that will continue to grow. Any fan that can't see which group we're in is in denial.

---

That is why we are saying, instead of giving your money to Knowlton (untrustworthy, running up the credit card debt), give it to Sebasta and Cal Legends.

And yes, it is the portal era with essentially pay to play and the whole point of this thread is "CAL IS KILLING IT IN THE PORTAL" we are #6, we are landing more top portal talent (4 and 5 stars) than most of the "haves."

As far as our football program goes, it is not like we were killing it under the old paradigm, so a change could be a good thing. Cal alums are far more innovative than the administrators of our school, so more alumni control is potentially a great thing for us. The expansion to 12 in the CFP is another opportunity heading to the ACC. It is completely conceivable we could have a team that finishes #2 in the ACC and is invited to the playoffs.

Now, if schools are ever able/required to pay the players from their revenues (instead of the current NIL), well yeah, the B1G and SEC will be untouchable.

---

You are completely ignoring the fact that the website that supposedly ranks us #6 in the portal specifically says that it has an algorithm that does not compare a team's class relative to other schools. It is posted clearly on the top of the team's rankings page. You can also find examples of classes ranked lower that by that site's numbers are clearly higher. Like where a team has a higher average rating AND more recruits than another team and yet ranks lower. We do not have the number 6 class based on the number and quality of players in the class.

Further, it is very clear that it is much easier to get rated 4 stars in the portal than in the high school pool. And the very top of the portal is dominated by haves. The haves are getting who they want.

If we were truly #6 , we would be beating out top 10 programs left and right and we simply are not doing that.

I don't know why you guys keep wanting to repeat this notion that is clearly dispelled by the site that you are pulling the ranking from. You are creating an expectation that is massively over inflated. Colorado had the number 1 transfer class last year according to the ranking and is #2 this year. So they should dominate next year, right? And the "haves" are almost nowhere to be seen in the top 20. We aren't the only have not beating haves in this ranking. Clemson is ranked 64. Alabama 67. Georgia 68. Michigan 27. Texas 38. Ohio state 40. Does this not make you question the ranking or at least the value of ranking high in it? Haves aren't ranking high because this ranking stupidly is ranking as a function of improving your roster so if you have the top roster in the country and you bring in the fifth best quality portal class, you can end up with a negative ranking. And haves only take players from the portal that will improve their depth chart and there aren't many players in the portal that will do that. To be blunt the top 6 teams in the country don't want our portal players. Our best pickup by a wide margin (who I am very excited about) took trips to UA and Baylor before committing to us.

We are doing well. We are not bringing in classes that will get us over the hump. We are bringing in classes that will improve us. But at best this is a band aid that maybe is a stepping stone that can help us do what we need to do - drastically improve our high school recruiting. It is not the answer unless the question is how can we have perennial slightly above .500 teams.

I don't think Wilcox is the answer, but setting him up with expectations from a "#6 class" is not something any coaching staff can fulfill with the talent he has on hand.

wc22 said:

---

Strong is using 247 ratings. Our average star rating is low because of the Kicker commit and Brady not being rated yet.We are ranked 22nd before Brady is counted in and he is likely going to be a 88 or 89 rating. I don't see how a top 20 transfer class (sure thing after Brady is rated) isn't a good thing.

On3 has Brady rated at 88 (they have lower ratings than 247). On3 has us rated as the 6th best class because they count departures in their ratings, and we don't lose as much talent as most teams.

---

6956bear said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

Latest recruiting update:

Based on average stars, we are currently tied with Vandebuilt for #37 in the transfer class.

Overall transfer class, we are 22nd.

Overall class, we are 40.

This is a lot different than tied for #5. It seems like our 4-star guys simply committed a bit earlier than most transfer guys, so our rankings were temporarily high. But now they are low again.

---

There is no doubt that the transfer rankings go up and down daily as players commit elsewhere. The trend for Cal is that they are a player in the transfer market. They have improved the team. They are also headed to a new league. No longer have to play USC, UCLA, UO or UW. They now will play against FSU, Clemson and Miami. And even then only occasionally. They do get FSU and Miami (at home) next season.

So the competition level goes down some. Where does Cal fall in this new league? Hard to say. But the ACC is filled with teams very similar to Cal. BC, GaTech, UVa, Wake Forest, Syracuse, Duke, SMU. And we know where they stack up vs Stanford.

Cal is not a national power. But they can be better. There is a lot of work to be done. But at this point the only thing that the fanbase can really do is contribute to the collective. Build the best roster you can. There will be a new Chancellor named by summer.

That is the moment of truth. Getting support from the top is the only real way to football relevance. Cal can diddle along as they have for decades and lose more than they win. But now with the natural rivalries removed (aside from Stanford) they will have to win or the games will be even less attended than currently. The new administration will have to make decisions on the path forward. And that includes what to do with Knowlton. Those decisions will determine to fate of Cal football.

Wilcox needed to go after 2021. But he was extended. That was a very bad decision. But it is done. Removing him now is costly and Cal is not in position to remove him and pay for another HC. This idea that Ron Rivera will forgo salary as a gift to his beloved alma mater seems remarkably delusional. I would love Rivera around the program. Be an ambassador for the program. Somebody that can help deliver donations for the program. But not a fan of making him the HC.

There are a lot of things happening right now in college football. NIL is starting to get some serious attention from both the NCAA and college administrators, ADs and coaches. Realignment is far from done. There are some movements beginning towards getting the players into a union of sorts and collectively bargain things like compensation, insurance, medical coverage, transfer rules etc. And the CFP is now entering a new phase of TV negotiations.

I think the next few seasons could bring some real dramatic changes. But until the next Chancellor is named and how that person sees the future of Cal athletics I believe supporting the collective is the best way to support the program.

As to transfer rankings. Lets check back in Summer when the rosters are set. There is another window from April 15-30. Spring practice will be in the books. We will know a lot more then. I just remember how excited everybody was about Spav joining and Sam Jackson at QB. Both are gone now. A lot can change. But at this moment in time the roster looks to be somewhat improved. And the schedule they play next year somewhat easier. Enough to get to 8+ wins. We'll see but maybe.

---

It is very demoralizing that the strategy seems to be rather that significantly improve our team, we just use the move to schedule 4 absolute crap non conference games to guarantee 4-0 instead of having any games that are compelling at all, and combine that with going 4-4 or 3-5 against a conference that is made up of 2/3 to 3/4 crappy teams and then go to crappy bowl games at 7-5 or 8-4, and then say "hooray! We're good now". The only thing more demoralizing than the strategy is the dead certainty that it will work. (Assuming we actually do win those games by not getting worse)

One of the ways to assess the outgoing transfer is how many are going to other P5 schools, right now I see 3? (Hunter, KEO and Jackson though it's at a different position)

If most of the transfers are going to G5 schools. they probably weren't big difference-makers and you can roll the dice again with new portal additions.

calumnus said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

oskiswifeshusband said:

---

That's such a cal weak take.

Our QB added necessary depth and a potential started with Roger's

RB added depth to an already stacked room.

WR got revamped and is faster and better than it was in 23.

We replaced LB for LB.

Our OL got 2 new quality starter additions.

DL saw 1 addition (hopefully more to come) and no notable exits.

You don't get the top6 portal class with his "bad" players….

Let's not forget there's portal players from last year that will contribute this year.

---

Cal Strong is not convinced with much of this.

• Chandler does not look to be a top-end QB. Neither does Mendoza (though he has certainly showed promise).
• Yes. But that is precisely why he is likely not to make too much of a difference.
• No. We replaced a LB for two LBs (Sirmon and Antz). This is a wash at best.
• No one knows if they will be quality. Hopeful though.

We are not in the top6 of the Portal class. We are ranked #17

---

Portal rankings are based on total numbers, which is a flawed methodology. It rewards quantity over quality.

We are (were at the time I wrote the OP) in the Top 6 for number of 4 and 5 star transfers, which I think is a more significant measure of "transfer strength." We are landing some of the most highly rated transfers, guys other schools want.

Now, my recommendation is that we take fewer HS recruits (all 3 stars so far) and more transfers since we are doing MUCH better with transfers. If we did that we would have quantity and quality and our transfer class ranking would easily be Top 10. That is huge:

---

That would be an absolute disaster. Cal signed a top 600 player out of high school in Jeremiah Hunter. UW signed a top 100 portal player in Jeremiah Hunter. It isn't the same. By definition, the portal is made up of guys who think they can do better elsewhere. 90% are either former top recruits who didn't earn playing time on a top team or former low level recruits who have been productive against crappy competition. Both of whom have proven to be risky prospects.

Cal had two transfer quarterbacks who sucked and ended up with the high school recruit being clearly better. Our top rusher is a high school recruit. Most of our receiving production came from HS recruits.

Your perception of portal player quality over high school player quality is skewed. Cal should do what it has been doing and use the portal wherever they can upgrade. So far, Cal's high school recruits are still better players than our portal recruits. Moving our focus completely to the portal means we are still getting guys top teams didn't want.

It reminds me of when I was a kid. For some reason I really liked watching bobsled. But the US bobsled program was ridiculously underfunded. The Germans would come out with these high tech sleds and our guys would go down in a box that looked like Calvin and Hobbes built it. They had no chance because even if they were good, they couldn't make up for lack of aerodynamics. Then one year, the Germans upgraded their sleds and our guys scraped their money together and bought one of the old German sleds. And it was great. They significantly improved their standing. They were also still way off the top. The US didn't come close to competing until support for our Olympic athletes drastically improved and the competed with top flight sleds.

The portal is getting you the used German sled. To the extent it is better than the existing sled, great. You take it. But you aren't getting where you need to go with the German reject sled. You need to build your own sled and that takes increased program support.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

We are doing well. We are not bringing in classes that will get us over the hump. We are bringing in classes that will improve us. But at best this is a band aid that maybe is a stepping stone that can help us do what we need to do - drastically improve our high school recruiting. It is not the answer unless the question is how can we have perennial slightly above .500 teams.

I don't think Wilcox is the answer, but setting him up with expectations from a "#6 class" is not something any coaching staff can fulfill with the talent he has on hand.

---

We are not doing well, and Cal Strong does not see the evidence that this class will improve us. It seems like a pretty normal and boring Wilcox class thus far.

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

There no evidence that we are keeping Wilcox b/c we can't afford not to do so.

We have paid huge buyouts after stupid extensions for our last three coaches before Wilcox. It is part of our long tradition of unconditional excellence.

---

Then go find someone who will pay his buyout, if you think it can be done. We're all rooting for you!

---

What good would that do? The Chancellor thinks JK is doing an elite AD, who thinks we have a coveted HC in place.

The problem isn't money. The problem is we have weak personnel but the chancellor thinks they are strong personnel.

So long as a threshold of people are donating to support this regime, the current admin isn't going to change their view on this.

---

The current chancellor is retiring. Hence there is probably nothing to be done on that front anyway until a new one is named. Which means Sebastabear is still right that the best thing you can do RIGHT NOW is to support the NIL collective.

---

Cal Strong works with university Chancellors/Presidents/Boards quite frequently. Cal Strong is concerned that with a bunch of yabo fans who cheered the JW extension and who are still giving big money to players on a team run by Justin Wilcox, the new chancellor will make the same conclusion that Christ has made.

Cal Strong sees this all the time in his work. Old leadership is really good at some areas but really bad in others. New leader comes and inherits a big and stupid investment the old leader made. But there is a loud enough small segment of the stakeholders who support the stupid idea. So the new leader is able to dodge making a courageous decision by saying there is a lot of popular support for the stupid idea.

This is a mind-numbingly frequent occurrence in university leadership transitions. Cal Strong has banged his head against the wall many times over this.

This is exactly what the real negabears are allowing the new leaders to do by supporting the current arrangement.

Your message is basically: "we can't be good or great. We need to give money to hang on and survive as a bad/mediocre team for the time being."

But university leadership teams hear this message as: "everything is fine. The stakeholders wouldn't spend money on something that isn't working."

Cal Strong! said:

---

Your message is basically: "we can't be good or great. We need to give money to hang on and survive as a bad/mediocre team for the time being."

---

No, my message is: "We need to do what we can do for now until the opportunity arrives to do something more."

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

Your message is basically: "we can't be good or great. We need to give money to hang on and survive as a bad/mediocre team for the time being."

---

No, my message is: "We need to do what we can do for now until the opportunity arrives to do something more."

---

Tweak it any way you like with as much nuance as you want. Cal Strong does this quite a bit for money. And from his experience, many university leadership teams hear such a message as: "everything is fine. The stakeholders wouldn't spend money on something that isn't working."

We're not spending money on something that isn't working. We're spending it on NIL.

They just sent out an email taking credit for Kevin's hard work and begging for money. They know they're ****ed.

You'd know this if you were actually a Cal booster.

Cal Strong! said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

Your message is basically: "we can't be good or great. We need to give money to hang on and survive as a bad/mediocre team for the time being."

---

No, my message is: "We need to do what we can do for now until the opportunity arrives to do something more."

---

Tweak it any way you like with as much nuance as you want. Cal Strong does this quite a bit for money. And from his experience, many university leadership teams hear such a message as: "everything is fine. The stakeholders wouldn't spend money on something that isn't working."

---

The athletics administration already runs a huge deficit and is about to have a huge hit on the revenue side. Radical changes will be needed. Spending an additional huge amount to pay off Wilcox AND hire another coach will be nearly impossible.

If the football program is tanking because we starve it, they will just cut deeper. They will talk about shuttling down athletics altogether. They won't come up with an extra $15 million to fire Wilcox, they won't have it. It is far more likely the program dies.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

oskiswifeshusband said:

---

That's such a cal weak take.

Our QB added necessary depth and a potential started with Roger's

RB added depth to an already stacked room.

WR got revamped and is faster and better than it was in 23.

We replaced LB for LB.

Our OL got 2 new quality starter additions.

DL saw 1 addition (hopefully more to come) and no notable exits.

You don't get the top6 portal class with his "bad" players….

Let's not forget there's portal players from last year that will contribute this year.

---

Cal Strong is not convinced with much of this.

• Chandler does not look to be a top-end QB. Neither does Mendoza (though he has certainly showed promise).
• Yes. But that is precisely why he is likely not to make too much of a difference.
• No. We replaced a LB for two LBs (Sirmon and Antz). This is a wash at best.
• No one knows if they will be quality. Hopeful though.

We are not in the top6 of the Portal class. We are ranked #17

---

Portal rankings are based on total numbers, which is a flawed methodology. It rewards quantity over quality.

We are (were at the time I wrote the OP) in the Top 6 for number of 4 and 5 star transfers, which I think is a more significant measure of "transfer strength." We are landing some of the most highly rated transfers, guys other schools want.

Now, my recommendation is that we take fewer HS recruits (all 3 stars so far) and more transfers since we are doing MUCH better with transfers. If we did that we would have quantity and quality and our transfer class ranking would easily be Top 10. That is huge:

---

That would be an absolute disaster. Cal signed a top 600 player out of high school in Jeremiah Hunter. UW signed a top 100 portal player in Jeremiah Hunter. It isn't the same. By definition, the portal is made up of guys who think they can do better elsewhere. 90% are either former top recruits who didn't earn playing time on a top team or former low level recruits who have been productive against crappy competition. Both of whom have proven to be risky prospects.

Cal had two transfer quarterbacks who sucked and ended up with the high school recruit being clearly better. Our top rusher is a high school recruit. Most of our receiving production came from HS recruits.

Your perception of portal player quality over high school player quality is skewed. Cal should do what it has been doing and use the portal wherever they can upgrade. So far, Cal's high school recruits are still better players than our portal recruits. Moving our focus completely to the portal means we are still getting guys top teams didn't want.

It reminds me of when I was a kid. For some reason I really liked watching bobsled. But the US bobsled program was ridiculously underfunded. The Germans would come out with these high tech sleds and our guys would go down in a box that looked like Calvin and Hobbes built it. They had no chance because even if they were good, they couldn't make up for lack of aerodynamics. Then one year, the Germans upgraded their sleds and our guys scraped their money together and bought one of the old German sleds. And it was great. They significantly improved their standing. They were also still way off the top. The US didn't come close to competing until support for our Olympic athletes drastically improved and the competed with top flight sleds.

The portal is getting you the used German sled. To the extent it is better than the existing sled, great. You take it. But you aren't getting where you need to go with the German reject sled. You need to build your own sled and that takes increased program support.

---

You are arguing just to argue. Cals best pass rushers (Reese and Carlton) are transfers. The best Dbs last season were transfers (Williams and McMorris) the best LB before he got hurt (Sirmon) is a transfer. Taj Davis was tied for #2 in receptions (transfer from UW) The backup RB (Ifanse) was a transfer. The starting LT and LG were transfers (Wykoff and Miller) the starting RT was a transfer from Montana St the year before (Session).

This team would have been awful if totally relying on HS players. Wilcox has proven to be an abysmal HS recruiter. They have had some wins. Ott primarily. Mendoza may end up a steal, but too early to tell. And a couple of big HS recruits like KEO, Sturdivant and now Hunter have bailed.

There were some transfer misses. Jackson and Finley for sure. Big misses. Hightower did little. But to make the case that Wilcox stay the course with HS players likely would have resulted in maybe 3 wins last season.

There is an entire industry that rates these players. Both HS recruits and transfers. Cal has been a top 20 transfer portal team last year and so far this year. Look up the HS rankings. They are dreadful.

Nobody here is in support of Wilcox. I certainly have not been a backer. But he is not getting fired. And rather than seeing him use up all the spots with his poor HS recruiting I am for dipping into the transfer market for players that have done some things and been productive. A mix is needed.

Cal does not spend on the program. I could care less why. They don't. So finding a way to make any improvement however slight is a good thing. Wilcox should not have been extended after 2021. They could have fired him for a hell of a lot less then than now.

We agree about support, but the Cal administration and AD do not support the program to anything close to most of their peer counterparts. Until they do it is imperitive that fans support the program in a way that improves the roster.

So if fans want to donate to the collective and try and improve the product that is a worthy endeavor. We know what happens when you make donations to the AD.

WalterSobchak said:

---

We're not spending money on something that isn't working. We're spending it on NIL.

They just sent out an email taking credit for Kevin's hard work and begging for money. They know they're ****ed.

You'd know this if you were actually a Cal booster.

---

Thank you. NIL is absolutely working for our great university!!!! It is our hope!

Cal Strong! said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Bear Naked Ladies said:

---

On the one hand, we are being told time is of the essence. On the other, we are being told that the one thing we definitely can't do with time being of the essence is to get rid of our bad leadership.

---

The argument is that we DON'T HAVE THE MONEY to get rid of those guys right now, so the next best step is to improve the NIL collective.

You want a new coach and AD? Tell us you have someone willing to put up the money for that. Otherwise stop whining.

---

There no evidence that we are keeping Wilcox b/c we can't afford not to do so.

We have paid huge buyouts after stupid extensions for our last three coaches before Wilcox. It is part of our long tradition of unconditional excellence.

---

Then go find someone who will pay his buyout, if you think it can be done. We're all rooting for you!

---

What good would that do? The Chancellor thinks JK is doing an elite AD, who thinks we have a coveted HC in place.

The problem isn't money. The problem is we have weak personnel but the chancellor thinks they are strong personnel.

So long as a threshold of people are donating to support this regime, the current admin isn't going to change their view on this.

---

Donations could dry up to nothing and the regime wouldn't change their view. It would just give them another excuse to unload on the Ath Dept., at least the rev sports.