4 and 5 star transfers for 2024*

1. Texas A&M 7 (0+7)
2. Ole Miss 6 (1+5)
3T Colorado 6 (0+6)
3T Florida State 6 (0+6)
5T California 5 (0+5)
5T Georgia 5 (0+5)

We are tied with Georgia for 5th with five 4 Star transfers, 2nd in the ACC, just behind Florida State.

Conclusions;
1. ACC appears to be a good move for us.
2. Cal NIL program is more than competitive.
3. Toler is a good recruiter. Cal alums recruit well for Cal.
4. Wilcox, another losing record, losing Spav, are not hurting us in the transfer portal.

We are doing FAR better with transfers than HS recruits (all 3 stars). This deserves a discussion.

I think It points to our staff being really poor HS recruiters mostly due to personality and Pacific Northwest geographic focus. We recruit Texas but are low on the totem pole there. Also, HS recruits are very focused on football and are unrealistic in their aspirations. They want big name programs and the NFL. Wilcox's losing and relative lack of success getting guys to the NFL hurts us. It may be tougher to meet Cal's admission standards out of high school than as a transfer.

Transfers are more mature. They know getting to the NFL is tough, it can be done from anywhere but you have to see the field to do it. Transfers are going to get a degree from the school they transfer to and a UC Berkeley is elite. As said above, it may be easier to enter Cal as a transfer. Low key, honest recruiters like Wilcox and his staff backed by reputable/trustworthy NIL have a comparative advantage. It doesn't matter what your regional network among HS coaches is or your scouting to the same degree. It is free agency, with players contacted through the portal and evaluated via video based on college competition.

Wilcox should reduce the number of 3 star and lower HS recruits he brings in and allocate FAR more scholarships to transfers.

Cal desperately needed a paradigm shift. 63 years without a Rose Bowl was ridiculous. Well the chaos of NIL delivered. To invert the line from the Dark Knight, NIL is not the hero we deserve but it's the hero we need right now.

Sebastabear said:

---

Cal desperately needed a paradigm shift. 63 years without a Rose Bowl was ridiculous. Well the chaos of NIL delivered. To invert the line from the Dark Knight, NIL is not the hero we deserve but it's the hero we need right now.

---

Sebasta, thank you! You are a hero! There is no one doing more to save our beloved Cal Bear sports teams and help realize our potential.

Go Bears!

Sebastabear said:

---

Cal desperately needed a paradigm shift. 63 years without a Rose Bowl was ridiculous. Well the chaos of NIL delivered. To invert the line from the Dark Knight, NIL is not the hero we deserve but it's the hero we need right now.

---

We'll done in effort and especially quote...so great.

• With about 70 years of rooting for Cal, i will wait to see the results, as i have noted many times, my faith in jw is very limited, god knows i hope jw can come thru

I think it's as simple as in the past, the bluebloods would hoard talent, and talent couldn't easily leave for greener pastures. Nowadays, it's a frictionless environment, so anybody on the bench at Georgia, Alabama, Texas, etc. is going to move somewhere else where they can see the field. We are positioned perfectly to take in this talent.

It's a new paradigm, and why would we recruit high school athletes who take up a scholarship for a few years before they have a chance to see the field, when we can recruit transfers who are ready to play right now, and are much more known quantities than an unproven and unpredictable high school recruit.

We are finally getting a big break on re-stocking/recruiting. Go hard Bears in the portal!!!!

Back-to-back top 20 transfer portal classes shows our NIL program is paying early dividends

75bear said:

---

I think it's as simple as in the past, the bluebloods would hoard talent, and talent couldn't easily leave for greener pastures. Nowadays, it's a frictionless environment, so anybody on the bench at Georgia, Alabama, Texas, etc. is going to move somewhere else where they can see the field. We are positioned perfectly to take in this talent.

It's a new paradigm, and why would we recruit high school athletes who take up a scholarship for a few years before they have a chance to see the field, when we can recruit transfers who are ready to play right now, and are much more known quantities than an unproven and unpredictable high school recruit.

---

Agreed, that is the big picture, though Texas A&M, Georgia and Florida State are "blue bloods." The three exceptions are Colorado, Ole Miss and Cal. The question is why, of all the many non-blue bloods, Cal is doing so well? I don't think it because Wilcox rivals Dieon in charisma. I think it is for the reasons I listed above.

But yes, we agree, we should limit our high school recruiting of 3 and 2 stars to make more room for transfers, where will are killing it.

Bearly Clad said:

---

Back-to-back top 20 transfer portal classes shows our NIL program is paying early dividends

---

I can hardly wait for the future 6-7 seasons that our 80th ranked coach delivers with these transfer classes.

Sebastabear said:

---

Cal desperately needed a paradigm shift. 63 years without a Rose Bowl was ridiculous. Well the chaos of NIL delivered. To invert the line from the Dark Knight, NIL is not the hero we deserve but it's the hero we need right now.

---

We had Top 15 classes under the old system when we had coaches who were good at winning games and recruiting.

We stopped having Top-15 classes when we stopped having coaches who could produce and recruit. That was under the old system.

We continue not to have good classes under the new system. Cal Strong glad we picked up some good players. But from watching their highlight tapes, these guys aren't good enough to turn the program around. We need a coaching change for that.

Cal Strong's problem with NIL is that we still don't have Top-25 overall classes. But we pick up just enough players to give us a bit of hope, dull the pain of losing good players, and to keep Wilcox off the hot seat.

Then we take these new players and go out and have another losing season. Wash, rinse, repeat.

It doesn't feel as though this new system or the money the collective has raised has made any appreciable difference. It seems as though we just rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic and buy a coach incapable of success a few more seasons.

Cal Strong! said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Cal desperately needed a paradigm shift. 63 years without a Rose Bowl was ridiculous. Well the chaos of NIL delivered. To invert the line from the Dark Knight, NIL is not the hero we deserve but it's the hero we need right now.

---

We had Top 15 classes under the old system when we had coaches who were good at winning games and recruiting.

We stopped having Top-15 classes when we stopped having coaches who could produce and recruit. That was under the old system.

We continue not to have good classes under the new system. Cal Strong glad we picked up some good players. But from watching their highlight tapes, these guys aren't good enough to turn the program around. We need a coaching change for that.

Cal Strong's problem with NIL is that we still don't have Top-25 overall classes. But we pick up just enough players to give us a bit of hope, dull the pain of losing good players, and to keep Wilcox off the hot seat.

Then we take these new players and go out and have another losing season. Wash, rinse, repeat.

It doesn't feel as though this new system or the money the collective has raised has made any appreciable difference. It seems as though we just rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic and buy a coach incapable of success a few more seasons.

---

So the "new system" is literally 12 months old. We've had exactly one recruiting cycle under it. We had a top 20 portal recruiting class using it in 2023. Well guess what? That still means that 75% of the team was not from a top 20 class. So it's a bit early to declare this can't work, no?

And now in 2024 we are doing it again and so far this class is even better than last year's class. And when we are done 50% of the team will be composed of players that were highly sought after by other "good coach" teams. But they came here.

I think this season will be a fair test for if this new system works or not. We should have enough players on the team to tip the balance, one way or the other. But honestly, regardless, my problem with your critique is what exactly is your solution? What is the other option? And please don't give me the "get good coaches / play good football" conclusory nonsense. Wilcox has a $20 million buyout. How exactly are you fixing that problem? How are we replacing him with a "good football coach."

NIL and improved recruiting classes are not "prolonging the agony" or "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic". The undeniable fact is Cal does not have the money to replace Wilcox. If Cal had a horrible recruiting class with unqualified players we would still have Justin Wilcox and his $20 million buyout. NIL isn't "buying him a few more years" or removing him from the hot seat. Wilcox's seat is an $20m block of ice regardless of what you or anyone else thinks of his coaching skills.

The fact of the matter is right here and right now there is no time for the old burn it down and replace it strategy. Realignment is going to come again in a handful of years. And the Cal brand is borderline radioactive. Unless we start winning games and winning them now we are done. And NIL is the only solution to do that. "Get good coaches" is not a plan any more than "win national championship" is a plan. A plan is "how". How do we maximize our chances to win right here and right now. My answer is NIL. What's yours?

You need strong high school recruiting unless you're about to pay 50 guys to play at your school. Transfers may be a shortcut to increase overall recruiting though in the short term. However, Wilcox inability to win very many games over the years has me a bit shaky in confidence that this will happen.

The fact of the matter is...the key component to a successful college program is the strength of the offensive and defensive lines. We have not developed those areas very much at all.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

You need strong high school recruiting unless you're about to pay 50 guys to play at your school. Transfers may be a shortcut to increase overall recruiting though in the short term. However, Wilcox inability to win very many games over the years has me a bit shaky in confidence that this will happen.

---

Aren't High school recruits getting paid too?

Our combined (HS and transfer) class was #55 for 2022 and #45 for 2023. According to Sagarin our 2023 team was .#50. So we played exactly consistent with our last two classes.

Our 2024 class is currently #40.

It isn't either or, but both. It would be great to do better with HS recruits but that has never been Cal under Wilcox. However, since we are relative far more successful in getting top transfers, we should lean more toward transfers, bringing in the best HS recruits we can get, but fewer lower rated guys.

Sebastabear said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Cal desperately needed a paradigm shift. 63 years without a Rose Bowl was ridiculous. Well the chaos of NIL delivered. To invert the line from the Dark Knight, NIL is not the hero we deserve but it's the hero we need right now.

---

We had Top 15 classes under the old system when we had coaches who were good at winning games and recruiting.

We stopped having Top-15 classes when we stopped having coaches who could produce and recruit. That was under the old system.

We continue not to have good classes under the new system. Cal Strong glad we picked up some good players. But from watching their highlight tapes, these guys aren't good enough to turn the program around. We need a coaching change for that.

Cal Strong's problem with NIL is that we still don't have Top-25 overall classes. But we pick up just enough players to give us a bit of hope, dull the pain of losing good players, and to keep Wilcox off the hot seat.

Then we take these new players and go out and have another losing season. Wash, rinse, repeat.

It doesn't feel as though this new system or the money the collective has raised has made any appreciable difference. It seems as though we just rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic and buy a coach incapable of success a few more seasons.

---

So the "new system" is literally 12 months old. We've had exactly one recruiting cycle under it. We had a top 20 portal recruiting class using it in 2023. Well guess what? That still means that 75% of the team was not from a top 20 class. So it's a bit early to declare this can't work, no?

And now in 2024 we are doing it again and so far this class is even better than last year's class. And when we are done 50% of the team will be composed of players that were highly sought after by other "good coach" teams. But they came here.

I think this season will be a fair test for if this new system works or not. We should have enough players on the team to tip the balance, one way or the other. But honestly, regardless, my problem with your critique is what exactly is your solution? What is the other option? And please don't give me the "get good coaches / play good football" conclusory nonsense. Wilcox has a $20 million buyout. How exactly are you fixing that problem? How are we replacing him with a "good football coach."

NIL and improved recruiting classes are not "prolonging the agony" or "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic". The undeniable fact is Cal does not have the money to replace Wilcox. If Cal had a horrible recruiting class with unqualified players we would still have Justin Wilcox and his $20 million buyout. NIL isn't "buying him a few more years" or removing him from the hot seat. Wilcox's seat is an $20m block of ice regardless of what you or anyone else thinks of his coaching skills.

The fact of the matter is right here and right now there is no time for the old burn it down and replace it strategy. Realignment is going to come again in a handful of years. And the Cal brand is borderline radioactive. Unless we start winning games and winning them now we are done. And NIL is the only solution to do that. "Get good coaches" is not a plan any more than "win national championship" is a plan. A plan is "how". How do we maximize our chances to win right here and right now. My answer is NIL. What's yours?

---

Cal Strong doesn't think it "can't work" Sebastabear. But it depends on what one means by "work." Cal Strong's problem with it is that it works all too well -- if the goal is to maintain the status quo of 3-6 wins/year.

Cal Strong appreciate that we recently got some players who seem pretty good. But are they blue chip guys that turn around a program? That would be a big stretch.

The thing about transfer rankings is that one needs to measure the caliber of the players lost in the portal vs the caliber we get back. Last year we lost J-M-S, but gained two QBs who didn't pan out and an Oregon RB who was injured all year. This year we lost Hunter but gained a Freshman from Utah who shows some promise but didn't produce like Hunter did.

So that is what Cal Strong means by rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. We are losing good players, and getting some as well. Does it make us any better? No. We still have losing seasons.

This year we lost thirteen 3-stars and picked up five 3-stars and five four-stars. Will the Sac State kid be better than the departing Sirmon/Antzoulatas? Maybe. But that doesn't seem like a big win. It seems like an even trade at best. Will Kadarius Calloway be able to stay healthy for the first time in his career and break into the crowded rotation to a large enough extent to make a difference in the season? Again, maybe. But Cal Strong has his doubts based on his career history thus far.

Cal has fired coaches with huge buyouts in the past. Tedford and Dykes had big buyouts. Heck, even Holmoe had a buyout. This is part of college football. Programs raise money to fire their coaches all the time.

Cal has put forward his answer several times, while always carefully noting that he respects your effort:

1. Cal Strong has been in communication with triad of senior leadership at the University. He advocates for firing Justin Wilcox and Jim Knowlton. But the chancellor has expressed to Cal Strong that she views Knowlton as an elite AD and he isn't going anywhere under her watch.

2. But Cal Strong thinks we can (and should!) fire Wilcox and Knowlton. We've done this before. Other schools do it all the time. Christ doesn't want to lose Knowlton, who in turn doesn't want to lose Wilcox. This isn't about the buyout. It is about leadership's assessment that the right people are already in place. But we will be getting a new Chancellor soon, so this is likely to change.

3. If we don't fire Wilcox, Cal Strong advocates we should stop financing this debacle until he is gone. Of course we will honor his contract. But we should replace departing assistants with promoted GA's at $50k/year. No more money for anything that isn't contractually guaranteed. Wilcox and/or his agent scammed a gullible AD and fanbase for a ridiculous extension. Okay, fine. But we shouldn't give him any extras just because he swindled us. Make him pay for his own coffee and PA. Charge him for paperclips and for use of the showers. (This is hyperbole of course, but it gives you an idea of Cal Strong's approach)

4. Cal Strong anticipates that Sebastabear will counter with some version of "well then, the program will die." No it won't. Cal Strong was in discussion with Chancellor's team and Moguluf after UW/Oregon left, and minority voices advocated shutting down IAD. The Chancellor made it clear that wasn't the plan. Besides, with the portal, programs can turn around very quickly with the right coach. We've seen this happen a lot recently.

Here's one advantage of the portal that I don't recall anybody mentioning:
Under the "old" system, if Cal made a mistake and a HS recruit didn't pan out, they were likely stuck with that mistake for 2-4 years. With the transfer portal, any mistakes (SJV, Finley) will likely not hang around taking up a scholarship slot. They'll look for the next opportunity, giving Cal a chance to use that slot elsewhere.

So, I'm not going to get all excited about these transfer portal "rankings", as Cal essentially whiffed last year on the all-important QB position (again, SJV, Finley), and only partially addressed the OL. To be fair, they also had some successes (Ifanse and Miller come to mind) and there are several like Cardwell where the jury is still out. I'd also put Xavier Carlton in this category since, while he starts, he hasn't performed as consistently as I hoped he would - but that's also a coaching issue.

One difference with portal recruiting is that there's little time to build a relationship with the player before they make their choice. I don't know what, if any, rules exist for contacting guys before they enter the portal. Cal is going to be successful here, they need a good process for identifying portal candidates and quickly putting a pitch together to win these guys. Meanwhile, I hope this 2024 ranking actually morphs into some strong contributors for next season.

HearstMining said:

---

Here's one advantage of the portal that I don't recall anybody mentioning:
Under the "old" system, if Cal made a mistake and a HS recruit didn't pan out, they were likely stuck with that mistake for 2-4 years. With the transfer portal, any mistakes (SJV, Finley) will likely not hang around taking up a scholarship slot. They'll look for the next opportunity, giving Cal a chance to use that slot elsewhere.

---

The flipside is that top recruits we do pick up are motivated to find better opportunities as well, so we are constantly in a state of treading water despite needing to invest more time and money in the portal.

DoubtfulBear said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Here's one advantage of the portal that I don't recall anybody mentioning:
Under the "old" system, if Cal made a mistake and a HS recruit didn't pan out, they were likely stuck with that mistake for 2-4 years. With the transfer portal, any mistakes (SJV, Finley) will likely not hang around taking up a scholarship slot. They'll look for the next opportunity, giving Cal a chance to use that slot elsewhere.

---

The flipside is that top recruits we do pick up are motivated to find better opportunities as well, so we are constantly in a state of treading water despite needing to invest more time and money in the portal.

---

We are only in a position to tread water until we build a culture of winning that includes a head coach who can recruit. Despite all of Wilcox's flaws, if he had a top25 recruiting class, year after year, I have no doubt we'd be a top25 team, year after year. Right now, we need more money to entice more players, and the best strategy to use the limited funds we have right now, is to get older, bigger, stronger, more developed juniors and seniors from the portal. The few big names we just got have me pretty excited about next year. There's really no excuse to not have a winning season. I also think Mendoza, knowing Mendoza, is going to be working his arse off every day and will look super sharp in spring. Having a very competent backup vying for the position is huge as well. We are in so much better shape than we were last year at this point, with the potential to maybe land a couple more lineman in the spring. Go Bears.

It will be interesting to see how productive portal recruits are generally. I imagine some are shopping for better deals but others are shopping for playing time. There are a lot of 4 star busts, and I imagine that now most of them will enter the portal. Landing a bunch of those won't necessarily help a team.

It also can be some of the transfer portal players might value getting a Cal education/degree more after a few years in college compared to coming straight out of HS.

Or in other words, it's easier to sell getting such a good education to a guy 2 years into college who might feel he won't make it in the NFL versus a kid of HS with those high aspirations.

Joegeo said:

---

It also can be some of the transfer portal players might value getting a Cal education/degree more after a few years in college compared to coming straight out of HS.

Or in other words, it's easier to sell getting such a good education to a guy 2 years into college who might feel he won't make it in the NFL versus a kid of HS with those high aspirations.

---

I hope you're right about this as we all know the value of a Cal degree. But some of these guys are downright delusional about their ability. Ben Finley apparently thinks he can get to the NFL via the Akron Zips. Well, good luck with that. More likely, a year from now he's selling real estate and volunteering as an assistant high school coach somewhere.

Hey everybody, note that we increased our win total by two games this past season! Now, 6-7 certainly isn't where we aspire to be, but if we keep improving by 1-2 games, it won't be long. And at this point, I'd have to project that we will be incrementally better in 2024!

When we stack a couple of bowl game seasons together, the prep recruits will start to take us more seriously, as will the transfers, as will potential NIL donors.

hearst, ben finley graduated with honors from north carolina state in 3 years & then stuck around to be qb2 for the bowl game so we didn't have to play a true freshman walk on in an emergency situation...his brother is a nfl qb & ben is gonna kill it in the biz world, wish him luck starting at akron in 2024

go zips#

Sebastabear said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Cal desperately needed a paradigm shift. 63 years without a Rose Bowl was ridiculous. Well the chaos of NIL delivered. To invert the line from the Dark Knight, NIL is not the hero we deserve but it's the hero we need right now.

---

We had Top 15 classes under the old system when we had coaches who were good at winning games and recruiting.

We stopped having Top-15 classes when we stopped having coaches who could produce and recruit. That was under the old system.

We continue not to have good classes under the new system. Cal Strong glad we picked up some good players. But from watching their highlight tapes, these guys aren't good enough to turn the program around. We need a coaching change for that.

Cal Strong's problem with NIL is that we still don't have Top-25 overall classes. But we pick up just enough players to give us a bit of hope, dull the pain of losing good players, and to keep Wilcox off the hot seat.

Then we take these new players and go out and have another losing season. Wash, rinse, repeat.

It doesn't feel as though this new system or the money the collective has raised has made any appreciable difference. It seems as though we just rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic and buy a coach incapable of success a few more seasons.

---

So the "new system" is literally 12 months old. We've had exactly one recruiting cycle under it. We had a top 20 portal recruiting class using it in 2023. Well guess what? That still means that 75% of the team was not from a top 20 class. So it's a bit early to declare this can't work, no?

And now in 2024 we are doing it again and so far this class is even better than last year's class. And when we are done 50% of the team will be composed of players that were highly sought after by other "good coach" teams. But they came here.

I think this season will be a fair test for if this new system works or not. We should have enough players on the team to tip the balance, one way or the other. But honestly, regardless, my problem with your critique is what exactly is your solution? What is the other option? And please don't give me the "get good coaches / play good football" conclusory nonsense. Wilcox has a $20 million buyout. How exactly are you fixing that problem? How are we replacing him with a "good football coach."

NIL and improved recruiting classes are not "prolonging the agony" or "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic". The undeniable fact is Cal does not have the money to replace Wilcox. If Cal had a horrible recruiting class with unqualified players we would still have Justin Wilcox and his $20 million buyout. NIL isn't "buying him a few more years" or removing him from the hot seat. Wilcox's seat is an $20m block of ice regardless of what you or anyone else thinks of his coaching skills.

The fact of the matter is right here and right now there is no time for the old burn it down and replace it strategy. Realignment is going to come again in a handful of years. And the Cal brand is borderline radioactive. Unless we start winning games and winning them now we are done. And NIL is the only solution to do that. "Get good coaches" is not a plan any more than "win national championship" is a plan. A plan is "how". How do we maximize our chances to win right here and right now. My answer is NIL. What's yours?

---

if the goal is for Cal sports to survive and thrive then we need leadership changes and they need to happen immediately. We have to fire Wilcox and replace him with a winner or we will likely cease to exist as a major conference football program and we need to do it now.

We need the decision makers (e.g. B10 leadership, media execs, etc) to believe we add meaningful value. What they care about it eyeballs. What drives viewership and attendance typically is winning.

"Winning" is not specific enough. We have to win enough for people to get excited and stay excited about the program (to grow a fan base) and win enough and in an entertaining enough way to get national casual fan viewership. That means 10+ win seasons and a sustained run of good, entertaining, winning football. Look at Tedford - it wasn't until year 3 that people really started showing up and that took a top 10 team with a Heisman candidate coming off 2 years of growing excitement and big wins.

Cal having a larger NIL budget would be great and thank you for what you're doing with NIL for Cal. At the same time, let's be realistic. Do you expect Cal to be able to NIL our way to a 10 win season in the next 2-3 years? Wilcox has shown himself to be a ~5 win coach. Maybe if you do a great job with NIL that can move up to 6 or 7 wins - a 2 win improvement driven by fans is huge! But 7 wins (a best case here) isn't moving the needle, 7 wins isn't keeping us alive. (Tangentially, part of the issue is that Wilcox' recruiting, including evaluation of players, isn't very good so even if you raise a lot of NIL $s you still have Wilcox blowing his wad on a project qb who he then refuses to develop.)

As for the $20M elephant in the room - that's not the cost of replacing Wilcox. That's a sunk cost. We owe it to him regardless of if we fire him or keep him. The cost of replacing Wilcox is whatever the new coach costs. If anything, assuming there's a fairly standard duty to mitigate clause in his absurd contract, firing him sooner is actually cheaper for us.

I get that there is no guarantee of hiring a winning coach. We will have to hire an unproven coach relatively cheaply. We may need to get creative and take a shot with a D2 guy or etc, go look for the next Harbaugh or Chip. It may fail. It's probably more likely to fail than to succeed. But the existing path is almost guaranteed to fail.

We're running out of time. If the next round of realignment is in 5-6 years it means we have to get to 10 win good within 3-4 years, possibly sooner. Sticking with Wilcox for 2-3 more years is potentially death to the program.

Cal Strong! said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Cal desperately needed a paradigm shift. 63 years without a Rose Bowl was ridiculous. Well the chaos of NIL delivered. To invert the line from the Dark Knight, NIL is not the hero we deserve but it's the hero we need right now.

---

We had Top 15 classes under the old system when we had coaches who were good at winning games and recruiting.

We stopped having Top-15 classes when we stopped having coaches who could produce and recruit. That was under the old system.

We continue not to have good classes under the new system. Cal Strong glad we picked up some good players. But from watching their highlight tapes, these guys aren't good enough to turn the program around. We need a coaching change for that.

Cal Strong's problem with NIL is that we still don't have Top-25 overall classes. But we pick up just enough players to give us a bit of hope, dull the pain of losing good players, and to keep Wilcox off the hot seat.

Then we take these new players and go out and have another losing season. Wash, rinse, repeat.

It doesn't feel as though this new system or the money the collective has raised has made any appreciable difference. It seems as though we just rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic and buy a coach incapable of success a few more seasons.

---

So the "new system" is literally 12 months old. We've had exactly one recruiting cycle under it. We had a top 20 portal recruiting class using it in 2023. Well guess what? That still means that 75% of the team was not from a top 20 class. So it's a bit early to declare this can't work, no?

And now in 2024 we are doing it again and so far this class is even better than last year's class. And when we are done 50% of the team will be composed of players that were highly sought after by other "good coach" teams. But they came here.

I think this season will be a fair test for if this new system works or not. We should have enough players on the team to tip the balance, one way or the other. But honestly, regardless, my problem with your critique is what exactly is your solution? What is the other option? And please don't give me the "get good coaches / play good football" conclusory nonsense. Wilcox has a $20 million buyout. How exactly are you fixing that problem? How are we replacing him with a "good football coach."

NIL and improved recruiting classes are not "prolonging the agony" or "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic". The undeniable fact is Cal does not have the money to replace Wilcox. If Cal had a horrible recruiting class with unqualified players we would still have Justin Wilcox and his $20 million buyout. NIL isn't "buying him a few more years" or removing him from the hot seat. Wilcox's seat is an $20m block of ice regardless of what you or anyone else thinks of his coaching skills.

The fact of the matter is right here and right now there is no time for the old burn it down and replace it strategy. Realignment is going to come again in a handful of years. And the Cal brand is borderline radioactive. Unless we start winning games and winning them now we are done. And NIL is the only solution to do that. "Get good coaches" is not a plan any more than "win national championship" is a plan. A plan is "how". How do we maximize our chances to win right here and right now. My answer is NIL. What's yours?

---

Cal Strong doesn't think it "can't work" Sebastabear. But it depends on what one means by "work." Cal Strong's problem with it is that it works all too well -- if the goal is to maintain the status quo of 3-6 wins/year.

Cal Strong appreciate that we recently got some players who seem pretty good. But are they blue chip guys that turn around a program? That would be a big stretch.

The thing about transfer rankings is that one needs to measure the caliber of the players lost in the portal vs the caliber we get back. Last year we lost J-M-S, but gained two QBs who didn't pan out and an Oregon RB who was injured all year. This year we lost Hunter but gained a Freshman from Utah who shows some promise but didn't produce like Hunter did.

So that is what Cal Strong means by rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. We are losing good players, and getting some as well. Does it make us any better? No. We still have losing seasons.

This year we lost thirteen 3-stars and picked up five 3-stars and five four-stars. Will the Sac State kid be better than the departing Sirmon/Antzoulatas? Maybe. But that doesn't seem like a big win. It seems like an even trade at best. Will Kadarius Calloway be able to stay healthy for the first time in his career and break into the crowded rotation to a large enough extent to make a difference in the season? Again, maybe. But Cal Strong has his doubts based on his career history thus far.

Cal has fired coaches with huge buyouts in the past. Tedford and Dykes had big buyouts. Heck, even Holmoe had a buyout. This is part of college football. Programs raise money to fire their coaches all the time.

Cal has put forward his answer several times, while always carefully noting that he respects your effort:

1. Cal Strong has been in communication with triad of senior leadership at the University. He advocates for firing Justin Wilcox and Jim Knowlton. But the chancellor has expressed to Cal Strong that she views Knowlton as an elite AD and he isn't going anywhere under her watch.

2. But Cal Strong thinks we can (and should!) fire Wilcox and Knowlton. We've done this before. Other schools do it all the time. Christ doesn't want to lose Knowlton, who in turn doesn't want to lose Wilcox. This isn't about the buyout. It is about leadership's assessment that the right people are already in place. But we will be getting a new Chancellor soon, so this is likely to change.

3. If we don't fire Wilcox, Cal Strong advocates we should stop financing this debacle until he is gone. Of course we will honor his contract. But we should replace departing assistants with promoted GA's at $50k/year. No more money for anything that isn't contractually guaranteed. Wilcox and/or his agent scammed a gullible AD and fanbase for a ridiculous extension. Okay, fine. But we shouldn't give him any extras just because he swindled us. Make him pay for his own coffee and PA. Charge him for paperclips and for use of the showers. (This is hyperbole of course, but it gives you an idea of Cal Strong's approach)

4. Cal Strong anticipates that Sebastabear will counter with some version of "well then, the program will die." No it won't. Cal Strong was in discussion with Chancellor's team and Moguluf after UW/Oregon left, and minority voices advocated shutting down IAD. The Chancellor made it clear that wasn't the plan. Besides, with the portal, programs can turn around very quickly with the right coach. We've seen this happen a lot recently.

---

Sounds like you are essentially advocating tanking in football in order to get rid of Wilcox, either by saving enough money to buy him out, or starving him of resources to the point that he leaves voluntarily. The question is whether the end result is that the program declines to the point where no effort by the next regime can save it from relegation, or whether a turn around can happen fast enough to encounter the initial debacle of losing season(s). It's obviously a huge risk, and reflects the debate here over whether this coach can be successful if you give him a better roster, or he's just a loser, period. I get it, and I don't know which if you is right.

bearsandgiants said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Here's one advantage of the portal that I don't recall anybody mentioning:
Under the "old" system, if Cal made a mistake and a HS recruit didn't pan out, they were likely stuck with that mistake for 2-4 years. With the transfer portal, any mistakes (SJV, Finley) will likely not hang around taking up a scholarship slot. They'll look for the next opportunity, giving Cal a chance to use that slot elsewhere.

---

The flipside is that top recruits we do pick up are motivated to find better opportunities as well, so we are constantly in a state of treading water despite needing to invest more time and money in the portal.

---

We are only in a position to tread water until we build a culture of winning that includes a head coach who can recruit. Despite all of Wilcox's flaws, if he had a top25 recruiting class, year after year, I have no doubt we'd be a top25 team, year after year. Right now, we need more money to entice more players, and the best strategy to use the limited funds we have right now, is to get older, bigger, stronger, more developed juniors and seniors from the portal. The few big names we just got have me pretty excited about next year. There's really no excuse to not have a winning season. I also think Mendoza, knowing Mendoza, is going to be working his arse off every day and will look super sharp in spring. Having a very competent backup vying for the position is huge as well. We are in so much better shape than we were last year at this point, with the potential to maybe land a couple more lineman in the spring. Go Bears.

---

all well and good, but you can't know that jw would succeed with consistent top 25 classes. there's more to winning than hc smarts.

Jeff82 said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

Cal desperately needed a paradigm shift. 63 years without a Rose Bowl was ridiculous. Well the chaos of NIL delivered. To invert the line from the Dark Knight, NIL is not the hero we deserve but it's the hero we need right now.

---

We had Top 15 classes under the old system when we had coaches who were good at winning games and recruiting.

We stopped having Top-15 classes when we stopped having coaches who could produce and recruit. That was under the old system.

We continue not to have good classes under the new system. Cal Strong glad we picked up some good players. But from watching their highlight tapes, these guys aren't good enough to turn the program around. We need a coaching change for that.

Cal Strong's problem with NIL is that we still don't have Top-25 overall classes. But we pick up just enough players to give us a bit of hope, dull the pain of losing good players, and to keep Wilcox off the hot seat.

Then we take these new players and go out and have another losing season. Wash, rinse, repeat.

It doesn't feel as though this new system or the money the collective has raised has made any appreciable difference. It seems as though we just rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic and buy a coach incapable of success a few more seasons.

---

So the "new system" is literally 12 months old. We've had exactly one recruiting cycle under it. We had a top 20 portal recruiting class using it in 2023. Well guess what? That still means that 75% of the team was not from a top 20 class. So it's a bit early to declare this can't work, no?

And now in 2024 we are doing it again and so far this class is even better than last year's class. And when we are done 50% of the team will be composed of players that were highly sought after by other "good coach" teams. But they came here.

I think this season will be a fair test for if this new system works or not. We should have enough players on the team to tip the balance, one way or the other. But honestly, regardless, my problem with your critique is what exactly is your solution? What is the other option? And please don't give me the "get good coaches / play good football" conclusory nonsense. Wilcox has a $20 million buyout. How exactly are you fixing that problem? How are we replacing him with a "good football coach."

NIL and improved recruiting classes are not "prolonging the agony" or "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic". The undeniable fact is Cal does not have the money to replace Wilcox. If Cal had a horrible recruiting class with unqualified players we would still have Justin Wilcox and his $20 million buyout. NIL isn't "buying him a few more years" or removing him from the hot seat. Wilcox's seat is an $20m block of ice regardless of what you or anyone else thinks of his coaching skills.

The fact of the matter is right here and right now there is no time for the old burn it down and replace it strategy. Realignment is going to come again in a handful of years. And the Cal brand is borderline radioactive. Unless we start winning games and winning them now we are done. And NIL is the only solution to do that. "Get good coaches" is not a plan any more than "win national championship" is a plan. A plan is "how". How do we maximize our chances to win right here and right now. My answer is NIL. What's yours?

---

Cal Strong doesn't think it "can't work" Sebastabear. But it depends on what one means by "work." Cal Strong's problem with it is that it works all too well -- if the goal is to maintain the status quo of 3-6 wins/year.

Cal Strong appreciate that we recently got some players who seem pretty good. But are they blue chip guys that turn around a program? That would be a big stretch.

The thing about transfer rankings is that one needs to measure the caliber of the players lost in the portal vs the caliber we get back. Last year we lost J-M-S, but gained two QBs who didn't pan out and an Oregon RB who was injured all year. This year we lost Hunter but gained a Freshman from Utah who shows some promise but didn't produce like Hunter did.

So that is what Cal Strong means by rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. We are losing good players, and getting some as well. Does it make us any better? No. We still have losing seasons.

This year we lost thirteen 3-stars and picked up five 3-stars and five four-stars. Will the Sac State kid be better than the departing Sirmon/Antzoulatas? Maybe. But that doesn't seem like a big win. It seems like an even trade at best. Will Kadarius Calloway be able to stay healthy for the first time in his career and break into the crowded rotation to a large enough extent to make a difference in the season? Again, maybe. But Cal Strong has his doubts based on his career history thus far.

Cal has fired coaches with huge buyouts in the past. Tedford and Dykes had big buyouts. Heck, even Holmoe had a buyout. This is part of college football. Programs raise money to fire their coaches all the time.

Cal has put forward his answer several times, while always carefully noting that he respects your effort:

1. Cal Strong has been in communication with triad of senior leadership at the University. He advocates for firing Justin Wilcox and Jim Knowlton. But the chancellor has expressed to Cal Strong that she views Knowlton as an elite AD and he isn't going anywhere under her watch.

2. But Cal Strong thinks we can (and should!) fire Wilcox and Knowlton. We've done this before. Other schools do it all the time. Christ doesn't want to lose Knowlton, who in turn doesn't want to lose Wilcox. This isn't about the buyout. It is about leadership's assessment that the right people are already in place. But we will be getting a new Chancellor soon, so this is likely to change.

3. If we don't fire Wilcox, Cal Strong advocates we should stop financing this debacle until he is gone. Of course we will honor his contract. But we should replace departing assistants with promoted GA's at $50k/year. No more money for anything that isn't contractually guaranteed. Wilcox and/or his agent scammed a gullible AD and fanbase for a ridiculous extension. Okay, fine. But we shouldn't give him any extras just because he swindled us. Make him pay for his own coffee and PA. Charge him for paperclips and for use of the showers. (This is hyperbole of course, but it gives you an idea of Cal Strong's approach)

4. Cal Strong anticipates that Sebastabear will counter with some version of "well then, the program will die." No it won't. Cal Strong was in discussion with Chancellor's team and Moguluf after UW/Oregon left, and minority voices advocated shutting down IAD. The Chancellor made it clear that wasn't the plan. Besides, with the portal, programs can turn around very quickly with the right coach. We've seen this happen a lot recently.

---

Sounds like you are essentially advocating tanking in football in order to get rid of Wilcox, either by saving enough money to buy him out, or starving him of resources to the point that he leaves voluntarily. The question is whether the end result is that the program declines to the point where no effort by the next regime can save it from relegation, or whether a turn around can happen fast enough to encounter the initial debacle of losing season(s). It's obviously a huge risk, and reflects the debate here over whether this coach can be successful if you give him a better roster, or he's just a loser, period. I get it, and I don't know which if you is right.

---

Sebasta is right.

Perhaps. His approach certainly seems the more logical. Cal Strong wants essentially the equivalent of "we had to destroy the village in order to save it." That didn't make sense in Southeast Asia, and I'm not sure it makes sense for Cal football.

However, as I've said elsewhere, I think it's also very possible that the professionalization of college football speeds up to such an extent that we're overtaken by events, and end up relegated regardless of our efforts to avoid that.

Jeff82 said:

---

Perhaps. His approach certainly seems the more logical. Cal Strong wants essentially the equivalent of "we had to destroy the village in order to save it." That didn't make sense in Southeast Asia, and I'm not sure it makes sense for Cal football.

However, as I've said elsewhere, I think it's also very possible that the professionalization of college football speeds up to such an extent that we're overtaken by events, and end up relegated regardless of our efforts to avoid that.

---

Even if this happens, which it very well may, Sebasta is still right.

Jeff82 said:

---

Sounds like you are essentially advocating tanking in football in order to get rid of Wilcox, either by saving enough money to buy him out, or starving him of resources to the point that he leaves voluntarily. The question is whether the end result is that the program declines to the point where no effort by the next regime can save it from relegation, or whether a turn around can happen fast enough to encounter the initial debacle of losing season(s). It's obviously a huge risk, and reflects the debate here over whether this coach can be successful if you give him a better roster, or he's just a loser, period. I get it, and I don't know which if you is right.

---

This basically a fair assessment Jeff82.

Sebasta's view is that we need to get the best players in place now regardless of leadership. Cal Strong believes this won't make us a decent (much less a good or great) program so long as Wilcox is our coach. And he further believes that this will certainly have the effect of propping Wilcox up for an additional 2-3 years.

So Cal Strong believes the #1 priority is replacing the coach and then the #2 priority is overturning the roster.

Cal Strong disagrees that the risk is particularly large here. Holmoe had us in a terrible place. Hire Tedford, things change instantly. Colorado has had a huge (and instant) turnaround from where they were at. Where was Washington or USC at 3 years ago? Where are they now?

So long as Cal is still a Bay Area tier-1 institution with our facilities, we won't "die." In all seriousness difference is probably between 3-7 wins and 2-4 wins.

The risk of letting really bad coaches get huge extensions without consequences based on a false story, combined with 3-5 more years of losing or mediocre seasons), is far higher than the risk of us "dying."

WalterSobchak said:

---

Sebasta is right.

---

It no secret that Cal Strong disagrees. But he respect those like Sebasta and WalterSobchak who love Cal and feel this is the best approach.

Cal Strong curious. If WalterSobchak putting his hard-earned money towards NIL so that kids can have new cars, nice apartments, and cool scooters, does he invest in companies the same way? Would he throw a lot of money at companies run by people who are incompetent at their jobs, are never in the black, and are dishonest with shareholders?

Or is it different because it is Cal football and you love it so much?

I don't really care what you're curious about.

Cal Strong! said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

Sounds like you are essentially advocating tanking in football in order to get rid of Wilcox, either by saving enough money to buy him out, or starving him of resources to the point that he leaves voluntarily. The question is whether the end result is that the program declines to the point where no effort by the next regime can save it from relegation, or whether a turn around can happen fast enough to encounter the initial debacle of losing season(s). It's obviously a huge risk, and reflects the debate here over whether this coach can be successful if you give him a better roster, or he's just a loser, period. I get it, and I don't know which if you is right.

---

This basically a fair assessment Jeff82.

Sebasta's view is that we need to get the best players in place now regardless of leadership. Cal Strong believes this won't make us a decent (much less a good or great) program so long as Wilcox is our coach. So Cal Strong believes the #1 priority is replacing the coach and then the #2 priority is overturning the roster.

Cal Strong disagrees that the risk is particularly large here. Holmoe had us in a terrible place. Hire Tedford, things change instantly. Colorado has had a huge (and instant) turnaround from where they were at. Where was Washington or USC at 3 years ago? Where are they now?

So long as Cal is still a Bay Area tier-1 institution with our facilities, we won't "die." In all seriousness difference is probably between 3-7 wins and 2-4 wins.

---

Will make one more post and then dip out of this since it's not going to accomplish anything and is distracting from the thing I'm saying I absolutely need to focus on. Which is finding a way for Cal to win today.

You have to acknowledge the difference in the situation occurring today vs. 2001. In 2001 we wouldn't have "died" following your plan but then again in 2001 the very idea of the Pac10 dying would have been inconceivable. And guess what? It's now dead. Also inconceivable was paying a head football coach at Cal $4.5m or having a $20m buyout. Those are both today's reality. Why? The answer, as always, is money. Steve Spurrier was the first football coach in America to cross the $1m line and he had done that only a few years earlier. The idea of a network paying the Big10 $1bn annually for their games would have been ludicrous back then. Point is that the money today is vast and it has warped the entire system almost beyond recognition.

The death of the PAC, our scramble to find a home and the absolute last minute nature of the lifeline thrown us by the ACC all conclusively demonstrate that we need to do things differently and we need to start winning now and we don't have the luxury of time. Florida State is suing its conference and claiming one of the reasons is that they don't want to be associated with us or our brand in football because it's just that bad. Can you imagine this? It's borderline parody.

You believe we'll be fine if we go 2-10 next year or whatever. As someone who has now spent years mired in and fighting against the Cal athletic financing model, you are incorrect. Our athletic department can no longer survive without a successful football team and the fact that we have starved it of resources in order to pay for our 30 sports, thereby almost killing the very thing we needed to survive, is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. It's selling the wheels off your car in order to "help" you win a race. Just that dumb.

Bottom line, realignment will happen again in a handful of years. The market just told us what the "value" of our brand is. It is virtually zero. We reverse that or we go full Ivy. You can believe this or not, but I've seen enough to know we need to maximize our chances to win today or we will suffer the (dire) consequences. So that's what I'm going to do.

If the business, being analogous to football, isn't built on disciplined fundamentals then all the other things are just busy box thinking.

Football programs, like good IADs, are built from the inside out not the other way around.

Cal lacks the fundamentals and the willingness to change how they approach what they do.

Will Rich Lyons, if hired, change Cal's approach to football and the IAD in general?

Maybe. It would require a complete 180 shift. And that's assuming the Regents are not going to hire another geriatric charm bracelet (again) who's only qualification is a Phd and the fact that they have been waiting in the academic elitist line for a long time.

That said, if memory serves me correctly Lyons is still the same cat that wants to emphasize Berkeley in Cal's branding. Last time I checked the city gives zero ****s about Cal yet reaps all the benefits of it's very existence.

In fact, without Cal the city of Berkeley would be Emeryville East.

So **** Berkeley!

And all of this doesn't even address that Wilcox is still Wilcox. Or the fact that the staff acumen from a player development and game day think tank standpoint still underwhelms very bigly.

Just look at the current set of facts that allow friendship nepotism to trump what's needed to maximize the possibilities of success on gameday. That's all one really needs to know to understand how exciting Cal's portal class truly is.

Oh, and the LOS on both sides of the ball still needs more talent and depth.