calumnus said:

---

DoubtfulBear 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.

---

It took days for MSU to push out Mel Tucker. I wouldn't hold my breath about an investigation that is taking 19 months and counting.

"Maybe good things will happen for us" - motto of the NY Jets Cal Golden Bears

---

There were no new facts to be discovered when the investigation into Knowlton began. As others have said, it appears Carol Christ really thinks Jim Knowlton is peachy. She is certainly not pushing for the investigation to complete or it would be by now.

She retires next August. If the report when it finally comes out is not damning enough to justify firing Knowlton for cause, we are probably stuck with him for at least a few more years as the athletic department budget implodes and the new chancellor realizes Knowlton is the last person capable of leading us out of it.

That is why I am saying we need to survive the next few years with Wilcox as our coach, Sebasta getting Wilcox the great players Wilcox needs to get to 7 win meh is our best option.

---

As others have said, Wilcox and Knowlton contracts are a sunk cost. If the administration and UC regents truly believed we were in an existential crisis, we would have made drastic decisions the moment we got accepted into the ACC.

The total buyout between the two of them is ~$25M, less than the $30M Christ injected into the football program last year. Furthermore, nothing has been done about the non-revenue sports that keep draining our funds. Not even the threat of budget cuts like back in 2011.

If nothing else changes, the most likely scenario is Wilcox starts winning 7-8 game seasons in the ACC, Knowlton extends him one last time before his contract is up, and we are stuck in purgatory.

I know that this thread has drifted from how we're killing it in the transfer portal to who we should have killed, but I thought I'd mention that On3 has us up to 6th in their rankings after adding Jonathan Brady. 247 has us 19th, but they don't appear to have factored in Brady yet.

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?

---

10 wins is a long stretch. I think 7 or 8 is more realistic goal. Moreover, if Wilcox can deliver a 10 win season than there is no need to get rid of him. I agree, if he gets an offer let him walk, but I really don't think that is happening.

We are in dire straights. As Sebasta said, we need to survive the short run to get to the future. We are stuck with Wilcox due to his buyout. Tanking and going 0-12 won't help with his buyout. It won't get rid of him, but it would probably destroy the program.

We need to survive Wilcox. Sebasta has it right. The best way for us to survive is to get Wilcox Top 20 talent so he can deliver Top 40 results, then move on 3 years from now when the buyout is down to $5 million.

There is a danger 7-5 seasons with Top 30 talent bought by the Collective gets Wilcox another extension. It is a risk we have to take because the alternative is death. 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.

---

2 issues.

1. Full stop, there is no point in tanking in college football. There isn't a draft. If the administration cares so little that they would give Wilcox the extension they did and they would give Knowlton the extension they did, who is to say they will care if you fully tank? And if that does light a fire under them, who is to say that all that does is get them to push us back up to Wilcox level to turn down the heat. And if you tank, that hurts recruiting. No matter how much I've wanted a particular coach gone at a particular time, I've never wanted things to collapse. We need to do the best we can. If the best we can is 4-8, we need to go 4-8. Chips fall where they may.

2. I understand that Sebasta believes this is it and he keeps making that case. That is one man's opinion, even if that man is rightfully very respected. What does it mean that we have no future if we don't do it now? I would argue that the whole point of the ACC taking us on was that they wanted to have enough teams there that they would survive as a conference when their top teams inevitably move on either by breaking the agreement or by living it out. I would say that the most likely situation here is that Cal will stay in a weakened ACC for a good long time. Second most likely situation is that college football implodes, 20 to 30 teams stay at the top, and the rest of us, and yes "rest of us" includes Cal, retreat back to regional conferences. It is possible that we show out and get invited to the Big, but frankly there are a lot of obstacles to that (like our horrible college football market - no one here cared about Stanford when they were having success and the eyeballs the Bay Area delivers to TV are very low in number). I don't know that they even care if we are good. In fact, why invite a team that is good to deliver a loss on the field and no money or recruiting value? But if Cal football is going the way of the dodo it will be because it can't deliver donors and it no longer has enough political support within Cal to keep going. Most likely, it keeps limping along like it has for 60 years. We've heard this refrain over and over and the end never comes. If it is going to die, it is going to wither slowly because the people who care are older and are not being replaced in the younger generation.

The biggest threat to Cal sports is running deficits of tens of millions of dollars and sooner or later the chickens will come home to roost. On that score, I'd say if donors care, they better start throwing the money there, not just at NIL. NIL is NOT going to solve the money problems. IF we win, it will improve the money situation, but it will not even cut it in half. If anyone looks at our past finances WHEN WE HAVE WON, that is clear. Cal sports needs a LARGE, direct influx of cash from donors who care, win or lose.

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?

---

10 wins is a long stretch. I think 7 or 8 is more realistic goal. Moreover, if Wilcox can deliver a 10 win season than there is no need to get rid of him. I agree, if he gets an offer let him walk, but I really don't think that is happening.

We are in dire straights. As Sebasta said, we need to survive the short run to get to the future. We are stuck with Wilcox due to his buyout. Tanking and going 0-12 won't help with his buyout. It won't get rid of him, but it would probably destroy the program.

We need to survive Wilcox. Sebasta has it right. The best way for us to survive is to get Wilcox Top 20 talent so he can deliver Top 40 results, then move on 3 years from now when the buyout is down to $5 million.

There is a danger 7-5 seasons with Top 30 talent bought by the Collective gets Wilcox another extension. It is a risk we have to take because the alternative is death. 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.

---

10 wins is not as big a stretch as you think. I listed it as the upper limit but it's entirely possible. First off I would point out we easily could/should have won 8 games this year (Auburn if we had a kicker and some very questionable calls. Southern Cal if we hadn't collapsed, fumbled a goal line punt, and some very questionable calls).

Secondly, look at our schedule for next year (expected record is based on reasonable improvements, obviously if we regress we won't hit our ceiling):

Noncon: UC Davis, SDSU, OSU, Auburn (expected record 3-1)

Conference home games: Miami, NC State, Stanford, Syracuse (expected record 3-1)

Conference road games: FSU, Pitt, SMU, Wake Forest (expected record 3-1)

So with some growth, good returners, and another good transfer class we could easily be pushing our 9/10 win ceiling. If we upset Auburn or FSU or run the slate on our home schedule that would be the path to 10 wins.

Again, I'm not predicting that and I wouldn't bet on it, but it's entirely possible given the talent influx and growth from the QB and Kicker positions (plus not spending the first 5 weeks shuffling everything around)

I think the staff is doing as good a job as they can in portal recruiting in no small part due to donors, the collective and especially Sebastabear.
As to hiring and firing staff, I hope Knowlton goes come the new Chancellor. He is not a leader into the NIL and realignment football future and the new college athletic landscape.
As to JW, we will have him in 2024 with tools to succeed innthe ACC landscape. Will he?
Calling for a new coach is the fans easy answer ti all adversity. I do it 10 times every game. I agree we that unless JW hits a home run in the ACC (unlikely) new leadership is needed. But the question is when and who and how.

DaveBear said:

---

I think the staff is doing as good a job as they can in portal recruiting in no small part due to donors, the collective and especially Sebastabear.
As to hiring and firing staff, I hope Knowlton goes come the new Chancellor. He is not a leader into the NIL and realignment football future and the new college athletic landscape.
As to JW, we will have him in 2024 with tools to succeed innthe ACC landscape. Will he?
Calling for a new coach is the fans easy answer ti all adversity. I do it 10 times every game. I agree we that unless JW hits a home run in the ACC (unlikely) new leadership is needed. But the question is when and who and how.

---

True, many casual sports fans call for the coach's head 10x in a single game.

But that isn't us. We are in year 8. That is more than a third of Belichick's tenure with the Patriots.

We have been more than patient -- in the old system and the new. Waiting for more data at this point is the same as wasting time. And we are in an urgent situation.

For this reason, Cal Strong advocates not giving a single penny to IAD or the Collective until the AD and HC are gone.

DoubtfulBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

DoubtfulBear 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.

---

It took days for MSU to push out Mel Tucker. I wouldn't hold my breath about an investigation that is taking 19 months and counting.

"Maybe good things will happen for us" - motto of the NY Jets Cal Golden Bears

---

There were no new facts to be discovered when the investigation into Knowlton began. As others have said, it appears Carol Christ really thinks Jim Knowlton is peachy. She is certainly not pushing for the investigation to complete or it would be by now.

She retires next August. If the report when it finally comes out is not damning enough to justify firing Knowlton for cause, we are probably stuck with him for at least a few more years as the athletic department budget implodes and the new chancellor realizes Knowlton is the last person capable of leading us out of it.

That is why I am saying we need to survive the next few years with Wilcox as our coach, Sebasta getting Wilcox the great players Wilcox needs to get to 7 win meh is our best option.

---

As others have said, Wilcox and Knowlton contracts are a sunk cost. If the administration and UC regents truly believed we were in an existential crisis, we would have made drastic decisions the moment we got accepted into the ACC.

The total buyout between the two of them is ~$25M, less than the $30M Christ injected into the football program last year. Furthermore, nothing has been done about the non-revenue sports that keep draining our funds. Not even the threat of budget cuts like back in 2011.

If nothing else changes, the most likely scenario is Wilcox starts winning 7-8 game seasons in the ACC, Knowlton extends him one last time before his contract is up, and we are stuck in purgatory.

---

This is one of the stronger posts Cal Strong has read on BI.

Just to drive the nail in -- Chancellor Christ believes Knowlton is an elite AD and that we are lucky to have him. She is wrong on this.

A new Chancellor (regardless of his/her view of Athletics) is unlikely to look at his record and make the same conclusion.

The only area of dispute Cal Strong has here is that Wilcox winning 7-8 ACC games is the most likely scenario. True, the schedule will be easier. But this is a guy who has NEVER had a winning conference record. Cal Strong will believe it when he sees it.

Cal Strong! said:

---

DaveBear said:

---

---

For this reason, Cal Strong advocates not giving a single penny to IAD or the Collective until the AD and HC are gone.

---

Genius! Create an environment where no coach or player wants to be. That will surely turn things right around.

WalterSobchak said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

For this reason, Cal Strong advocates not giving a single penny to IAD or the Collective until the AD and HC are gone.

---

Genius! Create an environment where no coach or player wants to be. That will surely turn things right around.

---

This isn't what happens. Look at Colorado.

Cal Strong will try to make this easier for WalterSobchak.

Bad Coach --> Pathetic Collective --> New Coach --> Big Collective.

You are trying to switch around steps 3 and 4. That will just keep this bad coach in place.

WalterSobchak posting WEAK today. He should not roll (post) on Shabbas.

Yes exactly, LOOK at Colorado. You don't have a clue.

WalterSobchak said:

---

Yes exactly, LOOK at Colorado. You don't have a clue.

---

Let Cal Strong slow this down for WalterSobchak.

What part of this very simple chain of events doesn't apply to Colorado?:

Bad Coach --> Pathetic Collective --> New Coach --> Big Collective.

Now, now. Play nicely.

golden sloth said:

---

It should be noted that our future conference has three teams ranked ahead of us in the transfer portal:
1. Florida State
2. Louisville
3. North Carolina St

We play two next year and the other in 2025.

---

Bearly Clad 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?

---

10 wins is a long stretch. I think 7 or 8 is more realistic goal. Moreover, if Wilcox can deliver a 10 win season than there is no need to get rid of him. I agree, if he gets an offer let him walk, but I really don't think that is happening.

We are in dire straights. As Sebasta said, we need to survive the short run to get to the future. We are stuck with Wilcox due to his buyout. Tanking and going 0-12 won't help with his buyout. It won't get rid of him, but it would probably destroy the program.

We need to survive Wilcox. Sebasta has it right. The best way for us to survive is to get Wilcox Top 20 talent so he can deliver Top 40 results, then move on 3 years from now when the buyout is down to $5 million.

There is a danger 7-5 seasons with Top 30 talent bought by the Collective gets Wilcox another extension. It is a risk we have to take because the alternative is death. 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.

---

10 wins is not as big a stretch as you think. I listed it as the upper limit but it's entirely possible. First off I would point out we easily could/should have won 8 games this year (Auburn if we had a kicker and some very questionable calls. Southern Cal if we hadn't collapsed, fumbled a goal line punt, and some very questionable calls).

Secondly, look at our schedule for next year (expected record is based on reasonable improvements, obviously if we regress we won't hit our ceiling):

Noncon: UC Davis, SDSU, OSU, Auburn (expected record 3-1)

Conference home games: Miami, NC State, Stanford, Syracuse (expected record 3-1)

Conference road games: FSU, Pitt, SMU, Wake Forest (expected record 3-1)

So with some growth, good returners, and another good transfer class we could easily be pushing our 9/10 win ceiling. If we upset Auburn or FSU or run the slate on our home schedule that would be the path to 10 wins.

Again, I'm not predicting that and I wouldn't bet on it, but it's entirely possible given the talent influx and growth from the QB and Kicker positions (plus not spending the first 5 weeks shuffling everything around)

---

Based on Sagarin, this year we would go 7-5, which is probably the safest guess.

I agree OSU with Jonathan Smith leaving looks beatable, which could get us to 8-4, which would be great.

SMU was 11-3 and beating them on the road is definitely not more likely than beating Auburn on the road.

The last time Wilcox beat an P5 team outside of the state of California was 2019. Our only road win against any team outside California since 2019 was North Texas this past season. Wilcox has proven capable of losing to otherwise winless, terrible PAC-12 teams on the road in Arizona and Colorado. Wake and Pitt on the road are toss ups unless we play significantly better than we have on the road in the past.

So while 8-5 is possible, 5-7 is possible too if Wilcox doesn't improve from the past.

For me, the "new/old" offensive staff is a big question mark (as is the defensive staff). They did not impress in the bowl game. A lot will depend on our lines.

If we do hit 10-2 than all the questions about Wilcox as a program administrator and leader will be answered and he really will be the HC all his supporters have been hoping he is. That kind of record with a good NIL program and a great returning QB (whoever gets us to 10-2) will put us in position to make the CFP in the 2025 season. Obviously everyone would be thrilled. Knowlton would look like a genius.

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.

Bearly Clad said:

---

10 wins is not as big a stretch as you think.

---

https://media1.tenor.com/m/g42_4wF-BXIAAAAd/spock-shock.gif

DoubtfulBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

DoubtfulBear 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.

---

It took days for MSU to push out Mel Tucker. I wouldn't hold my breath about an investigation that is taking 19 months and counting.

"Maybe good things will happen for us" - motto of the NY Jets Cal Golden Bears

---

There were no new facts to be discovered when the investigation into Knowlton began. As others have said, it appears Carol Christ really thinks Jim Knowlton is peachy. She is certainly not pushing for the investigation to complete or it would be by now.

She retires next August. If the report when it finally comes out is not damning enough to justify firing Knowlton for cause, we are probably stuck with him for at least a few more years as the athletic department budget implodes and the new chancellor realizes Knowlton is the last person capable of leading us out of it.

That is why I am saying we need to survive the next few years with Wilcox as our coach, Sebasta getting Wilcox the great players Wilcox needs to get to 7 win meh is our best option.

---

As others have said, Wilcox and Knowlton contracts are a sunk cost. If the administration and UC regents truly believed we were in an existential crisis, we would have made drastic decisions the moment we got accepted into the ACC.

The total buyout between the two of them is ~$25M, less than the $30M Christ injected into the football program last year. Furthermore, nothing has been done about the non-revenue sports that keep draining our funds. Not even the threat of budget cuts like back in 2011.

If nothing else changes, the most likely scenario is Wilcox starts winning 7-8 game seasons in the ACC, Knowlton extends him one last time before his contract is up, and we are stuck in purgatory.

---

I mostly agree, though the $30 million (?) injection was not for football, it was for everything else, probably 25 sports and including bloated AD salaries and expenses.

And that was the chancellor's discretion, so the UC regents are not part of it. The fact the chancellor has not done anything to deal with the looming existential budget crisis does not mean anything. Maybe she doesn't see it, maybe she does but is retiring in August so she is just leaving it for her successor to deal with.

A $30 million deficit increasing by $20 million or more is going to be a crisis when we hit it, whether it is foreseen or not. A lot will depend on the new chancellor. If the new chancellor just orders Knowlton to cut sports, I am sure he can do that. He is career Army, he is good at following orders. Given the buyout, keeping Wilcox would be a justifiable decision. If he wins enough games making him the longest tenured coach in Cal history despite currently being rated lower than Holmoe by some measures could happen.

Worse, we could stay around 6-6 or worse and keep Wilcox because we can't afford to fire him with the whole program in a death spiral.

Or the new chancellor could see we have potential and Knowlton is not up to the task, and bring in someone new. Or maybe the McKeever report is finally completed, justifying it.

Or, the new chancellor might see the merit of outsourcing the revenue sports to an alumni run organization.

Whatever happens, I think 2024 is going to be the single most important year in Cal athletics history. Supporting the football program with NIL now just makes sense.

WalterSobchak said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

For this reason, Cal Strong advocates not giving a single penny to IAD or the Collective until the AD and HC are gone.

---

Genius! Create an environment where no coach or player wants to be. That will surely turn things right around.

---

Also we will give you all this money but if you suck one year, we will pull out the money out of the program isn't going to attractive anyone you want as a coach.

Joegeo said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

For this reason, Cal Strong advocates not giving a single penny to IAD or the Collective until the AD and HC are gone.

---

Genius! Create an environment where no coach or player wants to be. That will surely turn things right around.

---

Also we will give you all this money but if you suck one year, we will pull out the money out of the program isn't going to attractive anyone you want as a coach.

---

That isn't the message at all.

If you suck for seven years and never have a winning conference record and go 1-2 in crappy bowls than we will pull the money out of the program.

Most any quality coach would respond by saying -- "No duh, that's what happens everywhere when you fail."

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?

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?

---

I mean context matters right? So for example losing backups like Finley and Jackson to the portal shouldn't make a huge difference since they aren't expected to play. (I know, I know, with QB you also have the chance of a new QB winning the job in practice, but we did still bring in a Chandler Rogers on that front).

If we lost a lot of starters like KEO and Hunter (even Mateen for that matter) without replacement it'd be bad. But if we lose mostly people who weren't getting as much playing time and bring in people who will get that playing time then it's good.

If those 5 3-stars are still better than the 3-stars that left it'd be an improvement. And honestly I think most predictions of improvement are as much based on the change in our schedule as it is in our team's improvement.

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?

---

First, I was responding to BearlyClad saying 10-2 was possible given our schedule.

Second, 7-5 from 6-6 is not "a big jump in our record."

7-5 is if we played our 2024 schedule based on Sagarin's Predictor for 2023. I acknowledged Oregon State could be flipped to a win, but also questioned our predicted road wins, since we have been abysmal on the road under Wilcox, especially outside the state of California. QB play will improve, Fernando will cut down on turnovers or get beat out, but our offensive staff is a question mark IMO

Cal Strong! said:

---

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?

---

calumnus 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?

---

First, I was responding to BearlyClad saying 10-2 was possible given our schedule.

Second, 7-5 from 6-6 is not "a big jump in our record."

7-5 is if we played our 2024 schedule based on Sagarin's Predictor for 2023. I acknowledged Oregon State could be flipped to a win, but also questioned our predicted road wins, since we have been abysmal on the road under Wilcox, especially outside the state of California. QB play will improve, Fernando will cut down on turnovers or get beat out, but our offensive staff is a question mark IMO

---

Hi Calumnus. Minor correction: we were 6-7 this year.

The last time Wilcox won seven games was in 2019. He has never had a winning conference record. So Cal Strong is not convinced.

But Calumnus is right. From 6-7 to 7-5 isn't a "big jump." Cal Strong apologize. He was also responding to BearlyClad's 10-2 nonsense, but it came up as a response to you.

Cal Strong! said:

---

calumnus 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?

---

First, I was responding to BearlyClad saying 10-2 was possible given our schedule.

Second, 7-5 from 6-6 is not "a big jump in our record."

7-5 is if we played our 2024 schedule based on Sagarin's Predictor for 2023. I acknowledged Oregon State could be flipped to a win, but also questioned our predicted road wins, since we have been abysmal on the road under Wilcox, especially outside the state of California. QB play will improve, Fernando will cut down on turnovers or get beat out, but our offensive staff is a question mark IMO

---

Hi Calumnus. Minor correction: we were 6-7 this year.

The last time Wilcox won seven games was in 2019. He has never had a winning conference record. So Cal Strong is not convinced.

But Calumnus is right. From 6-7 to 7-5 isn't a "big jump." Cal Strong apologize. He was also responding to BearlyClad's 10-2 nonsense, but it came up as a response to you.

---

Got it. Yeah, my optimistic guess is 7-5 or even 8-4 (regular season, post season depends on getting there and match up) but I see 5-7 as equally possible. The offensive staff is a big question mark IMO. Wilcox does not have a good record on this decision.

calumnus said:

---

Got it. Yeah, my optimistic guess is 7-5 or even 8-4 (regular season, post season depends on getting there and match up) but I see 5-7 as equally possible. The offensive staff is a big question mark IMO. Wilcox does not have a good record on this decision.

---

As opposed as opposed to his decision making with defensive staff or special teams coaching staff?

calumnus said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

DoubtfulBear 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.

---

It took days for MSU to push out Mel Tucker. I wouldn't hold my breath about an investigation that is taking 19 months and counting.

"Maybe good things will happen for us" - motto of the NY Jets Cal Golden Bears

---

There were no new facts to be discovered when the investigation into Knowlton began. As others have said, it appears Carol Christ really thinks Jim Knowlton is peachy. She is certainly not pushing for the investigation to complete or it would be by now.

She retires next August. If the report when it finally comes out is not damning enough to justify firing Knowlton for cause, we are probably stuck with him for at least a few more years as the athletic department budget implodes and the new chancellor realizes Knowlton is the last person capable of leading us out of it.

That is why I am saying we need to survive the next few years with Wilcox as our coach, Sebasta getting Wilcox the great players Wilcox needs to get to 7 win meh is our best option.

---

As others have said, Wilcox and Knowlton contracts are a sunk cost. If the administration and UC regents truly believed we were in an existential crisis, we would have made drastic decisions the moment we got accepted into the ACC.

The total buyout between the two of them is ~$25M, less than the $30M Christ injected into the football program last year. Furthermore, nothing has been done about the non-revenue sports that keep draining our funds. Not even the threat of budget cuts like back in 2011.

If nothing else changes, the most likely scenario is Wilcox starts winning 7-8 game seasons in the ACC, Knowlton extends him one last time before his contract is up, and we are stuck in purgatory.

---

I mostly agree, though the $30 million (?) injection was not for football, it was for everything else, probably 25 sports and including bloated AD salaries and expenses.

And that was the chancellor's discretion, so the UC regents are not part of it. The fact the chancellor has not done anything to deal with the looming existential budget crisis does not mean anything. Maybe she doesn't see it, maybe she does but is retiring in August so she is just leaving it for her successor to deal with.

A $30 million deficit increasing by $20 million or more is going to be a crisis when we hit it, whether it is foreseen or not. A lot will depend on the new chancellor. If the new chancellor just orders Knowlton to cut sports, I am sure he can do that. He is career Army, he is good at following orders. Given the buyout, keeping Wilcox would be a justifiable decision. If he wins enough games making him the longest tenured coach in Cal history despite currently being rated lower than Holmoe by some measures could happen.

Worse, we could stay around 6-6 or worse and keep Wilcox because we can't afford to fire him with the whole program in a death spiral.

Or the new chancellor could see we have potential and Knowlton is not up to the task, and bring in someone new. Or maybe the McKeever report is finally completed, justifying it.

Or, the new chancellor might see the merit of outsourcing the revenue sports to an alumni run organization.

Whatever happens, I think 2024 is going to be the single most important year in Cal athletics history. Supporting the football program with NIL now just makes sense.

---

Agree that 2024 is a big year for Cal athletics. I have been an advocate for replacing Wilcox every year for the past 3. he has not shown to be a good manager of the program and is too loyal towards underperforming staffers. But right now is not a great time to change. So for this upcoming season I think retaining Wilcox is actually the right thing to do.

There will be a new Chancellor and hopefully they can work on removing Knowlton. Once we know the new Chancellor and get a chance to see how Cal football looks in the ACC then lets revisit Wilcox.

To be successful in football you need a lot of pieces to be in place. Right now the only real piece that appears to be working at all is the collective. So support it as best as you can.

But for Cal football to flourish they need more support from the University. A supportive Chancellor and AD that recognize the need for investment in the program. Christ and Knowlton are not going to do it. Wilcox is not getting fired.

I am reading that Wilcox could be on some sort of hot board list to be the new UW HC. I find this very dubious. Regardless of how one feels about him personally his record should disqualify him as a legitimate candidate for a program that just played in the National Championship game and is heading into the B1G.

So I expect Wilcox to be the HC. The one area of support that can be utilized is the collective. Once the next Chancellor is named we will have a better idea if Cal athletics has a real chance to flourish or just exist and flounder about in mediocrity or worse.

I am personally not optimistic the next Chancellor will be willing to invest in athletics, but that is really the next most important shoe to fall. At least for Cal football and the athletics programs overall.

Excellent post. You have summed up the crux of the matter. A new AD and coach does not change the lack of administrative and institutional support that has kept Cal Football mediocre for many years.
Any success has come despite that lack of support..
Time for a Chancellor who understands the current sports landscape and invests in the future of the Cal football program and Cal athletics.
Hope it happens and the pieces start to fall on place.
Go Bears!

-

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.

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Got it. Yeah, my optimistic guess is 7-5 or even 8-4 (regular season, post season depends on getting there and match up) but I see 5-7 as equally possible. The offensive staff is a big question mark IMO. Wilcox does not have a good record on this decision.

---

As opposed as opposed to his decision making with defensive staff or special teams coaching staff?

---

Well, yes, but since his continuing bad decision is to stand pat on the defensive side, it is not as much of an unknown. I know more or less what to expect from a Wilcox/Sirmon defense in 2024. Bloesch as OC and our new QB coach are a bigger question mark.

calumnus said:

---

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.

---

like y'all said, transfer students are a lot more realistic. they aren't blinded by their high school dreams of starting for a blueblood team. Instead, they know they need to get on the field so they can put their talents on display, and Cal allows players to showcase their talents against. they're chasing their NFL dream and thinking about a Cal degree in case that doesn't pan out.

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.

calumnus said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Got it. Yeah, my optimistic guess is 7-5 or even 8-4 (regular season, post season depends on getting there and match up) but I see 5-7 as equally possible. The offensive staff is a big question mark IMO. Wilcox does not have a good record on this decision.

---

As opposed as opposed to his decision making with defensive staff or special teams coaching staff?

---

Well, yes, but since his continuing bad decision is to stand pat on the defensive side, it is not as much of an unknown. I know more or less what to expect from a Wilcox/Sirmon defense in 2024. Bloesch as OC and our new QB coach are a bigger question mark.

---

Yes we know what to expect from a Wilcox/Sirmon defense, which is not encouraging.

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.

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

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?