https://athlonsports.com/college-football/acc-coaches-talk-anonymously-about-conference-foes-for-2024

Why is the narrative so prevalent? This is virtually the same as what the pac-12 coaches said.

Econ141 said:

---

https://athlonsports.com/college-football/acc-coaches-talk-anonymously-about-conference-foes-for-2024

Why is the narrative so prevalent? This is virtually the same as what the pac-12 coaches said.

---

Because we haven't had a decent season in 15 years

Yet 63% think we win 8+ games

Oakbear said:

---

Yet 63% think we win 8+ games

---

If Wilcox is gonna do anything it's going to be in 2024/2025 otherwise it ain't happening, so he has to.

Oakbear said:

---

Yet 63% think we win 8+ games

---

But if we multiply 0.63 by 8 and we get 5 games.

bear2034 said:

---

Oakbear said:

---

Yet 63% think we win 8+ games

---

But if we multiply 0.63 by 8 and we get 5 games.

---

For that calculation to make sense as an average you have to assume the other 37% think he will win zero.

calumnus said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

Oakbear said:

---

Yet 63% think we win 8+ games

---

But if we multiply 0.63 by 8 and we get 5 games.

---

For that calculation to make sense as an average you have to assume the other 37% think he will win zero.

---

good one!

Oakbear said:

---

Yet 63% think we win 8+ games

---

3 OOC games at home where they will be favored. Other than FSU the conference road games are definitely winnable. Pitt, Wake and SMU. Then Stanford at home along with Syracuse. Win those and you are at 8. SMU of the road games seems the most difficult. But get one from NC St or Miami and you can have your 8-9 win season.

I think Auburn is possible but in the heat and humidity and on the road it will be tough.

Econ141 said:

---

https://athlonsports.com/college-football/acc-coaches-talk-anonymously-about-conference-foes-for-2024

Why is the narrative so prevalent? This is virtually the same as what the pac-12 coaches said.

---

Why not? It could have been written by any number of posters on this board.

Econ141 said:

---

https://athlonsports.com/college-football/acc-coaches-talk-anonymously-about-conference-foes-for-2024

Why is the narrative so prevalent? This is virtually the same as what the pac-12 coaches said.

---

Because we have an absurd number of sports that we support and have historically (including current chancellor and AD) treated them as if they are all of equal importance.

Two continuous narratives that only be cured by wining discussed in the article:

1) The problem with Cal is the school, not the football program
2) Christobal & company are great at recruiting, but can't coach

One of 'em should have noted, "They seem on their way to a turnaround. Their NIL collective is outstanding!"

People dont' seem to realize college coaching is a real fraternity. They get together once a year at a conference and travel to see other programs in the offseason.

Every GA, coordinator, assistant coach, etc. that passes through our program and experiences our administrative resistance to winning goes on to talk (legitimate) smack. It'll drive people crazy to hear this name, but you've seen what Sonny has said in public, what do you think he tells other coaches?

I don't think anyone is wrong to say that the Cal administration has historically been hostile to football (or at best, indifferent). Aside from maybe a few pockets of support here and there, it has been.

sycasey said:

---

I don't think anyone is wrong to say that the Cal administration has historically been hostile to football (or at best, indifferent). Aside from maybe a few pockets of support here and there, it has been.

---

I think the question is whether that makes otherwise good coaches mediocre or whether the indifference is what gets mediocre coaches hired and keeps them employed. Personally I think it is some of both but more of the later.

95bears said:

---

People dont' seem to realize college coaching is a real fraternity. They get together once a year at a conference and travel to see other programs in the offseason.

Every GA, coordinator, assistant coach, etc. that passes through our program and experiences our administrative resistance to winning goes on to talk (legitimate) smack. It'll drive people crazy to hear this name, but you've seen what Sonny has said in public, what do you think he tells other coaches?

---

This is exactly correct.

95bears said:

---

People dont' seem to realize college coaching is a real fraternity. They get together once a year at a conference and travel to see other programs in the offseason.

Every GA, coordinator, assistant coach, etc. that passes through our program and experiences our administrative resistance to winning goes on to talk (legitimate) smack. It'll drive people crazy to hear this name, but you've seen what Sonny has said in public, what do you think he tells other coaches?

---

Tedford too. We almost killed him.

Econ141 said:

---

https://athlonsports.com/college-football/acc-coaches-talk-anonymously-about-conference-foes-for-2024

Why is the narrative so prevalent? This is virtually the same as what the pac-12 coaches said.

---

How condescending to Wilcox saying he's got it tough and he could be a "coordinator" somewhere else.

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I don't think anyone is wrong to say that the Cal administration has historically been hostile to football (or at best, indifferent). Aside from maybe a few pockets of support here and there, it has been.

---

I think the question is whether that makes otherwise good coaches mediocre or whether the indifference is what gets mediocre coaches hired and keeps them employed. Personally I think it is some of both but more of the later.

---

How have our past/current coaches faired at universities that are not indifferent to football? Can one even measure indifference at an institution?

If you are mediocre you are likely mediocre everywhere. At some point the potential of good coaches passing through Berkeley who leave and tell the whole world that the school is the problem increases the likelihood we will hire a less than competent coach because good coaches will stay away.

We've had some coaches and assistant coaches who have had some successes away from Cal. For me it makes me wonder if the institution plays a larger role in our ineptitude. As in you can hire a good coach but won't see a different result.

I suspect Tosh isn't an effective brand ambassador for Cal.

KoreAmBear said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

https://athlonsports.com/college-football/acc-coaches-talk-anonymously-about-conference-foes-for-2024

Why is the narrative so prevalent? This is virtually the same as what the pac-12 coaches said.

---

How condescending to Wilcox saying he's got it tough and he could be a "coordinator" somewhere else.

---

Condescending but accurate. He was performed well (better than competent) in that position (except for his 2 years at SC).

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I don't think anyone is wrong to say that the Cal administration has historically been hostile to football (or at best, indifferent). Aside from maybe a few pockets of support here and there, it has been.

---

I think the question is whether that makes otherwise good coaches mediocre or whether the indifference is what gets mediocre coaches hired and keeps them employed. Personally I think it is some of both but more of the later.

---

To some degree, both Snyder and Tedford proved that a good coach can succeed at Cal but not whether that success could be sustained. Uncontrovertibly, the longer history points to a tendency to settle for mediocrity as a major barrier to success. I suspect the reasons for that tendency lie in a combination of administrative hostility (perhaps indifference), fan apathy and budgetary priorities

oski003 said:

---

95bears said:

---

People dont' seem to realize college coaching is a real fraternity. They get together once a year at a conference and travel to see other programs in the offseason.

Every GA, coordinator, assistant coach, etc. that passes through our program and experiences our administrative resistance to winning goes on to talk (legitimate) smack. It'll drive people crazy to hear this name, but you've seen what Sonny has said in public, what do you think he tells other coaches?

---

Tedford too. We almost killed him.

---

To be fair, Tedford has had to step away from multiple coaching positions due to his health. Him having health conditions is not unique to Cal, therefore I dont believe you can blame Cal for his health.

CALiforniALUM said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

---

---

If you are mediocre you are likely mediocre everywhere.

---

90 percent of college football head coaches are mediocre at coaching. Some of the mediocre head coaches benefit from great recruiting and extremely generous boosters. How many current head coaches win consistently without great recruiting? Whittingham at Utah might be the only one.

Look at the rosters of the four teams that played in this past season's CFP. That's the kind of talent throughout the roster that you need to recruit to win consistently.

So many teams think they need better coaching, when what they really need is much better recruiting.

BearSD said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

If you are mediocre you are likely mediocre everywhere.

---

90 percent of college football head coaches are mediocre at coaching. Some of the mediocre head coaches benefit from great recruiting and extremely generous boosters. How many current head coaches win consistently without great recruiting? Whittingham at Utah might be the only one.

Look at the rosters of the four teams that played in this past season's CFP. That's the kind of talent throughout the roster that you need to recruit to win consistently.

So many teams think they need better coaching, when what they really need is much better recruiting.

---

And what do you know, our best recent coaches were pretty good at recruiting----White, Snyder, Tedford. Arguably Dykes was a pretty good recruiter, and he stocked up enough defensive talent to enable JW to have a great start out of the blocks.

Those coaches operated in times when we were still a brand and had a natural gravity well in California. With Oregon, Utah, UW, the B1G and the SEC harvesting our backyard the last 10 years, it puts more pressure on our staff to be excellent recruiters.

95bears said:

---

BearSD said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

If you are mediocre you are likely mediocre everywhere.

---

90 percent of college football head coaches are mediocre at coaching. Some of the mediocre head coaches benefit from great recruiting and extremely generous boosters. How many current head coaches win consistently without great recruiting? Whittingham at Utah might be the only one.

Look at the rosters of the four teams that played in this past season's CFP. That's the kind of talent throughout the roster that you need to recruit to win consistently.

So many teams think they need better coaching, when what they really need is much better recruiting.

---

And what do you know, our best recent coaches were pretty good at recruiting----White, Snyder, Tedford. Arguably Dykes was a pretty good recruiter, and he stocked up enough defensive talent to enable JW to have a great start out of the blocks.

Those coaches operated in times when we were still a brand and had a natural gravity well in California. With Oregon, Utah, UW, the B1G and the SEC harvesting our backyard the last 10 years, it puts more pressure on our staff to be excellent recruiters.

---

I wouldn't give Dykes that much credit. He didn't recruit well at all on offense. His best Cal player (Goff) was recruited by the previous staff, just as all the players on his good TCU team of 2012 were recruited by the previous staff.

Otherwise I generally agree that recruiting is more national than it was "way back when" and now requires better recruiting by coaches as well as a lot of $$$ from donors.

Oakbear said:

---

Yet 63% think we win 8+ games

---

Then 63% have not been paying attention.

Wilcox has only won 8 games once before, and I can't see it happening again this year.

golden sloth said:

---

oski003 said:

---

95bears said:

---

People dont' seem to realize college coaching is a real fraternity. They get together once a year at a conference and travel to see other programs in the offseason.

Every GA, coordinator, assistant coach, etc. that passes through our program and experiences our administrative resistance to winning goes on to talk (legitimate) smack. It'll drive people crazy to hear this name, but you've seen what Sonny has said in public, what do you think he tells other coaches?

---

Tedford too. We almost killed him.

---

To be fair, Tedford has had to step away from multiple coaching positions due to his health. Him having health conditions is not unique to Cal, therefore I dont believe you can blame Cal for his health.

---

It is close to impossible for Tedford to chill out and relax. But it is still possible.

After 10 years at the helm, if I were AD I would lock him out of his office for two consecutive off-seasons. Take away his phone and computer. Tell security to arrest him and drive him to Danville to parole him at his country club if they ever see him on campus.

Send a trainer to supervise 45 minutes of cardio 4 days a week at his country club. Two deep tissue massages each week. Mandatory and supervised consumption of green vegetables. Required swimming on an island beach with Donna.

He can meet the team once per week for 1.5 hours for laser tag and the coaches for 30 min of laser tag immediately following when he isn't on mandatory beach holiday. But no talking football.

Bring in a good administrative + recruiting #2 to take over in the off-seasons. It doesn't matter if they can coach. In fact, it is better if this person is bad at coaching (but good at other aspects of managing a program). Maybe Tedford's old pal Tyrone Willingham would be a good fit. He just needs to handle the administrative, discipline, and recruiting aspects while Tedford is on forced vacation.

BearSD said:

---

95bears said:

---

BearSD said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

If you are mediocre you are likely mediocre everywhere.

---

90 percent of college football head coaches are mediocre at coaching. Some of the mediocre head coaches benefit from great recruiting and extremely generous boosters. How many current head coaches win consistently without great recruiting? Whittingham at Utah might be the only one.

Look at the rosters of the four teams that played in this past season's CFP. That's the kind of talent throughout the roster that you need to recruit to win consistently.

So many teams think they need better coaching, when what they really need is much better recruiting.

---

And what do you know, our best recent coaches were pretty good at recruiting----White, Snyder, Tedford. Arguably Dykes was a pretty good recruiter, and he stocked up enough defensive talent to enable JW to have a great start out of the blocks.

Those coaches operated in times when we were still a brand and had a natural gravity well in California. With Oregon, Utah, UW, the B1G and the SEC harvesting our backyard the last 10 years, it puts more pressure on our staff to be excellent recruiters.

---

I wouldn't give Dykes that much credit. He didn't recruit well at all on offense. His best Cal player (Goff) was recruited by the previous staff, just as all the players on his good TCU team of 2012 were recruited by the previous staff.

Otherwise I generally agree that recruiting is more national than it was "way back when" and now requires better recruiting by coaches as well as a lot of $$$ from donors.

---

Fair enough on Dykes. He's had two Top 30 classes after establishing himself. JW has not cracked that, best he's done is #32 after Redbox Bowl.

I kept going but enlisted AI to help.... a composite view of HS and portal recruiting over the last five years for the whole ACC includes newbies.

Here are the ACC teams ordered by their average national recruiting ranking over the last five years:

[ol]

Florida State Seminoles: 14.2

Clemson Tigers: 16.6

Miami Hurricanes: 17.8

North Carolina Tar Heels: 23.4

Stanford Cardinal: 26.6

Virginia Tech Hokies: 31.6

Louisville Cardinals: 36.1

NC State Wolfpack: 39.6

Pittsburgh Panthers: 43.5

California Golden Bears: 43.5

Virginia Cavaliers: 45.8

Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets: 51.5

Duke Blue Devils: 57.9

Boston College Eagles: 60.2

Wake Forest Demon Deacons: 63.1

Syracuse Orange: 63.3

SMU Mustangs: 71.3

[/ol]From Rivals, On3, Yahoo. Asked two AIs to do this.

I also ran it for the last 3 years and the results were mostly the same with a couple of the top and bottom changing 1-2 slots. Cal and Pitt still tied for 9th.

More nerd fun with the AI... relative travel load across ACC. The newcomers spend almost an extra straight week on a plane or in a bus (accounts for airport to opponent campus).



And asked it to mix in travel distance and opponent difficulty to rank the overall challenge of road games...

____________________________________

To rank the ACC 2024 football teams by the combined difficulty of their away games and the total travel time they must endure, we need to consider both the strength of their opponents and the travel distances involved. Here's a comprehensive ranking considering these factors:

[ol]

Stanford - Stanford has a grueling travel schedule with long distances to games at Syracuse, Clemson, NC State, and Notre Dame. The combined travel and difficulty of these opponents make Stanford's schedule the toughest (Fighting Gobbler) (Yahoo Sports).

California (Cal) - Cal also faces significant travel to play at Florida State, Pittsburgh, Wake Forest, and SMU. These trips, combined with the strength of the opponents, rank Cal's away schedule as highly challenging (FBSchedules.com) (Yahoo Sports).

Georgia Tech - Georgia Tech's away schedule includes difficult games at Syracuse, Louisville, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, and Miami, along with a game in Ireland against Florida State, adding a substantial travel component (Fighting Gobbler) (TribLIVE.com).

Florida State - Florida State's schedule includes tough away games at Clemson, Miami, SMU, and Notre Dame, with the added travel burden of playing in Ireland against Georgia Tech (Fighting Gobbler) (Yahoo Sports).

Virginia - Virginia's travel schedule includes challenging trips to Notre Dame, Clemson, Coastal Carolina, and Virginia Tech. The combination of long distances and tough opponents places them high on the list (Fighting Gobbler) (FBSchedules.com).

Clemson - Clemson has tough road games at Florida State, Notre Dame, Virginia Tech, and Pittsburgh. The travel combined with the difficulty of these games ranks them highly (Fighting Gobbler) (FBSchedules.com).

Miami (FL) - Miami faces away games at Florida State, North Carolina, NC State, and Louisville, adding significant travel and strong opponents to their schedule (FBSchedules.com) (TribLIVE.com).

Louisville - Louisville's schedule includes challenging road games at Clemson, Notre Dame, and Miami, adding to their travel burden (Sons of Saturday) (FBSchedules.com).

North Carolina - North Carolina faces away games at Miami, Clemson, and NC State, making their travel and opponent difficulty considerable (Sons of Saturday) (TribLIVE.com).

Pittsburgh - Pittsburgh has tough road games at Clemson, Notre Dame, and Virginia Tech, along with additional travel requirements (Sons of Saturday) (FBSchedules.com).

Duke - Duke's away games include Miami, NC State, and Wake Forest, presenting a mix of challenging opponents and travel distances (Fighting Gobbler) (FBSchedules.com).

Boston College - Boston College faces tough away games at Florida State, Virginia Tech, and SMU, making their schedule demanding in terms of travel and opponent strength (FBSchedules.com) (TribLIVE.com).

NC State - NC State's away schedule includes Clemson, Miami, and Virginia Tech, which are challenging opponents and add to their travel difficulties (Sons of Saturday) (TribLIVE.com).

Syracuse - Syracuse's travel schedule includes games at NC State, Pittsburgh, and Boston College, which are relatively less demanding than those of other teams (Fighting Gobbler) (FBSchedules.com).

Virginia Tech - Virginia Tech's away games include tough matchups at Florida State and Clemson, but with less extensive travel requirements compared to the West Coast teams (Fighting Gobbler) (FBSchedules.com).

Wake Forest - Wake Forest faces challenging games at Clemson and Notre Dame but has fewer extensive travel distances overall (College Football Network) (FBSchedules.com).

SMU - SMU has the least challenging away schedule in terms of travel and opponent difficulty, with fewer high-ranking opponents compared to other teams (College Football Network) (TribLIVE.com).

[/ol]
This ranking reflects both the difficulty of away game opponents and the travel demands placed on each team, providing a comprehensive view of their overall away game challenges for the 2024 season.

95bears said:

---

I kept going but enlisted AI to help.... a composite view of HS and portal recruiting over the last five years for the whole ACC includes newbies.

Here are the ACC teams ordered by their average national recruiting ranking over the last five years:

[ol]

Florida State Seminoles: 14.2

Clemson Tigers: 16.6

Miami Hurricanes: 17.8

North Carolina Tar Heels: 23.4

Stanford Cardinal: 26.6

Virginia Tech Hokies: 31.6

Louisville Cardinals: 36.1

NC State Wolfpack: 39.6

Pittsburgh Panthers: 43.5

California Golden Bears: 43.5

Virginia Cavaliers: 45.8

Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets: 51.5

Duke Blue Devils: 57.9

Boston College Eagles: 60.2

Wake Forest Demon Deacons: 63.1

Syracuse Orange: 63.3

SMU Mustangs: 71.3

[/ol]From Rivals, On3, Yahoo. Asked two AIs to do this.

I also ran it for the last 3 years and the results were mostly the same with a couple of the top and bottom changing 1-2 slots. Cal and Pitt still tied for 9th.

---

That tracks with my general impression that Pitt is the most similar ACC football program to Cal. Recruiting, level of donor support, a very popular local NFL team, and a traditionally-strong Big Ten team over on the more populated side of the state.

If our Bears are going to consistently move into the top third of the ACC, recruiting needs to consistently move up to the top third.

Stanford and Va Tech have really been underperforming recently, if those rankings are a good measure of the actual talent level on these teams.

95bears said:

---

I kept going but enlisted AI to help.... a composite view of HS and portal recruiting over the last five years for the whole ACC includes newbies.

Here are the ACC teams ordered by their average national recruiting ranking over the last five years:

[ol]

Florida State Seminoles: 14.2

Clemson Tigers: 16.6

Miami Hurricanes: 17.8

North Carolina Tar Heels: 23.4

Stanford Cardinal: 26.6

Virginia Tech Hokies: 31.6

Louisville Cardinals: 36.1

NC State Wolfpack: 39.6

Pittsburgh Panthers: 43.5

California Golden Bears: 43.5

Virginia Cavaliers: 45.8

Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets: 51.5

Duke Blue Devils: 57.9

Boston College Eagles: 60.2

Wake Forest Demon Deacons: 63.1

Syracuse Orange: 63.3

SMU Mustangs: 71.3

[/ol]

---

Last Year's Ranking in Sagarin Predictor:
1. FSU 13
2. Louisville 23
3. Duke 25
4. SMU 27
5. Clemson 28
6. UNC 34
7. NC State 40
8. Miami 42
9. VT 43
10. Cal 46
11. GT 54
12. Syracuse 81
13. Wake 85
14. Virginia 89
15. Pitt 90
16. BC 93
17. Stanford 96

There are teams that are outperforming their recruiting, performing to their recruiting and underperforming their recruiting, but end of the day it is performance that counts, however you get there.

calumnus said:

---

95bears said:

---

I kept going but enlisted AI to help.... a composite view of HS and portal recruiting over the last five years for the whole ACC includes newbies.

Here are the ACC teams ordered by their average national recruiting ranking over the last five years:

[ol]

Florida State Seminoles: 14.2

Clemson Tigers: 16.6

Miami Hurricanes: 17.8

North Carolina Tar Heels: 23.4

Stanford Cardinal: 26.6

Virginia Tech Hokies: 31.6

Louisville Cardinals: 36.1

NC State Wolfpack: 39.6

Pittsburgh Panthers: 43.5

California Golden Bears: 43.5

Virginia Cavaliers: 45.8

Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets: 51.5

Duke Blue Devils: 57.9

Boston College Eagles: 60.2

Wake Forest Demon Deacons: 63.1

Syracuse Orange: 63.3

SMU Mustangs: 71.3

[/ol]

---

Last Year's Ranking in Sagarin Predictor:
1. FSU 13
2. Louisville 23
3. Duke 25
4. SMU 27
5. Clemson 28
6. UNC 34
7. NC State 40
8. Miami 42
9. VT 43
10. Cal 46
11. GT 54
12. Syracuse 81
13. Wake 85
14. Virginia 89
15. Pitt 90
16. BC 93
17. Stanford 96

There are teams that are outperforming their recruiting, performing to their recruiting and underperforming their recruiting, but end of the day it is performance that counts, however you get there.

---

That is quite the drop off after Georgia Tech. Fortunately, we play 4 of the teams behind them.

golden sloth said:

---

calumnus said:

---

95bears said:

---

I kept going but enlisted AI to help.... a composite view of HS and portal recruiting over the last five years for the whole ACC includes newbies.

Here are the ACC teams ordered by their average national recruiting ranking over the last five years:

[ol]

Florida State Seminoles: 14.2

Clemson Tigers: 16.6

Miami Hurricanes: 17.8

North Carolina Tar Heels: 23.4

Stanford Cardinal: 26.6

Virginia Tech Hokies: 31.6

Louisville Cardinals: 36.1

NC State Wolfpack: 39.6

Pittsburgh Panthers: 43.5

California Golden Bears: 43.5

Virginia Cavaliers: 45.8

Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets: 51.5

Duke Blue Devils: 57.9

Boston College Eagles: 60.2

Wake Forest Demon Deacons: 63.1

Syracuse Orange: 63.3

SMU Mustangs: 71.3

[/ol]

---

Last Year's Ranking in Sagarin Predictor:
1. FSU 13
2. Louisville 23
3. Duke 25
4. SMU 27
5. Clemson 28
6. UNC 34
7. NC State 40
8. Miami 42
9. VT 43
10. Cal 46
11. GT 54
12. Syracuse 81
13. Wake 85
14. Virginia 89
15. Pitt 90
16. BC 93
17. Stanford 96

There are teams that are outperforming their recruiting, performing to their recruiting and underperforming their recruiting, but end of the day it is performance that counts, however you get there.

---

That is quite the drop off after Georgia Tech. Fortunately, we play 4 of the teams behind them.

---

Yes, very fortunate. We have a good first year schedule because those 4, plus home games against UC Davis and San Diego State get us to 6 and Oregon State would be 7.

However, I am a bit wary of counting East Coast conference road games as wins because Wilcox is 1-15 in conference games played outside the state of California, with a number of really bad losses to really bad teams on the road.