Ya or Nay, Does coach get a pass on his 7 year results in the Pac 12 now that we have a new conference? Or do we give him a year see how well we can compete with the ACC? A lot of the match ups (FSU & Miami back to back) would only happen if we were in bowl games.....
Does Coach Wilcox get new life now that we are in the ACC?
7,138 Views |
49 Replies |
Last: 9 mo ago by Gobears49
No, Wilcox should remain on the hot seat. It is in fact a bad indication of the health of our program that a 7-6 season has moved him so far from danger. Another bowl berth should be the very minimum required to keep his job.
kal kommie said:
No, Wilcox should remain on the hot seat. It is in fact a bad indication of the health of our program that a 7-6 season has moved him so far from danger. Another bowl berth should be the very minimum required to keep his job.
Given our easier schedule this year and next, just continuing at the mediocre level we have seen for 7 years will get us 6 or 7 wins this year and likely more next year which will result in minor bowls. I highly doubt he gets fired with that and in fact his people will start arguing he needs another extension "for recruiting." Unless he completely blows it by not even achieving that (which would be a disaster and huge missed opportunity for the program) he very likely will break Tedford's record for longest tenured coach in Cal history despite having a losing record in conference every year and likely a losing record over all.
Of course, if we get lucky and he gets 8 or 9 wins this year and 10 or 11 next we can all celebrate!
Based on his current contract, do we have the luxury of installing someone else?
All of the ex-Pac schools are short on revenue in the near term because of the money left behind in winding down the Pac-12. Washington has taken out big loans against future revenue from both the Big Ten and Fox. For the next seven years, Cal and Stanford will be making less in media revenue than they were making in the Pac, on top of getting a much lower than normal share of the last year of Pac-12 revenue. The big donors who are being asked to give more to make up for these revenue shortfalls would not be happy if they are asked to pay a fat buyout to a departing head coach. If the team is 3-9, they'll end up funding it, but if the team is 7-5, they almost certainly won't.
BearSD said:
All of the ex-Pac schools are short on revenue in the near term because of the money left behind in winding down the Pac-12. Washington has taken out big loans against future revenue from both the Big Ten and Fox. For the next seven years, Cal and Stanford will be making less in media revenue than they were making in the Pac, on top of getting a much lower than normal share of the last year of Pac-12 revenue. The big donors who are being asked to give more to make up for these revenue shortfalls would not be happy if they are asked to pay a fat buyout to a departing head coach. If the team is 3-9, they'll end up funding it, but if the team is 7-5, they almost certainly won't.
Christ was a good chancellor in other ways but her selection and then lifetime contract to Knowlton, mishandling of conference realignment and Knowlton's many mistakes (not even mentioning his horrific behavior around the women's swim program) all at the most critical time in our history, have put Cal athletics in dire straights. We can only hope a switch clicks with Wilcox and we win 8+ this year and 10+ next year.
Trumpanzee said:
Ya or Nay, Does coach get a pass on his 7 year results in the Pac 12 now that we have a new conference? Or do we give him a year see how well we can compete with the ACC? A lot of the match ups (FSU & Miami back to back) would only happen if we were in bowl games.....
It's been 7 years of mediocrity... Why should he get a pass?
Cal_79 said:Trumpanzee said:
Ya or Nay, Does coach get a pass on his 7 year results in the Pac 12 now that we have a new conference? Or do we give him a year see how well we can compete with the ACC? A lot of the match ups (FSU & Miami back to back) would only happen if we were in bowl games.....
It's been 7 years of mediocrity... Why should he get a pass?
Mediocrity with a soft schedule can get you a meaningless bowl game and many Cal fans think that is more than good enough to warrant extensions.
If we are still scraping for a bowl game in 2024 like we were in the last years of the PAC-12 he should be gone so that we at least have a chance for a decent 2025.
Strykur said:
If we are still scraping for a bowl game in 2024 like we were in the last years of the PAC-12 he should be gone so that we at least have a chance for a decent 2025.
"Should" versus most here celebrating "making a bowl two years in a row" and the realities of Cal's financial situation. Thanks to Knowlton it would cost us $15 million to fire Wilcox after this season.
Unless he has a losing record again this year (unlikely) he almost certainly gets to coach with next year's cream puff schedule which will easily be interpreted as "improvement." Then, with two years left on his contract it would cost $10 million to fire him, he will "have made three bowls on a row" and instead there will be pressure to extend him "for recruiting."
I just don't see this turning out well unless we have a breakout season this year and Wilcox turns into the great coach his ardent supporters have always thought he is. I think a lot rests on Bloesch and Gilbert. He just needs to luck out that the best OC he ever hired turns out to be the guy he hired as an OL coach.
Oh god, he's gonna get extended! lmfaocalumnus said:Strykur said:
If we are still scraping for a bowl game in 2024 like we were in the last years of the PAC-12 he should be gone so that we at least have a chance for a decent 2025.
"Should" versus most here celebrating "making a bowl two years in a row" and the realities of Cal's financial situation. Thanks to Knowlton it would cost us $15 million to fire Wilcox after this season.
Unless he has a losing record again this year (unlikely) he almost certainly gets to coach with next year's cream puff schedule which will easily be interpreted as "improvement." Then, with two years left on his contract it would cost $10 million to fire him, he will "have made three bowls on a row" and instead there will be pressure to extend him "for recruiting."
I just don't see this turning out well unless we have a breakout season this year and Wilcox turns into the great coach his ardent supporters have always thought he is. I think a lot rests on Bloesch and Gilbert. He just needs to luck out that the best OC he ever hired turns out to be the guy he hired as an OL coach.
It would be great if someone who is knowledgeable wrote an article indicating how other FBS coaches with a similar record to Wildox's have kept or not kept their jobs. My guess is that very few have been able to do so.
Here's an example close to home, albeit crossing football eras.Gobears49 said:
It would be great if someone who is knowledgeable wrote an article indicating how other FBS coaches with a similar record to Wildox's have kept or not kept their jobs. My guess is that very few have been able to do so.
Justin Wilcox
- Cal HC seven seasons (2017-2023)
- Overall record: 36-43 46%
- Conference record: 21-37 36%
- Bowl Games: 3
Ray Willsey
- Cal HC eight seasons (1964-1971)
- Overall record: 40-42-1 48%
- Conference record: 18-25-1 41%
- Pac8 teams only went to the Rose Bowl but, under today's rules (and bowl proliferation) where team's with .500 record are bowl-eligible, six of Willsey's teams could have gone to bowls.
Willsey was fired after his last season when he went 6-5 and 4-3 in the PAC-8. So, maybe this season is Wilcox's last chance.
DIGRESSION: I think any Old Blues would agree that Willsey's best team was 1968. How many of you were there when Cal beat #10-ranked Syracuse 43-0? I was and that's why I'll be at this season's Syracuse game. Willsey also beat a Rose Bowl-bound Stanford team led by Heisman Trophy winner Jim Plunkett in 1970. Those Willsey teams were pretty boring, but he was the guy who landed Steve Bartkowski, who led Cal's turnaround under Mike White.
We should limit this to coaches in "power" conferences. There are several instances of teams in "G5" conferences keeping coaches for several years even without many winning records.Gobears49 said:
It would be great if someone who is knowledgeable wrote an article indicating how other FBS coaches with a similar record to Wildox's have kept or not kept their jobs. My guess is that very few have been able to do so.
So, looking at current head coaches in "power" conferences, who have coached at least four seasons with their current team, these are the ones other than Wilcox whose teams have not won at least half of their games.
Arkansas, Sam Pittman, 23-25 in 4 seasons.
Baylor, Dave Aranda, 23-25 in 4 seasons. (Jake Spavital is the new OC there for this season.)
Maryland, Mike Locksley, 29-33 in 5 seasons.
Rutgers, Greg Schiano, 19-28 in 4 seasons.
There are a few others barely above .500, best example of those is Iowa State with Matt Campbell, who had exactly one great season but is 18-20 over the last three seasons.
IMO, for Cal or any of these other teams, what will push out one of these coaches is when a losing season aligns with donors who put up the money for the coach's buyout.
Gotta believe if Wilcox doesnt win at least 7 he is gone!
I appreciate your effort, but Wilsey coached about fifty years before Wilcox's Cal tenure. When Wilsey coached there were very few bowl games compared to the Wilcox era, so comparing the two in any way is really misleading.
I was hoping someone would make a comparison to a modern coach's bowl record record to that of Wilcox, including the quality of the Cal's bowl teams under Wilcox to that of the other coach, and their comparative bowl records. But perhaps that cannot reasonably can be done and/or it would take too much time.
I was hoping someone would make a comparison to a modern coach's bowl record record to that of Wilcox, including the quality of the Cal's bowl teams under Wilcox to that of the other coach, and their comparative bowl records. But perhaps that cannot reasonably can be done and/or it would take too much time.
I'd say season records are a much better indicator of coaching ability than bowl records, but apparently you disagree. Well, this forum isn't a very convenient way for me to try changing your mind.
It's probably just as well since his posting history hasn't shown much willingness to consider the opinions of others and then change his mind.HearstMining said:
I'd say season records are a much better indicator of coaching ability than bowl records, but apparently you disagree. Well, this forum isn't a very convenient way for me to try changing your mind.
I think it's irrelevant if other schools keep losing coaches as long or longer than we have. Whether we're uniquely dumb or have a small group of equally dumb competitors doesn't change that we're doing something dumb.
The data I've looked into before is what the background of coaches who achieve what we want to achieve (major conference championships, etc) is. The vast majority of coaches who have the success we want to have are not like Wilcox, they win early. Not always win their conference in year 2 or whatnot but in their first few years they at least have a winning conference record. They show some signs of winning.
Look at last season's top 10:
Winners win. They show it early. Except Sark they all won 10+ games in a season early in their head coaching careers.
The data I've looked into before is what the background of coaches who achieve what we want to achieve (major conference championships, etc) is. The vast majority of coaches who have the success we want to have are not like Wilcox, they win early. Not always win their conference in year 2 or whatnot but in their first few years they at least have a winning conference record. They show some signs of winning.
Look at last season's top 10:
- Harbaugh: 11-1 overall and undefeated in conference in his 2nd season as a head coach
- DeBoar: won NAIA championship in year 2
- Sark: not great but even he had a winning conference record each of years 2-5
- Smart: won SEC in year 2
- Saban: won his conference in year 1
- Lanning: 10 wins in year 1
- Norvell: 10 wins in year 2
- Drinkwitz: 12 wins in year 1
- Kiffin: 10 wins in 3rd year as college coach (4th year overall)
- Day: 13 wins in year 1
Winners win. They show it early. Except Sark they all won 10+ games in a season early in their head coaching careers.
HearstMining said:Here's an example close to home, albeit crossing football eras.Gobears49 said:
It would be great if someone who is knowledgeable wrote an article indicating how other FBS coaches with a similar record to Wildox's have kept or not kept their jobs. My guess is that very few have been able to do so.
Justin Wilcox
- Cal HC seven seasons (2017-2023)
- Overall record: 36-43 46%
- Conference record: 21-37 36%
- Bowl Games: 3
Ray Willsey
- Cal HC eight seasons (1964-1971)
- Overall record: 40-42-1 48%
- Conference record: 18-25-1 41%
- Pac8 teams only went to the Rose Bowl but, under today's rules (and bowl proliferation) where team's with .500 record are bowl-eligible, six of Willsey's teams could have gone to bowls.
Willsey was fired after his last season when he went 6-5 and 4-3 in the PAC-8. So, maybe this season is Wilcox's last chance.
DIGRESSION: I think any Old Blues would agree that Willsey's best team was 1968. How many of you were there when Cal beat #10-ranked Syracuse 43-0? I was and that's why I'll be at this season's Syracuse game. Willsey also beat a Rose Bowl-bound Stanford team led by Heisman Trophy winner Jim Plunkett in 1970. Those Willsey teams were pretty boring, but he was the guy who landed Steve Bartkowski, who led Cal's turnaround under Mike White.
Willsey would have had "6 bowls in 8 years" under the current bowl environment.
From your stats above Willsey was clearly better not even taking into account Wilcox's wins include beating a FCS team every year.
As for Willsey's final 6-5 (4-3) season, I doubt he gets fired if he had three years left on a guaranteed contract with a buyout equivalent to Wilcox's $15 million after this season. That is the real issue. Knowlton handed out a fully guaranteed 6 year contract to a coach with a losing record after 5 years, a point where other losing coaches get fired. Right in the critical years before conference realignment. It made others think we are not a serious program and that we don't care about winning football.
We can only hope we win 8 or more this year, because I doubt Wilcox gets fired with even another losing record this year, much less with 6 or 7 wins and a bowl.
Yeah, I thought about Wilcox's contract as an impediment to his being fired. Maybe if Cal's NIL contributors are shoveling all this dough in, they'll kick in some more to buy him out. I realize it's a huge stretch, but if you're investing in the players, you're undercutting your own investment by keeping Wilcox around. I think Cal's window of opportunity is pretty narrow - they don't have three or four years to get good.
HearstMining said:
Yeah, I thought about Wilcox's contract as an impediment to his being fired. Maybe if Cal's NIL contributors are shoveling all this dough in, they'll kick in some more to buy him out. I realize it's a huge stretch, but if you're investing in the players, you're undercutting your own investment by keeping Wilcox around. I think Cal's window of opportunity is pretty narrow - they don't have three or four years to get good.
It was why the extension Knowlton gave him was so fiscally irresponsible and potentially catastrophic fo Cal athletics. We needed smart, knowledgeable, forward-thinking leadership to navigate these last few years and we had the opposite.
I think in most cases I'd rather have Wilcox + $5 million per year more in NIL than whoever Knowlton would hire to replace him less $5 million per year in NIL.
That is why getting rid of Knowlton has to come first.
If Wilcox goes 6-6 or 7-5 this year and 8-4 next year based on the softest schedules in memory, we need to resist the inevitable pressure to extend him yet again.
Hopefully we exceed those numbers and Wilcox turns into great coach. That would be best, however unlikely it is.
2025 schedule should be easier, but I wouldn't say it's money in the bank. There's a game at SDSU, and Cal has never beaten SDSU in San Diego. (The Bears are also 1-3 in bowl games in San Diego.) There's no Clemson or FSU next fall, but there are still three games in the eastern time zone, and if the Bears win all three they would surely be the first CFB team to ever win three games in one season that were three time zones away from home.calumnus said:HearstMining said:
If Wilcox goes 6-6 or 7-5 this year and 8-4 next year based on the softest schedules in memory, we need to resist the inevitable pressure to extend him yet again.
BearSD said:
2025 schedule should be easier, but I wouldn't say it's money in the bank. There's a game at SDSU, and Cal has never beaten SDSU in San Diego. (The Bears are also 1-3 in bowl games in San Diego.) There's no Clemson or FSU next fall, but there are still three games in the eastern time zone, and if the Bears win all three they would surely be the first CFB team to ever win three games in one season that were three time zones away from home.
Well, actually (pushes up glasses), the 2007 Hawaii team won games at UNLV, Idaho, and San Jose State in September and October. Daylight Savings ended in early November, so those road victories would be three time zones away from home and three hours ahead. They also won at Louisiana Tech (five time zones ahead) and at Nevada in mid-November (still three time zones, but only two hours ahead).
This was the year that Hawaii went 12-0 before losing to Georgia in the Sugar Bowl.
BearSD said:2025 schedule should be easier, but I wouldn't say it's money in the bank. There's a game at SDSU, and Cal has never beaten SDSU in San Diego. (The Bears are also 1-3 in bowl games in San Diego.) There's no Clemson or FSU next fall, but there are still three games in the eastern time zone, and if the Bears win all three they would surely be the first CFB team to ever win three games in one season that were three time zones away from home.calumnus said:HearstMining said:
If Wilcox goes 6-6 or 7-5 this year and 8-4 next year based on the softest schedules in memory, we need to resist the inevitable pressure to extend him yet again.
And so it begins….
But actually that is a red herring because if the Bears win all three (@Boston College, @Louisville, and @VT) they have a good shot at winning 10 to 12 games. IF Wilcox does that I am more than happy to say he turned the corner. Especially beating Louisville (based on recent success).
What I am more concerned with is the likelihood we lose too many of those games against G5 teams and ACC teams with losing records but still finish 7-5 or even 8-4 people say "Cal never wins in San Diego" and other excuses and call that "good enough for an extension."
there is zero future funding to buy out coach wilcox
ride or die in 2024#
ride or die in 2024#
No funding means we are stuck with Wilcox through the 2027 season?Shocky1 said:
there is zero future funding to buy out coach wilcox
ride or die in 2024#
Let's say we are stuck on the same 5-7 to 7-5 this season (with losing conference record). I sure hope we don't extend him if this happens, but if we don't, it could kill recruiting for 2025-2027 as everyone will know he will be in lame duck status for 3 seasons since we won't extend or fire him. Only way out for our program in the near future really is for us to have a killer year this season and extend him in 2025 or 2026 since we are out of money to buy him out. This is the consequence of such a bad contract by Knowlton.
koream, the cal athletic department financials are heading into an existential abyss due to knowlton's failure to rightsize the dept
if cal goes 5-7 as u outlined, it's all over (and cal's monster offensive line thread will be terminated)...donor fatigue & fan interest at memorial stadium will wane which is compounded by markeisha's failure to once again not offering FREE tixs for all students...the time for cal to build a national football brand is now, we're outta time (it's not biz as usual like it's been for the last couple of decades with all the monumental changes in collegiate athletics)
and that's why ima gonna watch every second of cal football in person this fall, there's no tomorrow without a successful 2024 season...this is the struggle that must be with knowlton running the show...and as someone with absolutely zero interest in all professional sports teams, this season also marks the potential end of my ever being a spectator at a football game so there's a lot at stake here personally for me...hope u will get to memorial stadium this season from the islands to celebrate the magic of cal football
playing hypotheticals re: wilcox being bought out is pointless, he's not going anywhere for the duration of his contract...cal's nil program is robust right now, a strong 2024 season will keep the ball rolling into the very attractive 2025 schedule plus an infusion of energy surrounding the program with generational talent jaron coming to berkeley from hawaii
ride or die with justin#
if cal goes 5-7 as u outlined, it's all over (and cal's monster offensive line thread will be terminated)...donor fatigue & fan interest at memorial stadium will wane which is compounded by markeisha's failure to once again not offering FREE tixs for all students...the time for cal to build a national football brand is now, we're outta time (it's not biz as usual like it's been for the last couple of decades with all the monumental changes in collegiate athletics)
and that's why ima gonna watch every second of cal football in person this fall, there's no tomorrow without a successful 2024 season...this is the struggle that must be with knowlton running the show...and as someone with absolutely zero interest in all professional sports teams, this season also marks the potential end of my ever being a spectator at a football game so there's a lot at stake here personally for me...hope u will get to memorial stadium this season from the islands to celebrate the magic of cal football
playing hypotheticals re: wilcox being bought out is pointless, he's not going anywhere for the duration of his contract...cal's nil program is robust right now, a strong 2024 season will keep the ball rolling into the very attractive 2025 schedule plus an infusion of energy surrounding the program with generational talent jaron coming to berkeley from hawaii
ride or die with justin#
Regarding your last sentence, I think it would be rare to find teams who had three reguilar season games three time zones away, given that you must exclude teams from the mountain and central time zones, which cannot face teams three time zones away from them.
Gobears49 said:
Regarding your last sentence, I think it would be rare to find teams who had three reguilar season games three time zones away, given that you must exclude teams from the mountain and central time zones, which cannot face teams three time zones away from them.
More to the point, Cal is going to have three East Coast games every year from now on. Having "three East Coast games" in of itself will not make any one year tougher than another. Thus 2025 is looking like the easiest schedule we will have for many years. It is a huge opportunity…. And a trap if we make too much of "good but not great results" and extend Wilcox again because of it.
Not sure where the talk of Cal's easy schedule comes from - might not be as difficult as some recent years in the top 10 most difficult - but this ranking has Cal's schedule at 58, just after Ohio Stat at 57. And then there is all the travel Cal will need to do in the ACC. I believe i read in one of the football publications that the over/under on Cal's wins this year is 5 (they going short). So for those who think we are going to win 8 games, Las Vegas is waiting....
Given Cal's strained athletic budget and limited donor resources (compared to the top ACC schools) in this play for pay era, I think Coach Wilcox and his team have been doing a respectable job. There is certainly no money to buyout his contract. I doubt the AD is even thinking about it. Unless alumni donations really pick up to allow us to recruit with the bigger name FB schools, we going to be on average a 500 team. Some years a bit better, some years a bit worse. Given all the new players this year, it is hard to know how it will turn out. Stay tuned.
https://collegefootballnews.com/rankings/college-football-schedule-rankings-easiest-to-hardest-1-to-134-2024
Given Cal's strained athletic budget and limited donor resources (compared to the top ACC schools) in this play for pay era, I think Coach Wilcox and his team have been doing a respectable job. There is certainly no money to buyout his contract. I doubt the AD is even thinking about it. Unless alumni donations really pick up to allow us to recruit with the bigger name FB schools, we going to be on average a 500 team. Some years a bit better, some years a bit worse. Given all the new players this year, it is hard to know how it will turn out. Stay tuned.
https://collegefootballnews.com/rankings/college-football-schedule-rankings-easiest-to-hardest-1-to-134-2024
dha said:
Not sure where the talk of Cal's easy schedule comes from - might not be as difficult as some recent years in the top 10 most difficult - but this ranking has Cal's schedule at 58, just after Ohio Stat at 57. And then there is all the travel Cal will need to do in the ACC. I believe i read in one of the football publications that the over/under on Cal's wins this year is 5 (they going short). So for those who think we are going to win 8 games, Las Vegas is waiting....
Given Cal's strained athletic budget and limited donor resources (compared to the top ACC schools) in this play for pay era, I think Coach Wilcox and his team have been doing a respectable job. There is certainly no money to buyout his contract. I doubt the AD is even thinking about it. Unless alumni donations really pick up to allow us to recruit with the bigger name FB schools, we going to be on average a 500 team. Some years a bit better, some years a bit worse. Given all the new players this year, it is hard to know how it will turn out. Stay tuned.
https://collegefootballnews.com/rankings/college-football-schedule-rankings-easiest-to-hardest-1-to-134-2024
We are talking about NEXT YEAR, 2025, being the year that appears to be our easiest schedule in ages.
dha said:
Not sure where the talk of Cal's easy schedule comes from - might not be as difficult as some recent years in the top 10 most difficult - but this ranking has Cal's schedule at 58, just after Ohio Stat at 57. And then there is all the travel Cal will need to do in the ACC. I believe i read in one of the football publications that the over/under on Cal's wins this year is 5 (they going short). So for those who think we are going to win 8 games, Las Vegas is waiting....
The publication you cited listed some bookies' predictions, all of which have a O/U of 6 or 6.5, as well as their writer's own prediction of 7 wins.
Quote:
Cal Win Total
BetMGM: 6
Caesars: 6
FanDuel: 6.5
CFN (Set Win Total At): 6.5
Consensus Win Total: 6.25
Cal Will Win: 7
https://collegefootballnews.com/college-football/2024-acc-football-win-totals-predictions-odds-consensus-picks
FWIW the over/under for Oregon State at the major books is 7.5 so for an over that puts them at 8 wins (yes, EIGHT!!!) and even the most pessimistic fans paying attention to the Beavers would be nuts not to take that over.
If he wins more, then yes he gets new life. If not, then no.
Would have been the same in the Pac. It's not the conference that does it, it's winning. Now, if it proves easier to win in the ACC then maybe you could say the conference helped him.
Would have been the same in the Pac. It's not the conference that does it, it's winning. Now, if it proves easier to win in the ACC then maybe you could say the conference helped him.
Featured Stories
See All
The Football Roster Post Spring - The Quarterbacks (FREE)
by Bear Insider
Cal Wins First Ever MPSF Championship
by Cal Athletics
Bears Topple Records As Cal’s Men Finish Third At ACC Championships
by Cal Athletics