Extend far beyond the time when that coach is actually dismissed.
What's sad to me is that we didn't learn this lesson with Mark Fox.
At an average attendance destruction of 20,000 fans lost per game and the ATO making 40 bucks off of each ticket sold that is a loss of 800k per game or 4.8 million per year which is near the exact cost per year of Wilcox's buyout.
On the flip side gaining 15k fans with an enthused fan base would gain us additional revenue to the tune of an extra 3.6 million per season.

Can someone explain this to me in a way / scenario where it makes any financial sense whatsoever not to just fire and buyout? I'm pretty sure the buyout clause isn't a lump sum and is paid yearly anyways.

Fox' conference win percentage at Cal was 21%, Wilcox is not nearly that bad.

What is Wilcox' buyout this year, the next and in 26?

At this point, we're better off putting a fraction of what we would pay for his buyout into the NIL budget.

CNHTH said:

---

Extend far beyond the time when that coach is actually dismissed.
What's sad to me is that we didn't learn this lesson with Mark Fox.
At an average attendance destruction of 20,000 fans lost per game and the ATO making 40 bucks off of each ticket sold that is a loss of 800k per game or 4.8 million per year which is near the exact cost per year of Wilcox's buyout.
On the flip side gaining 15k fans with an enthused fan base would gain us additional revenue to the tune of an extra 3.6 million per season.

Can someone explain this to me in a way / scenario where it makes any financial sense whatsoever not to just fire and buyout? I'm pretty sure the buyout clause isn't a lump sum and is paid yearly anyways.

---

Nice analysis. Too bad your check book isn't bigger. Talk is cheap.

CNHTH said:

---

Extend far beyond the time when that coach is actually dismissed.
What's sad to me is that we didn't learn this lesson with Mark Fox.
At an average attendance destruction of 20,000 fans lost per game and the ATO making 40 bucks off of each ticket sold that is a loss of 800k per game or 4.8 million per year which is near the exact cost per year of Wilcox's buyout.
On the flip side gaining 15k fans with an enthused fan base would gain us additional revenue to the tune of an extra 3.6 million per season.

Can someone explain this to me in a way / scenario where it makes any financial sense whatsoever not to just fire and buyout? I'm pretty sure the buyout clause isn't a lump sum and is paid yearly anyways.

---

The premise is good but a couple of things to consider. Much of the buyout will be paid by donors. Ticket sales will go to the department. And unless you hire a home run the attendance increase will likley be much more gradual.

The buyout likely would be paid monthly like salary and could be somewhat offset by him taking another role elsewhere. There are probably few follks remaining that are all in on Wilcox but expecting the donors to cover his buyout when they were not likely even consulted on the buyout guarantee could prove difficult.

CALiforniALUM said:

---

CNHTH said:

---

Extend far beyond the time when that coach is actually dismissed.
What's sad to me is that we didn't learn this lesson with Mark Fox.
At an average attendance destruction of 20,000 fans lost per game and the ATO making 40 bucks off of each ticket sold that is a loss of 800k per game or 4.8 million per year which is near the exact cost per year of Wilcox's buyout.
On the flip side gaining 15k fans with an enthused fan base would gain us additional revenue to the tune of an extra 3.6 million per season.

Can someone explain this to me in a way / scenario where it makes any financial sense whatsoever not to just fire and buyout? I'm pretty sure the buyout clause isn't a lump sum and is paid yearly anyways.

---

Nice analysis. Too bad your check book isn't bigger. Talk is cheap.

---

The whole point is that maybe a checkbook isn't even required…
Just some careful strategy work on implications…
From my perspective (granted I'm sitting in economy class) it appears our right engine caught on fire and we're currently in a nose dive and several of my seat mates are lighting up cigarettes and calling their loved ones…but the old blues in first class keep standing up and telling us to shut up and stay in our seat…also the stewardess came by and told us that the captain promised to land the plane safely if we just sign up for a delta airlines Amex card…in the fine print it said the collateral for such a card is my soul, as well as my pride…also said we don't have an aerodrome to land at if he can't get the engine restarted but not too worry about it because he's definitely going to get the engine restarted.

Cal88 said:

---

Fox' conference win percentage at Cal was 21%, Wilcox is not nearly that bad.

What is Wilcox' buyout this year, the next and in 26?

At this point, we're better off putting a fraction of what we would pay for his buyout into the NIL budget.

---

It is $5 million per year remaining. The buyout is $15 million after this year, $10 million after 2025. At which point there will be pressure to extend him "for recruiting." All this as we hit the financial cliff of reduced media earnings because we had to buy our way into the ACC. If Knowlton is still AD and we "go to a bowl for the third year in a row" I could see us extend him instead of fire him.

I think our best slim hope is Ron Rivera is willing to come in as HC with his compensation deferred until we are through Wilcox's contract and we are earning a higher percentage of our ACC share.

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Fox' conference win percentage at Cal was 21%, Wilcox is not nearly that bad.

What is Wilcox' buyout this year, the next and in 26?

At this point, we're better off putting a fraction of what we would pay for his buyout into the NIL budget.

---

It is $5 million per year remaining. The buyout is $15 million after this year, $10 million after 2025. At which point there will be pressure to extend him "for recruiting." All this as we hit the financial cliff of reduced media earnings because we had to buy our way into the ACC. If Knowlton is still AD and we "go to a bowl for the third year in a row" I could see us extend him instead of fire him.

I think our best slim hope is Ron Rivera is willing to come in as HC with his compensation deferred until we are through Wilcox's contract and we are earning a higher percentage of our ACC share.

---

Thanks for the info Calumnus. With this buyout, Wilcox to go through this season and the following one is a fait accompli. Two years is also plenty of time for Lyons to settle in and donors to get their message through to him.

Donors should focus on pressuring Lyons and Knowlton not to extend him, barring a breakthrough season, and even then, they can extend him without a high buyout. Wilcox has zero leverage over the AD at this point.

Realistically speaking, given the current constraints, and barring a billionaire Cal fan coming through, we'd be much better off throwing a couple more millions into the NIL to recruit better linemen.

Cal88 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Fox' conference win percentage at Cal was 21%, Wilcox is not nearly that bad.

What is Wilcox' buyout this year, the next and in 26?

At this point, we're better off putting a fraction of what we would pay for his buyout into the NIL budget.

---

It is $5 million per year remaining. The buyout is $15 million after this year, $10 million after 2025. At which point there will be pressure to extend him "for recruiting." All this as we hit the financial cliff of reduced media earnings because we had to buy our way into the ACC. If Knowlton is still AD and we "go to a bowl for the third year in a row" I could see us extend him instead of fire him.

I think our best slim hope is Ron Rivera is willing to come in as HC with his compensation deferred until we are through Wilcox's contract and we are earning a higher percentage of our ACC share.

---

Thanks for the info Calumnus. With this buyout, Wilcox to go through this season and the following one is a fait accompli. Two years is also plenty of time for Lyons to settle in and donors to get their message through to him.

Donors should focus on pressuring Lyons and Knowlton not to extend him, barring a breakthrough season, and even then, they can extend him without a high buyout. Wilcox has zero leverage over the AD at this point.

Realistically speaking, given the current constraints, and barring a billionaire Cal fan coming through, we'd be much better off throwing a couple more millions into the NIL to recruit better linemen.

---

Here is the problem: our remaining schedule this year is soft enough for us to finish 7-5 or even 8-4 with a bowl and next year looks even easier. 8 or 9 wins, the Wilcox defenders will be declaring victory. Those of us who know we squandered a HUGE opportunity by sticking with Wilcox will be called "delusional."

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Fox' conference win percentage at Cal was 21%, Wilcox is not nearly that bad.

What is Wilcox' buyout this year, the next and in 26?

At this point, we're better off putting a fraction of what we would pay for his buyout into the NIL budget.

---

It is $5 million per year remaining. The buyout is $15 million after this year, $10 million after 2025. At which point there will be pressure to extend him "for recruiting." All this as we hit the financial cliff of reduced media earnings because we had to buy our way into the ACC. If Knowlton is still AD and we "go to a bowl for the third year in a row" I could see us extend him instead of fire him.

I think our best slim hope is Ron Rivera is willing to come in as HC with his compensation deferred until we are through Wilcox's contract and we are earning a higher percentage of our ACC share.

---

Thanks for the info Calumnus. With this buyout, Wilcox to go through this season and the following one is a fait accompli. Two years is also plenty of time for Lyons to settle in and donors to get their message through to him.

Donors should focus on pressuring Lyons and Knowlton not to extend him, barring a breakthrough season, and even then, they can extend him without a high buyout. Wilcox has zero leverage over the AD at this point.

Realistically speaking, given the current constraints, and barring a billionaire Cal fan coming through, we'd be much better off throwing a couple more millions into the NIL to recruit better linemen.

---

Here is the problem: our remaining schedule this year is soft enough for us to finish 7-5 or even 8-4 with a bowl and next year looks even easier. 8 or 9 wins, the Wilcox defenders will be declaring victory. Those of us who know we squandered a HUGE opportunity by sticking with Wilcox will be called "delusional."

---

Well, he's going to be here through 25 at the very least, at this point we can only insist on not extending him, or at the very least, for any extension to come without a buyout clause. I think Lyons will eventually get it.

Cal88 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Fox' conference win percentage at Cal was 21%, Wilcox is not nearly that bad.

What is Wilcox' buyout this year, the next and in 26?

At this point, we're better off putting a fraction of what we would pay for his buyout into the NIL budget.

---

It is $5 million per year remaining. The buyout is $15 million after this year, $10 million after 2025. At which point there will be pressure to extend him "for recruiting." All this as we hit the financial cliff of reduced media earnings because we had to buy our way into the ACC. If Knowlton is still AD and we "go to a bowl for the third year in a row" I could see us extend him instead of fire him.

I think our best slim hope is Ron Rivera is willing to come in as HC with his compensation deferred until we are through Wilcox's contract and we are earning a higher percentage of our ACC share.

---

Thanks for the info Calumnus. With this buyout, Wilcox to go through this season and the following one is a fait accompli. Two years is also plenty of time for Lyons to settle in and donors to get their message through to him.

Donors should focus on pressuring Lyons and Knowlton not to extend him, barring a breakthrough season, and even then, they can extend him without a high buyout. Wilcox has zero leverage over the AD at this point.

Realistically speaking, given the current constraints, and barring a billionaire Cal fan coming through, we'd be much better off throwing a couple more millions into the NIL to recruit better linemen.

---

Here is the problem: our remaining schedule this year is soft enough for us to finish 7-5 or even 8-4 with a bowl and next year looks even easier. 8 or 9 wins, the Wilcox defenders will be declaring victory. Those of us who know we squandered a HUGE opportunity by sticking with Wilcox will be called "delusional."

---

Well, he's going to be here through 25 at the very least, at this point we can only insist on not extending him, or at the very least, for any extension to come without a buyout clause. I think Lyons will eventually get it.

---

It is going to be a struggle. If we win 7 or 8 this year and 8 or 9 next year the people feeling vindicated saying "Wilcox has turned the corner" will be fierce.

bearsandgiants said:

---

If we finish with 8 or 9 wins and are competitive in the bowl game, 2025 should be the make or break year. We need to either make the acc championship game or finish no worse than 4th next year given our schedule. Do those things and you get a two year extension to win a championship and recruit. Do any worse in 2026 or 2027 and see ya later. Get a better offer elsewhere, best of luck! But if we win 7 or fewer this year, he needs to be canned at the end of the season.

And this is also contingent on hiring a full time special teams coach and o line coach.

---

$15 million buyout at the end of this season, not going to happen.

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Fox' conference win percentage at Cal was 21%, Wilcox is not nearly that bad.

What is Wilcox' buyout this year, the next and in 26?

At this point, we're better off putting a fraction of what we would pay for his buyout into the NIL budget.

---

It is $5 million per year remaining. The buyout is $15 million after this year, $10 million after 2025. At which point there will be pressure to extend him "for recruiting." All this as we hit the financial cliff of reduced media earnings because we had to buy our way into the ACC. If Knowlton is still AD and we "go to a bowl for the third year in a row" I could see us extend him instead of fire him.

I think our best slim hope is Ron Rivera is willing to come in as HC with his compensation deferred until we are through Wilcox's contract and we are earning a higher percentage of our ACC share.

---

Thanks for the info Calumnus. With this buyout, Wilcox to go through this season and the following one is a fait accompli. Two years is also plenty of time for Lyons to settle in and donors to get their message through to him.

Donors should focus on pressuring Lyons and Knowlton not to extend him, barring a breakthrough season, and even then, they can extend him without a high buyout. Wilcox has zero leverage over the AD at this point.

Realistically speaking, given the current constraints, and barring a billionaire Cal fan coming through, we'd be much better off throwing a couple more millions into the NIL to recruit better linemen.

---

Here is the problem: our remaining schedule this year is soft enough for us to finish 7-5 or even 8-4 with a bowl and next year looks even easier. 8 or 9 wins, the Wilcox defenders will be declaring victory. Those of us who know we squandered a HUGE opportunity by sticking with Wilcox will be called "delusional."

---

Well, he's going to be here through 25 at the very least, at this point we can only insist on not extending him, or at the very least, for any extension to come without a buyout clause. I think Lyons will eventually get it.

---

It is going to be a struggle. If we win 7 or 8 this year and 8 or 9 next year the people feeling vindicated saying "Wilcox has turned the corner" will be fierce.

---

Rightfully so. If we average 8 wins over the next two seasons, that means Wilcox is doing a good job winning at Cal, but he shouldn't be in the clear. Any extension should have a much smaller buyout.

bearsandgiants said:

---

If we finish with 8 or 9 wins and are competitive in the bowl game, 2025 should be the make or break year. We need to either make the acc championship game or finish no worse than 4th next year given our schedule. Do those things and you get a two year extension to win a championship and recruit. Do any worse in 2026 or 2027 and see ya later. Get a better offer elsewhere, best of luck! But if we win 7 or fewer this year, he needs to be canned at the end of the season.

And this is also contingent on hiring a full time special teams coach and o line coach.

---

Every year has been a make or break year. But every season that he fails, his fans find excuses and move the goalposts to the following season

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Fox' conference win percentage at Cal was 21%, Wilcox is not nearly that bad.

What is Wilcox' buyout this year, the next and in 26?

At this point, we're better off putting a fraction of what we would pay for his buyout into the NIL budget.

---

It is $5 million per year remaining. The buyout is $15 million after this year, $10 million after 2025. At which point there will be pressure to extend him "for recruiting." All this as we hit the financial cliff of reduced media earnings because we had to buy our way into the ACC. If Knowlton is still AD and we "go to a bowl for the third year in a row" I could see us extend him instead of fire him.

I think our best slim hope is Ron Rivera is willing to come in as HC with his compensation deferred until we are through Wilcox's contract and we are earning a higher percentage of our ACC share.

---

Thanks for the info Calumnus. With this buyout, Wilcox to go through this season and the following one is a fait accompli. Two years is also plenty of time for Lyons to settle in and donors to get their message through to him.

Donors should focus on pressuring Lyons and Knowlton not to extend him, barring a breakthrough season, and even then, they can extend him without a high buyout. Wilcox has zero leverage over the AD at this point.

Realistically speaking, given the current constraints, and barring a billionaire Cal fan coming through, we'd be much better off throwing a couple more millions into the NIL to recruit better linemen.

---

Here is the problem: our remaining schedule this year is soft enough for us to finish 7-5 or even 8-4 with a bowl and next year looks even easier. 8 or 9 wins, the Wilcox defenders will be declaring victory. Those of us who know we squandered a HUGE opportunity by sticking with Wilcox will be called "delusional."

---

Well, he's going to be here through 25 at the very least, at this point we can only insist on not extending him, or at the very least, for any extension to come without a buyout clause. I think Lyons will eventually get it.

---

It is going to be a struggle. If we win 7 or 8 this year and 8 or 9 next year the people feeling vindicated saying "Wilcox has turned the corner" will be fierce.

---

Rightfully so. If we average 8 wins over the next two seasons, that means Wilcox is doing a good job winning at Cal, but he shouldn't be in the clear. Any extension should have a much smaller buyout.

---

Exhibit A

The metrics we used in the past do not apply to the 2024 and 2025 schedules in the ACC with 4 OOC games. Sagarin shows us as a worse team than last year but better than 9 of our opponents.

Pitt is not a very good team. I would not trade our players for theirs, but they are 6-0 (3-0) and we are 3-3 (0-3). The difference is coaching.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

If "ifs and buts", were candy and nuts, …

---

In my experience ifs ands and buts are not easily digested when included in excuses.

"I would have cleaned my room but I thought you and mom would be happier if I trained myself to be a better video game player instead"
"You didn't pay me my allowance on Friday and that is why I didn't take out the trash last Wednesday."
"If a coach with 8 years of abysmal losing doesn't lose to a 2-4 team then we should forgive him for going 5-7 again and extend him to infinity"

Here's a cool story.
If I ever make it to old blue status and young blues complain about the aura and direction of the program due to a crappy coach I will listen to them and empathize with them and do everything in my power to change the problem.
I think there's way too many powerful dudes sitting in the stadium club with malignant apathy among other ailments protecting this mess because they are scared of change and think colonel travers would've been content to watch this..reality check. He wouldn't.
It's time to take strides.
Don't be scurd!
Change is good.
It is invigorating and necessary.
C'est naturel

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Fox' conference win percentage at Cal was 21%, Wilcox is not nearly that bad.

What is Wilcox' buyout this year, the next and in 26?

At this point, we're better off putting a fraction of what we would pay for his buyout into the NIL budget.

---

It is $5 million per year remaining. The buyout is $15 million after this year, $10 million after 2025. At which point there will be pressure to extend him "for recruiting." All this as we hit the financial cliff of reduced media earnings because we had to buy our way into the ACC. If Knowlton is still AD and we "go to a bowl for the third year in a row" I could see us extend him instead of fire him.

I think our best slim hope is Ron Rivera is willing to come in as HC with his compensation deferred until we are through Wilcox's contract and we are earning a higher percentage of our ACC share.

---

Thanks for the info Calumnus. With this buyout, Wilcox to go through this season and the following one is a fait accompli. Two years is also plenty of time for Lyons to settle in and donors to get their message through to him.

Donors should focus on pressuring Lyons and Knowlton not to extend him, barring a breakthrough season, and even then, they can extend him without a high buyout. Wilcox has zero leverage over the AD at this point.

Realistically speaking, given the current constraints, and barring a billionaire Cal fan coming through, we'd be much better off throwing a couple more millions into the NIL to recruit better linemen.

---

Here is the problem: our remaining schedule this year is soft enough for us to finish 7-5 or even 8-4 with a bowl and next year looks even easier. 8 or 9 wins, the Wilcox defenders will be declaring victory. Those of us who know we squandered a HUGE opportunity by sticking with Wilcox will be called "delusional."

---

Well, he's going to be here through 25 at the very least, at this point we can only insist on not extending him, or at the very least, for any extension to come without a buyout clause. I think Lyons will eventually get it.

---

It is going to be a struggle. If we win 7 or 8 this year and 8 or 9 next year the people feeling vindicated saying "Wilcox has turned the corner" will be fierce.

---

Rightfully so. If we average 8 wins over the next two seasons, that means Wilcox is doing a good job winning at Cal, but he shouldn't be in the clear. Any extension should have a much smaller buyout.

---

Exhibit A

The metrics we used in the past do not apply to the 2024 and 2025 schedules in the ACC with 4 OOC games. Sagarin shows us as a worse team than last year but better than 9 of our opponents.

Pitt is not a very good team. I would not trade our players for theirs, but they are 6-0 (3-0) and we are 3-3 (0-3). The difference is coaching.

---

Again, IF we average 8 wins over the next two seasons, that means Wilcox is doing a good job winning at Cal. It would a sign he is turning the corner. The buyout should be small though.

---

If we drop down to FCS he could win even more games. That does not make him a good coach. We are currently in last place in the ACC. We may get to .500 in conference which would give you your 8 wins. That does not make him a good coach.

He is being proped up to mediocre by NIL with two top 20 portal classes in a row. Look at Pitt, they are not better than us, their QB is terrible, their defense worse, their RB smaller than The Jet who our coaches said was too small last year to be an "every down back" and wasn't even mentioned in our depth to start the season. However, Pitt is 6-0 and ranked. With good coaching that is us.

6956bear said:

---

CNHTH said:

---

E

---

The premise is good but a couple of things to consider. Much of the buyout will be paid by donors. Ticket sales will go to the department. And unless you hire a home run the attendance increase will likley be much more gradual.

---

I don't have the sort of memory that is good with precise numbers. But I think I recall Tedford's first game (vs Baylor) had more in attendance than our average home game today under Wilcox (GameDay excluded).

At least that is what my memory is telling me. I recall there was still open space vs Baylor in 2002. But there weren't the tarps and the stadium was bigger.

So I think we have declined since the very first game after Holmoe.

If I am right about that, we should expect a bump from where we are now for our first game under the new coach.

We sold out at least a game or two in Tedford's second year (USC in 2003 was a madhouse).

So the change doesn't need to be gradual. Look at what happened at GameDay. Fans come out to a hot Cal team.

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

F

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

If we drop down to FCS he could win even more games.

---

Do you really think he would win more games in the FCS?

He would be playing with FCS players and FCS NIL tools. All of our current players would transfer. So we would be starting with a roster of 98%+ new players.

Some of those FCS coaches are really good. They know how to do more with less.

From what I can tell, Wilcox can only do less with more.

Plus, Wilcox has never played, coached, or recruited at the FCS level. Can't imagine he would take that division by storm.

Oski vs Everyone said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

F

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

If we drop down to FCS he could win even more games.

---

Do you really think he would win more games in the FCS?

He would be playing with FCS players and FCS NIL tools. All of our current players would transfer. So we would be starting with a roster of 98%+ new players.

Some of those FCS coaches are really good. They know how to do more with less.

From what I can tell, Wilcox can only do less with more.

Plus, Wilcox has never played, coached, or recruited at the FCS level. Can't imagine he would take that division by storm.

---

No, I'm saying Wilcox with this team and an even easier FCS schedule wins more games. He would fail as an FCS coach.

We have an easier schedule this year and next than any Cal schedule in 100 years. Wilcox is using it to get to 7 or 8 wins. An average coach and we'd be 6-0 on our way to double digit wins. Look at 6-0 (3-0) Pitt. Their players are not better than ours, their coaches are, and they are not great, just average. Ours literally cost us games.

Oski vs Everyone said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Oski vs Everyone said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

F

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

If we drop down to FCS he could win even more games.

---

Do you really think he would win more games in the FCS?

He would be playing with FCS players and FCS NIL tools. All of our current players would transfer. So we would be starting with a roster of 98%+ new players.

Some of those FCS coaches are really good. They know how to do more with less.

From what I can tell, Wilcox can only do less with more.

Plus, Wilcox has never played, coached, or recruited at the FCS level. Can't imagine he would take that division by storm.

---

No, I'm saying Wilcox with this team and an even easier FCS schedule wins more games. He would fail as an FCS coach.

We have an easier schedule this year and next than any Cal schedule in 100 years. Wilcox is using it to get to 7 or 8 wins. An average coach and we'd be 6-0 on our way to double digit wins. Look at 6-0 (3-0) Pitt. Their players are not better than ours, their coaches are, and they are not great, just average. Ours literally cost us games.

---

Got it. We are mostly on the same page. Except I don't see him getting 7-8 wins this year.

---

Calling out the players generally and individually when he is making huge coaching mistakes is a recipe for losing even the most winnable games, but he has shown he is capable of that in the past. It will take a lot from our players to overcome this coaching.

Don't we lose all of our defense next year? I wouldn't be so sure that we will do better considering we are very much a defensive team and the D takes time to gel.

caltripper said:

---

Don't we lose all of our defense next year? I wouldn't be so sure that we will do better considering we are very much a defensive team and the D takes time to gel.

---

Our defense sucked last year, we plugged in a bunch of holes in the portal, and voila they are back to form, at least that impression will carry us through another portal class should we need it.

calumnus said:

---

Based on this year, our toughest games next year are SMU in Memorial and Louisville and Virginia Tech on the road.

https://fbschedules.com/2025-california-football-schedule/

---

If Cal finishes 6-6 or worse, Wilcox should be fired regardless of the buyout (hopefully something lower can be negotiated). If we win 7, he likely sticks and he definitely sticks at 8 or 9 wins. Our remaining schedule has all 6 games as very winnable and we are likely favored in 5 of them at minimum. SMU looks tricky but it still falls in the winnable category. That doesn't mean we'll win 5 or all 6 of the remaining games, obvs. We are 2-0 when favored in Vegas, 1-3 when an underdog this season.

Our schedule next year is the weakest in at least 25 years and likely 50 years+. All 12 games are winnable without a single "ehhhhh" on the schedule. 2025 is a MASSIVE opportunity to keep Cal relevant. There will be challenges...i.e. most of the starting defense will have graduated, we'll have to re-work the Oline again, Ott will be gone but the rest of the offensive skill players should/hopefully remain.

The big question is whether Wilcox will be here to see if that opportunity can be taken up. All depends on the remainder of this year's schedule. If we win 5+, hopefully some donor momentum reappears cause we'll need a lot more than the $2.5M raised by Cal Legends recently. That new D and some OL wont be cheap. But the chance remains. If we crater, Wilcox MUST BE fired, as our window to stay with the big boys probably evaporates after '25. If we miss out on the next round of re-alignment, the AD as a whole has to hope that donors step up to endow the non-rev sports like they have in a few spots (Golf, Water polo, etc.) otherwise a bunch will disappear and football is playing in the Mountain West, at best.

Just my random thoughts

Fire Starkey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Based on this year, our toughest games next year are SMU in Memorial and Louisville and Virginia Tech on the road.

https://fbschedules.com/2025-california-football-schedule/

---

If Cal finishes 6-6 or worse, Wilcox should be fired regardless of the buyout (hopefully something lower can be negotiated). If we win 7, he likely sticks and he definitely sticks at 8 or 9 wins. Our remaining schedule has all 6 games as very winnable and we are likely favored in 5 of them at minimum. SMU looks tricky but it still falls in the winnable category. That doesn't mean we'll win 5 or all 6 of the remaining games, obvs. We are 2-0 when favored in Vegas, 1-3 when an underdog this season.

Our schedule next year is the weakest in at least 25 years and likely 50 years+. All 12 games are winnable without a single "ehhhhh" on the schedule. 2025 is a MASSIVE opportunity to keep Cal relevant. There will be challenges...i.e. most of the starting defense will have graduated, we'll have to re-work the Oline again, Ott will be gone but the rest of the offensive skill players should/hopefully remain.

The big question is whether Wilcox will be here to see if that opportunity can be taken up. All depends on the remainder of this year's schedule. If we win 5+, hopefully some donor momentum reappears cause we'll need a lot more than the $2.5M raised by Cal Legends recently. That new D and some OL wont be cheap. But the chance remains. If we crater, Wilcox MUST BE fired, as our window to stay with the big boys probably evaporates after '25. If we miss out on the next round of re-alignment, the AD as a whole has to hope that donors step up to endow the non-rev sports like they have in a few spots (Golf, Water polo, etc.) otherwise a bunch will disappear and football is playing in the Mountain West, at best.

Just my random thoughts

---

It is a huge opportunity to bring in a new coach, Ron Rivera at least, and have him make a huge splash coming out of the gate.

If we are that close to firing him, we should do it mid-season if, and only if, Rivera is open and waiting now. This way, Rivera can try and retain what looks like a very talented group (save the o-line). Otherwise, we are starting all over again and no way does this program have 2-3 years to rebuild itself ... Ain't gonna happen.

Econ141 said:

---

If we are that close to firing him, we should do it mid-season if, and only if, Rivera is open and waiting now. This way, Rivera can try and retain what looks like a very talented group (save the o-line). Otherwise, we are starting all over again and no way does this program have 2-3 years to rebuild itself ... Ain't gonna happen.

---

I agree, that is what we SHOULD do: fire Knowlton and Wilcox now.

I'm not holding my breath.