It's been widely stated here that it'd cost $5M/year for 3 more years to fire Wilcox. That's not really accurate. That's what he's guaranteed but that's a sunk cost. We owe him that if he's losing us games or if we move on.

The real cost can be materially lower. The real cost is whatever we have to pay in addition to what we're already on the hook for minus whatever we will no longer need to pay.

What we will not need to pay:

• Wilcox presumably has some kind of offset in his contract where he "has to" look for other jobs and we don't owe him the money he makes from another job. He'd probably get a DC job somewhere. So that's $500K/year.
• Whatever idiocy we're about to do with Harsin. Why are we letting Wilcox burn more of our money? Why does he get to give two of his buddies OC titles and pay and then bring in a 3rd coordinator presumably with coordinator pay? We should only be paying for 2 coordinators. Call this another $500K/year (real amount tbd depending on whatever we actually pay Harsin and for how many years we lock ourselves into Wilcox' buddies).
• Whatever contract extensions he's handing out to his buddies that we'll have to pay if we wake up and clean house.

What we will need to pay:

• Main thing is a new HC. This is a hugely variable thing. We're not going to get an established power conference head coach to come here from somewhere they're currently winning. So our options would be an assistant from a power conference school or a HC from a lower level school. A splashy hire would be more expensive - e.g. Deion was $5.7M. An unsplashy hire would be cheaper - e.g. Georgia Tech's coach started at $3M/year a couple years ago (he's more expensive now with an extension that he got for actually winning games). SMU's coach makes $2.4M which is half of what Wilcox makes.
• Changing out assistants. I don't know how many of our guys have multi year guaranteed deals. Assuming most of them don't this is basically a wash.

So we don't need $15M to get rid of Wilcox. We don't need $5M/year. We need like $2M/year assuming we're willing to take a swing on a non-splashy hire.

If our leadership actually believes in winning football, if our leadership actually believes in keeping Cal a major conference athletic program, then they'll find the $2M. If we keep riding with Knowlton and Wilcox then we have only ourselves to blame when we get relegated.

boredom said:

---

So we don't need $15M to get rid of Wilcox. We don't need $5M/year. We need like $2M/year assuming we're willing to take a swing on a non-splashy hire.

If our leadership actually believes in winning football, if our leadership actually believes in keeping Cal a major conference athletic program, then they'll find the $2M. If we keep riding with Knowlton and Wilcox then we have only ourselves to blame when we get relegated.

---

Cal should keep its own strategic bitcoin reserve for coaching staff and NIL payments. A $100k BTC now could be worth $1 million or more in the next cycle. As the school's first chief innovation and entrepreneurship officer, I'm sure Rich Lyons is very familiar with bitcoin and crypto.

If it's actually that inexpensive, boredom, then I'm sure you and a few friends can pledge to cover all costs associated with this change. No problem. Right?

For everyone who doesn't like Justin Wilcox and want him to be gone. I feel I need to give you a dose of reality. This is Cal. What does that mean?

What being Cal means is no matter what anyone says the school, aka the administration, does not give a flying fig about the athletic department. Remember they tried to kill the baseball program a few years ago. This school would have to climb through 150 feet of crap to reach the level of apathetic.

You also need to undertand that the minute a football coach at Cal wins 8 or 9 games, that guy is going to be gone. He's going to snatched up by a school and a program who whats to at least try to win football games.

The only way a head coach sticks at Cal is because they win 6 to 7 games a years. It's enough to get to a low level bowl game and forces the school to keep the head coach on. If the same coach drops to 4 to 5 wins or less in a season, they get one year to improve and if they don't Cal fires that guy, and hires whoever is currently the head coach a San Jose State. By the way if Cal did hire Coach Ken Niumatalolo it would be a heck of an upgrade.

And before anyone opens their mouth Jeff Tedford was the exception to the rule.

This has nothing to do with liking or hating fill in the blank. These are just the facts of life at Cal.

boredom said:

---

If our leadership actually believes in winning football, if our leadership actually believes in keeping Cal a major conference athletic program, then they'll find the $2M. If we keep riding with Knowlton and Wilcox then we have only ourselves to blame when we get relegated.

---

That is precisely the problem. There is absolutely zero evidence that our leadership cares.

SWarren958 said:

---

For everyone who doesn't like Justin Wilcox and want him to be gone. I feel I need to give you a dose of reality. This is Cal. What does that mean?

What being Cal means is no matter what anyone says the school, aka the administration, does not give a flying fig about the athletic department. Remember they tried to kill the baseball program a few years ago. This school would have to climb through 150 feet of crap to reach the level of apathetic.

You also need to undertand that the minute a football coach at Cal wins 8 or 9 games, that guy is going to be gone. He's going to snatched up by a school and a program who whats to at least try to win football games.

The only way a head coach sticks at Cal is because they win 6 to 7 games a years. It's enough to get to a low level bowl game and forces the school to keep the head coach on. If the same coach drops to 4 to 5 wins or less in a season, they get one year to improve and if they don't Cal fires that guy, and hires whoever is currently the head coach a San Jose State. By the way if Cal did hire Coach Ken Niumatalolo it would be a heck of an upgrade.

And before anyone opens their mouth Jeff Tedford was the exception to the rule.

This has nothing to do with liking or hating fill in the blank. These are just the facts of life at Cal.

---

How many coaches at Cal left for greener pastures? Two as far as I know. In the history of Cal football. Marriucci for the 49ers and Snyder when the AD went back in the promised raise.

It doesn't cost anything to fire the AD.

Let's do that first.

Wilcox = sunk cost principle

dimitrig said:

---

It doesn't cost anything to fire the AD.

Let's do that first.

---

Chancellor Christ screwed us on that one by giving him a long term contract.

BearSD said:

---

If it's actually that inexpensive, boredom, then I'm sure you and a few friends can pledge to cover all costs associated with this change. No problem. Right?

---

If someone doesn't have millions of spare dollars then they can't point out things? Only some fraction of a percent of fans are allowed to have an opinion on this?

What about play calling? Only those who could step in and be a coordinator can point out that repeatedly running Ott up the middle was dumb?

How about execution? Only those who know how to coach up a high level field goal kicker can comment on our inability to have a reliable kicker?


SMU finished undefeated in our conference this year. We likely just handed an extra assistant coach a third of what SMU's head coach makes. The smarter move, in my not filthy rich opinion, is to take that money and invest it in a Wilcox replacement.

Thats what I thought. Everybody is handwringing on how to pay off Wilcox but the real issue is the AD. He has a longer contract and you can't just fire him without cause (losing don't count). If the rumor is true that our AD still lives in Colorado (working from home today!) then I think Christ really hosed us. I certainly don't trust him to make the next football hire. Jury is out on Madsen and Fox was the worst.

SWarren958 said:

---

For everyone who doesn't like Justin Wilcox and want him to be gone. I feel I need to give you a dose of reality. This is Cal. What does that mean?

What being Cal means is no matter what anyone says the school, aka the administration, does not give a flying fig about the athletic department. Remember they tried to kill the baseball program a few years ago. This school would have to climb through 150 feet of crap to reach the level of apathetic.

You also need to undertand that the minute a football coach at Cal wins 8 or 9 games, that guy is going to be gone. He's going to snatched up by a school and a program who whats to at least try to win football games.

The only way a head coach sticks at Cal is because they win 6 to 7 games a years. It's enough to get to a low level bowl game and forces the school to keep the head coach on. If the same coach drops to 4 to 5 wins or less in a season, they get one year to improve and if they don't Cal fires that guy, and hires whoever is currently the head coach a San Jose State. By the way if Cal did hire Coach Ken Niumatalolo it would be a heck of an upgrade.

And before anyone opens their mouth Jeff Tedford was the exception to the rule.

This has nothing to do with liking or hating fill in the blank. These are just the facts of life at Cal.

---

Exactly! Fire Wilcox? Are you nuts? We made a Bowl Game - second time in a row by the way! And we beat Stanfurd! That's way more important. And he seems like a good guy. No bad publicity, players are graduating. Besides, we're not Alabama. We actually care about the students - they have to go to class for goodness sakes! This has never been about the wins. Fire Wilcox? You people are crazy!

Signed, Cal Administration

HKBear97! said:

---

SWarren958 said:

---

For everyone who doesn't like Justin Wilcox and want him to be gone. I feel I need to give you a dose of reality. This is Cal. What does that mean?

What being Cal means is no matter what anyone says the school, aka the administration, does not give a flying fig about the athletic department. Remember they tried to kill the baseball program a few years ago. This school would have to climb through 150 feet of crap to reach the level of apathetic.

You also need to undertand that the minute a football coach at Cal wins 8 or 9 games, that guy is going to be gone. He's going to snatched up by a school and a program who whats to at least try to win football games.

The only way a head coach sticks at Cal is because they win 6 to 7 games a years. It's enough to get to a low level bowl game and forces the school to keep the head coach on. If the same coach drops to 4 to 5 wins or less in a season, they get one year to improve and if they don't Cal fires that guy, and hires whoever is currently the head coach a San Jose State. By the way if Cal did hire Coach Ken Niumatalolo it would be a heck of an upgrade.

And before anyone opens their mouth Jeff Tedford was the exception to the rule.

This has nothing to do with liking or hating fill in the blank. These are just the facts of life at Cal.

---

Exactly! Fire Wilcox? Are you nuts? We made a Bowl Game - second time in a row by the way! And we beat Stanfurd! That's way more important. And he seems like a good guy. No bad publicity, players are graduating. Besides, we're not Alabama. We actually care about the students - they have to go to class for goodness sakes! This has never been about the wins. Fire Wilcox? You people are crazy!

Signed, Cal Administration

---

We are not Alabama and should not try to be Alabama. But we could and should be more like Michigan or Southern Branch. (Both are having off-years but the former won the national championship last year and the latter has had good years recently.) If we don't want to compete, then don't compete. Either join the MWC or drop football altogether. When donations begin to drop, and they will plummet, I wonder if our administration (which historically has more academic than practical intelligence) will be able to figure out why).

southseasbear said:

---

We are not Alabama and should not try to be Alabama. But we could and should be more like Michigan or Southern Branch.

---

We are like UCLA in football. Chip Kelly was hoping to get fired and collect his buyout. Chip was using the Sonny Dykes tactic of publicly interviewing at every place that would give him an interview, in the hope that would get him canned by UCLA. And UCLA still didn't want to pay the buyout, so they waited and waited and waited until Chip left on his own, even though that left the team in the lurch and needing to make a rushed coaching hire long after every other vacancy had been filled. (Maybe add that UCLA also has a porous offensive line that leads to an ineffective ground game and forces the QB to rush his throws.)

BearSD said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

We are not Alabama and should not try to be Alabama. But we could and should be more like Michigan or Southern Branch.

---

We are like UCLA in football. Chip Kelly was hoping to get fired and collect his buyout. Chip was using the Sonny Dykes tactic of publicly interviewing at every place that would give him an interview, in the hope that would get him canned by UCLA. And UCLA still didn't want to pay the buyout, so they waited and waited and waited until Chip left on his own, even though that left the team in the lurch and needing to make a rushed coaching hire long after every other vacancy had been filled. (Maybe add that UCLA also has a porous offensive line that leads to an ineffective ground game and forces the QB to rush his throws.)

---

UCLA hasn't had a good football team in a long time.

dimitrig said:

---

BearSD said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

We are not Alabama and should not try to be Alabama. But we could and should be more like Michigan or Southern Branch.

---

We are like UCLA in football. Chip Kelly was hoping to get fired and collect his buyout. Chip was using the Sonny Dykes tactic of publicly interviewing at every place that would give him an interview, in the hope that would get him canned by UCLA. And UCLA still didn't want to pay the buyout, so they waited and waited and waited until Chip left on his own, even though that left the team in the lurch and needing to make a rushed coaching hire long after every other vacancy had been filled. (Maybe add that UCLA also has a porous offensive line that leads to an ineffective ground game and forces the QB to rush his throws.)

---

UCLA hasn't had a good football team in a long time.

---

8 win seasons at Cal, last 15 years: 2019, 2015, 2009

8 win seasons at UCLA, last 15 years: 2023, 2022, 2021, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012

BearSD said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

BearSD said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

We are not Alabama and should not try to be Alabama. But we could and should be more like Michigan or Southern Branch.

---

We are like UCLA in football. Chip Kelly was hoping to get fired and collect his buyout. Chip was using the Sonny Dykes tactic of publicly interviewing at every place that would give him an interview, in the hope that would get him canned by UCLA. And UCLA still didn't want to pay the buyout, so they waited and waited and waited until Chip left on his own, even though that left the team in the lurch and needing to make a rushed coaching hire long after every other vacancy had been filled. (Maybe add that UCLA also has a porous offensive line that leads to an ineffective ground game and forces the QB to rush his throws.)

---

UCLA hasn't had a good football team in a long time.

---

8 win seasons at Cal, last 15 years: 2019, 2015, 2009

8 win seasons at UCLA, last 15 years: 2023, 2022, 2021, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012

---

Cal is not really a great team to compare against. We know we suck.

In the last 10 years UCLA has only had a winning conference record twice and they haven't played in a New Year's Day bowl game since 1999.

Not exactly what we should be aspiring to.

But UCLA is getting approx. $70 million a year for being in the Big Ten, so there's that.

dimitrig said:

---

BearSD said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

BearSD said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

We are not Alabama and should not try to be Alabama. But we could and should be more like Michigan or Southern Branch.

---

We are like UCLA in football. Chip Kelly was hoping to get fired and collect his buyout. Chip was using the Sonny Dykes tactic of publicly interviewing at every place that would give him an interview, in the hope that would get him canned by UCLA. And UCLA still didn't want to pay the buyout, so they waited and waited and waited until Chip left on his own, even though that left the team in the lurch and needing to make a rushed coaching hire long after every other vacancy had been filled. (Maybe add that UCLA also has a porous offensive line that leads to an ineffective ground game and forces the QB to rush his throws.)

---

UCLA hasn't had a good football team in a long time.

---

8 win seasons at Cal, last 15 years: 2019, 2015, 2009

8 win seasons at UCLA, last 15 years: 2023, 2022, 2021, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012

---

Cal is not really a great team to compare against. We know we suck.

In the last 10 years UCLA has only had a winning conference record twice and they haven't played in a New Year's Day bowl game since 1999.

Not exactly what we should be aspiring to.

---

That is a step up compared to us.

PaulCali said:

---

But UCLA is getting approx. $70 million a year for being in the Big Ten, so there's that.

---

This is the point: They got the invite, and we didn't. Instead, we are barely hanging on in the ACC.

dimitrig said:

---

BearSD said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

BearSD said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

We are not Alabama and should not try to be Alabama. But we could and should be more like Michigan or Southern Branch.

---

We are like UCLA in football. Chip Kelly was hoping to get fired and collect his buyout. Chip was using the Sonny Dykes tactic of publicly interviewing at every place that would give him an interview, in the hope that would get him canned by UCLA. And UCLA still didn't want to pay the buyout, so they waited and waited and waited until Chip left on his own, even though that left the team in the lurch and needing to make a rushed coaching hire long after every other vacancy had been filled. (Maybe add that UCLA also has a porous offensive line that leads to an ineffective ground game and forces the QB to rush his throws.)

---

UCLA hasn't had a good football team in a long time.

---

8 win seasons at Cal, last 15 years: 2019, 2015, 2009

8 win seasons at UCLA, last 15 years: 2023, 2022, 2021, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012

---

Cal is not really a great team to compare against. We know we suck.

In the last 10 years UCLA has only had a winning conference record twice and they haven't played in a New Year's Day bowl game since 1999.

Not exactly what we should be aspiring to.

---

I responded to a comment that said Cal football should be more like UCLA, and I said it already is.. the only things they have that Cal doesn't are Big Ten status and TV revenue.

BearSD said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

BearSD said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

BearSD said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

We are not Alabama and should not try to be Alabama. But we could and should be more like Michigan or Southern Branch.

---

We are like UCLA in football. Chip Kelly was hoping to get fired and collect his buyout. Chip was using the Sonny Dykes tactic of publicly interviewing at every place that would give him an interview, in the hope that would get him canned by UCLA. And UCLA still didn't want to pay the buyout, so they waited and waited and waited until Chip left on his own, even though that left the team in the lurch and needing to make a rushed coaching hire long after every other vacancy had been filled. (Maybe add that UCLA also has a porous offensive line that leads to an ineffective ground game and forces the QB to rush his throws.)

---

UCLA hasn't had a good football team in a long time.

---

8 win seasons at Cal, last 15 years: 2019, 2015, 2009

8 win seasons at UCLA, last 15 years: 2023, 2022, 2021, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012

---

Cal is not really a great team to compare against. We know we suck.

In the last 10 years UCLA has only had a winning conference record twice and they haven't played in a New Year's Day bowl game since 1999.

Not exactly what we should be aspiring to.

---

I responded to a comment that said Cal football should be more like UCLA, and I said it already is.. the only things they have that Cal doesn't are Big Ten status and TV revenue.

---

And 7 10-win seasons over the last 15 years compared to our 3.

SWarren958 said:

---

For everyone who doesn't like Justin Wilcox and want him to be gone. I feel I need to give you a dose of reality. This is Cal. What does that mean?

What being Cal means is no matter what anyone says the school, aka the administration, does not give a flying fig about the athletic department. Remember they tried to kill the baseball program a few years ago. This school would have to climb through 150 feet of crap to reach the level of apathetic.

You also need to undertand that the minute a football coach at Cal wins 8 or 9 games, that guy is going to be gone. He's going to snatched up by a school and a program who whats to at least try to win football games.

The only way a head coach sticks at Cal is because they win 6 to 7 games a years. It's enough to get to a low level bowl game and forces the school to keep the head coach on. If the same coach drops to 4 to 5 wins or less in a season, they get one year to improve and if they don't Cal fires that guy, and hires whoever is currently the head coach a San Jose State. By the way if Cal did hire Coach Ken Niumatalolo it would be a heck of an upgrade.

And before anyone opens their mouth Jeff Tedford was the exception to the rule.

This has nothing to do with liking or hating fill in the blank. These are just the facts of life at Cal.

---

If you look at Cal Football HCs in our lifetime ("Our" being a relative term, I'm using "Who was coach when my parents were at Cal?" as a guide here) JW is just about smack in the middle from a winning percentage standpoint.


Tom Holmoe (12-39-0: .235)
Marv Levy ( 8-29-3 : .238)
Pete Elliott (10-21-0: .323)
Joe Kapp ( 20-34-1:.373)
Roger Theder (17-28-0: .378)
Sonny Dykes (19-30-0: 0.388)
Keith Gilbertson (20-26-0: .435)
Justin Wilcox (36-43-0: .456)
Ray Willsey (40-42-1: .488)
Steve Mariucci (6-6-0: .500)
Mike White (35-30-1: .538)
Bruce Snyder (29-24-4: .544)
Jeff Tedford (82-57-0: .590)
Pappy Waldorf (67-32-4: .670)

Wilcox is in his 8th season as HC. The Golden Bears are headed to the LA Bowl, meaning that he gets us to a minor bowl half the time, and we've won Big Game 5 of 8 times under his tenure.

A lot of people who are alumni and who don't dwell on this board are going to look and say "that's good enough." The Axe is about to spend its 4th straight year in the student union and we watch a December game.

Good enough? Yes?

I say "No." I say "No" because "Cal's," or "UC's," or "Berkeley's" (whatever you choose to call us) brand, as an institution, is excellence.

Should academics come first? Absolutely! Should it then follow that athletics must suffer as a result? No - it does not. Does it mean that we should only strive to succeed at Olympic sports, and leave the revenue sports to other schools? Again, No!

...and clearly, after having spent 3/4 of a billion dollars to rebuild CMS (while still not putting proper restrooms on the east side), building the athletic training facilities (despite tree tree sitters), and having had the Haas family invest whatever it cost in the 90s to make Harmon Gym into Haas Pavillion, someone else besides me believes that Cal should compete in revenue sports as well.

You say Tedford was the exception to the rule. But Bruce Snyder did well. Marv Levy and Sonny Dykes were disasters at Cal but went on to greater glory elsewhere. Mooch showed so much promise that he jumped to pro ball.

Apropos of nothing, North Carolina is considered an academic peer of Cal's by most objective reasoning, and they've run great basketball for years and just hired a former NFL guy to be their football coach. I've heard he has no college experience, but was in the Browns and Patriots organizations.

Back to the topic at hand. I would not start with letting Wilcox go. I'd start with letting Knowlton go. In a perfect world, I'd bring in an AD to provide vision and fundraising. I also want an AD who will develop women's volleyball at Cal, as I see that sport growing in reach and popularity. In this perfect world, I'd bring in GMs to manage NIL and oversee coaching for football, MBB, and WBB.

My main problem with Wilcox isn't that he's horrible, but that we are spending a helluva lot of money to be under .500 over 7 years and go to 3rd tier bowl games. I'm not saying we should be Alabama, but we shouldn't be where we are for what we've invested and the level of excellence we expect from every other aspect of the University. I want the next coach to have a reasonable but low base, and have much larger incentives for (not necessarily in this order) 1) team grade point and credit completion percentages 2) graduation percentages 3) wins 4) top 25 ranking at season end 5) top 20 ranking at season end 6) making the playoff 7) winning the championship 8) Big Game wins 9) an enthusiasm goal measured in amount of NIL money raised after the 3rd season in the role (amounts on that TBD by the athletic director).

SoFlaBear said:

---

SWarren958 said:

---

For everyone who doesn't like Justin Wilcox and want him to be gone. I feel I need to give you a dose of reality. This is Cal. What does that mean?

What being Cal means is no matter what anyone says the school, aka the administration, does not give a flying fig about the athletic department. Remember they tried to kill the baseball program a few years ago. This school would have to climb through 150 feet of crap to reach the level of apathetic.

You also need to undertand that the minute a football coach at Cal wins 8 or 9 games, that guy is going to be gone. He's going to snatched up by a school and a program who whats to at least try to win football games.

The only way a head coach sticks at Cal is because they win 6 to 7 games a years. It's enough to get to a low level bowl game and forces the school to keep the head coach on. If the same coach drops to 4 to 5 wins or less in a season, they get one year to improve and if they don't Cal fires that guy, and hires whoever is currently the head coach a San Jose State. By the way if Cal did hire Coach Ken Niumatalolo it would be a heck of an upgrade.

And before anyone opens their mouth Jeff Tedford was the exception to the rule.

This has nothing to do with liking or hating fill in the blank. These are just the facts of life at Cal.

---

If you look at Cal Football HCs in our lifetime ("Our" being a relative term, I'm using "Who was coach when my parents were at Cal?" as a guide here) JW is just about smack in the middle from a winning percentage standpoint.


Tom Holmoe (12-39-0: .235)
Marv Levy ( 8-29-3 : .238)
Pete Elliott (10-21-0: .323)
Joe Kapp ( 20-34-1:.373)
Roger Theder (17-28-0: .378)
Sonny Dykes (19-30-0: 0.388)
Keith Gilbertson (20-26-0: .435)
Justin Wilcox (36-43-0: .456)
Ray Willsey (40-42-1: .488)
Steve Mariucci (6-6-0: .500)
Mike White (35-30-1: .538)
Bruce Snyder (29-24-4: .544)
Jeff Tedford (82-57-0: .590)
Pappy Waldorf (67-32-4: .670)

Wilcox is in his 8th season as HC. The Golden Bears are headed to the LA Bowl, meaning that he gets us to a minor bowl half the time, and we've won Big Game 5 of 8 times under his tenure.

A lot of people who are alumni and who don't dwell on this board are going to look and say "that's good enough." The Axe is about to spend its 4th straight year in the student union and we watch a December game.

Good enough? Yes?

I say "No." I say "No" because "Cal's," or "UC's," or "Berkeley's" (whatever you choose to call us) brand, as an institution, is excellence.

Should academics come first? Absolutely! Should it then follow that athletics must suffer as a result? No - it does not. Does it mean that we should only strive to succeed at Olympic sports, and leave the revenue sports to other schools? Again, No!

...and clearly, after having spent 3/4 of a billion dollars to rebuild CMS (while still not putting proper restrooms on the east side), building the athletic training facilities (despite tree tree sitters), and having had the Haas family invest whatever it cost in the 90s to make Harmon Gym into Haas Pavillion, someone else besides me believes that Cal should compete in revenue sports as well.

You say Tedford was the exception to the rule. But Bruce Snyder did well. Marv Levy and Sonny Dykes were disasters at Cal but went on to greater glory elsewhere. Mooch showed so much promise that he jumped to pro ball.

Apropos of nothing, North Carolina is considered an academic peer of Cal's by most objective reasoning, and they've run great basketball for years and just hired a former NFL guy to be their football coach. I've heard he has no college experience, but was in the Browns and Patriots organizations.

Back to the topic at hand. I would not start with letting Wilcox go. I'd start with letting Knowlton go. In a perfect world, I'd bring in an AD to provide vision and fundraising. I also want an AD who will develop women's volleyball at Cal, as I see that sport growing in reach and popularity. In this perfect world, I'd bring in GMs to manage NIL and oversee coaching for football, MBB, and WBB.

My main problem with Wilcox isn't that he's horrible, but that we are spending a helluva lot of money to be under .500 over 7 years and go to 3rd tier bowl games. I'm not saying we should be Alabama, but we shouldn't be where we are for what we've invested and the level of excellence we expect from every other aspect of the University. I want the next coach to have a reasonable but low base, and have much larger incentives for (not necessarily in this order) 1) team grade point and credit completion percentages 2) graduation percentages 3) wins 4) top 25 ranking at season end 5) top 20 ranking at season end 6) making the playoff 7) winning the championship 8) Big Game wins 9) an enthusiasm goal measured in amount of NIL money raised after the 3rd season in the role (amounts on that TBD by the athletic director).

---

Wilcox is worse than mediocre.

Wilcox's winning percentage is inflated by a historically weak strength of schedule.

Conference winning percentage is probably the simplest and best evaluation that we can agree on even though 2-6 versus this ACC schedule is not fair to coaches that faced far tougher PAC-8, 10 and 12 schedules. On that measure he is among our worst coaches ever. He has also been our worst recruiter ever with zero of his HS recruits being drafted into the NFL despite one of the longest tenures ever for a Cal coach. Even Holmoe recruited better.

However, what we agree on is we need good and he isn't.

> I'd start with letting Knowlton go
# go bears

SoFlaBear said:

---

SWarren958 said:

---

For everyone who doesn't like Justin Wilcox and want him to be gone. I feel I need to give you a dose of reality. This is Cal. What does that mean?

What being Cal means is no matter what anyone says the school, aka the administration, does not give a flying fig about the athletic department. Remember they tried to kill the baseball program a few years ago. This school would have to climb through 150 feet of crap to reach the level of apathetic.

You also need to undertand that the minute a football coach at Cal wins 8 or 9 games, that guy is going to be gone. He's going to snatched up by a school and a program who whats to at least try to win football games.

The only way a head coach sticks at Cal is because they win 6 to 7 games a years. It's enough to get to a low level bowl game and forces the school to keep the head coach on. If the same coach drops to 4 to 5 wins or less in a season, they get one year to improve and if they don't Cal fires that guy, and hires whoever is currently the head coach a San Jose State. By the way if Cal did hire Coach Ken Niumatalolo it would be a heck of an upgrade.

And before anyone opens their mouth Jeff Tedford was the exception to the rule.

This has nothing to do with liking or hating fill in the blank. These are just the facts of life at Cal.

---

If you look at Cal Football HCs in our lifetime ("Our" being a relative term, I'm using "Who was coach when my parents were at Cal?" as a guide here) JW is just about smack in the middle from a winning percentage standpoint.


Tom Holmoe (12-39-0: .235)
Marv Levy ( 8-29-3 : .238)
Pete Elliott (10-21-0: .323)
Joe Kapp ( 20-34-1:.373)
Roger Theder (17-28-0: .378)
Sonny Dykes (19-30-0: 0.388)
Keith Gilbertson (20-26-0: .435)
Justin Wilcox (36-43-0: .456)
Ray Willsey (40-42-1: .488)
Steve Mariucci (6-6-0: .500)
Mike White (35-30-1: .538)
Bruce Snyder (29-24-4: .544)
Jeff Tedford (82-57-0: .590)
Pappy Waldorf (67-32-4: .670)

Wilcox is in his 8th season as HC. The Golden Bears are headed to the LA Bowl, meaning that he gets us to a minor bowl half the time, and we've won Big Game 5 of 8 times under his tenure.

A lot of people who are alumni and who don't dwell on this board are going to look and say "that's good enough." The Axe is about to spend its 4th straight year in the student union and we watch a December game.

Good enough? Yes?

I say "No." I say "No" because "Cal's," or "UC's," or "Berkeley's" (whatever you choose to call us) brand, as an institution, is excellence.

Should academics come first? Absolutely! Should it then follow that athletics must suffer as a result? No - it does not. Does it mean that we should only strive to succeed at Olympic sports, and leave the revenue sports to other schools? Again, No!

...and clearly, after having spent 3/4 of a billion dollars to rebuild CMS (while still not putting proper restrooms on the east side), building the athletic training facilities (despite tree tree sitters), and having had the Haas family invest whatever it cost in the 90s to make Harmon Gym into Haas Pavillion, someone else besides me believes that Cal should compete in revenue sports as well.

You say Tedford was the exception to the rule. But Bruce Snyder did well. Marv Levy and Sonny Dykes were disasters at Cal but went on to greater glory elsewhere. Mooch showed so much promise that he jumped to pro ball.

Apropos of nothing, North Carolina is considered an academic peer of Cal's by most objective reasoning, and they've run great basketball for years and just hired a former NFL guy to be their football coach. I've heard he has no college experience, but was in the Browns and Patriots organizations.

Back to the topic at hand. I would not start with letting Wilcox go. I'd start with letting Knowlton go. In a perfect world, I'd bring in an AD to provide vision and fundraising. I also want an AD who will develop women's volleyball at Cal, as I see that sport growing in reach and popularity. In this perfect world, I'd bring in GMs to manage NIL and oversee coaching for football, MBB, and WBB.

My main problem with Wilcox isn't that he's horrible, but that we are spending a helluva lot of money to be under .500 over 7 years and go to 3rd tier bowl games. I'm not saying we should be Alabama, but we shouldn't be where we are for what we've invested and the level of excellence we expect from every other aspect of the University. I want the next coach to have a reasonable but low base, and have much larger incentives for (not necessarily in this order) 1) team grade point and credit completion percentages 2) graduation percentages 3) wins 4) top 25 ranking at season end 5) top 20 ranking at season end 6) making the playoff 7) winning the championship 8) Big Game wins 9) an enthusiasm goal measured in amount of NIL money raised after the 3rd season in the role (amounts on that TBD by the athletic director).

---

The reality is that what used to be considered good enough isn't anymore. The conference that gave us big payouts just for participating is gone and we are hanging by a thread in the ACC at a fraction of the previous level of revenue.

If we want to continue to fund collegiate sports at the level we are used to we are going to have to make sure the football program is not on the outside looking in when the next realignment comes.

Not only is Wilcox not the guy to boost our program, but what hurts us more is that other schools don't see Cal as committed to college football. We need to make some changes to show we have a stronger commitment to competing now than we did in the recent past or we will be left behind.

Maybe that's fine. Maybe it's what the university, students, and alumni want. We can go Ivy if that's what we choose. If that's the case let's not spend $5M per year on a coach for a lame duck program.

BearSD said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

BearSD said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

BearSD said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

We are not Alabama and should not try to be Alabama. But we could and should be more like Michigan or Southern Branch.

---

We are like UCLA in football. Chip Kelly was hoping to get fired and collect his buyout. Chip was using the Sonny Dykes tactic of publicly interviewing at every place that would give him an interview, in the hope that would get him canned by UCLA. And UCLA still didn't want to pay the buyout, so they waited and waited and waited until Chip left on his own, even though that left the team in the lurch and needing to make a rushed coaching hire long after every other vacancy had been filled. (Maybe add that UCLA also has a porous offensive line that leads to an ineffective ground game and forces the QB to rush his throws.)

---

UCLA hasn't had a good football team in a long time.

---

8 win seasons at Cal, last 15 years: 2019, 2015, 2009

8 win seasons at UCLA, last 15 years: 2023, 2022, 2021, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012

---

Cal is not really a great team to compare against. We know we suck.

In the last 10 years UCLA has only had a winning conference record twice and they haven't played in a New Year's Day bowl game since 1999.

Not exactly what we should be aspiring to.

---

I responded to a comment that said Cal football should be more like UCLA, and I said it already is.. the only things they have that Cal doesn't are Big Ten status and TV revenue.

---

the only difference between me and Jeff Bezos is a few billion dollars and a receding hairline

Quote:

---

> the only difference between me and Jeff Bezos is a few billion dollars and a receding hairline

---

ohhh..

PaulCali said:

---

But UCLA is getting approx. $70 million a year for being in the Big Ten, so there's that.

---

That's because they are in a bigger market, have a much better basketball program, and their rival USC dragged them into the Big10 the same way Stanford dragged us into the ACC

I don't see what has been going on at UCLA as very encouraging for us.

dimitrig said:

---

PaulCali said:

---

But UCLA is getting approx. $70 million a year for being in the Big Ten, so there's that.

---

That's because they are in a bigger market, have a much better basketball program, and their rival USC dragged them into the Big10 the same way Stanford dragged us into the ACC

I don't see what has been going on at UCLA as very encouraging for us.

---

I think seven 8-win seasons over 15 years is significantly better than just three 8-win seasons.

Wilcox has never had an 8-win season.

southseasbear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

PaulCali said:

---

But UCLA is getting approx. $70 million a year for being in the Big Ten, so there's that.

---

That's because they are in a bigger market, have a much better basketball program, and their rival USC dragged them into the Big10 the same way Stanford dragged us into the ACC

I don't see what has been going on at UCLA as very encouraging for us.

---

I think seven 8-win seasons over 15 years is significantly better than just three 8-win seasons.

Wilcox has never had an 8-win season.

---

We went 8-5 in 2019.

Of course it would be cheaper. If you think about it: fire Wilcox, all Cal fans save that money on therapy he's caused for us, we donate that money instead, and boom! you come out millions ahead even after the buyout and new hire!

chazzed said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

PaulCali said:

---

But UCLA is getting approx. $70 million a year for being in the Big Ten, so there's that.

---

That's because they are in a bigger market, have a much better basketball program, and their rival USC dragged them into the Big10 the same way Stanford dragged us into the ACC

I don't see what has been going on at UCLA as very encouraging for us.

---

I think seven 8-win seasons over 15 years is significantly better than just three 8-win seasons.

Wilcox has never had an 8-win season.

---

We went 8-5 in 2019.

---

You're right! I stand corrected. He went 8-5 in his 3rd year with his sole bowl victory, following 7-4 in his second. Those 2 years were the apex of the Wilcox tenure.

In the remaining 6 years the best he could do is 6-wins.

It’s the marriage made in hell between a mediocre, boring white coach with social skills and an unambitious program with low self esteem.

Dying together in an eternal embrace, except one side made generational wealth while the other side went bankrupt.

Charming parasite.

— Tavi O’Shih (@OivatootaviO) December 11, 2024

And when you combine this toxic brew with the incredible coincidence of both Stanfurd and USC tanking during his tenure, gifting him wins in the only games the big donors seem to care about… oof.

Stuck in mud, not-so-slowly sinking.

Depressing.

— Tavi O’Shih (@OivatootaviO) December 11, 2024

okaydo said:

---

It’s the marriage made in hell between a mediocre, boring white coach with social skills and an unambitious program with low self esteem.

Dying together in an eternal embrace, except one side made generational wealth while the other side went bankrupt.

Charming parasite.

— Tavi O’Shih (@OivatootaviO) December 11, 2024

And when you combine this toxic brew with the incredible coincidence of both Stanfurd and USC tanking during his tenure, gifting him wins in the only games the big donors seem to care about… oof.

Stuck in mud, not-so-slowly sinking.

Depressing.

— Tavi O’Shih (@OivatootaviO) December 11, 2024

---

Does this mean USC and stanfurd will die too?