Forgive me if i am posting old news.
Jon Wilner's article in today's East Bay Times should be music to the ears of many disgruntled Cal football fans.
Wilner reports on comments by Rich Lyons (Cal's new Chancellor). [Note: Except or item #6 below, I could not tell whether Wilner was quoting or paraphrasing or summarizing Lyon's comments.]

1. Lyons is concerned about a new CFB Super league.

2. Lyons is concerned if there is such a CFB Super league, whether Cal will be included or will be relegated to the sidelines

3. Lyons is concerned that if a school does not invest in a sport that school will not be competitive.

4. Lyons sees the present as the ''tipping point moment" for Cal

5. Some people see sports as a two-dimensional problem: "if you are spending on sports, you are not spending on other things. Lyons sees sports as a three-dimensional problem: "What is the principal device for driving alumni support? When you invest in athletics, you are investing in alumni engagement; and when you invest in in alumni engagement, you advance your mission." ..." The prime drivers of revenue, of course, are football and men's basketball. If they thrive, alumni engagement is sure to follow...Lyons believes Cal's highest programs are currently, or soon will be, funded at levels that provide an avenue for success. As an example, the Bears are negotiating with alumnus Ron Rivera...

6. Lyons actual quote puts Wilcox on the hotseat ."Our revenue sports need to be competitive like so many of our other sports," Lyons said. Another six-win in regular season (in football) will be disappointing given how much we are investing. We can't keep investing and not deliver in our revenue sports..

GivemTheAxe said:

---

Forgive me if i am posting old news.
Jon Wilner's article in today's East Bay Times should be music to the ears of many disgruntled Cal football fans.
Wilner reports on comments by Rich Lyons (Cal's new Chancellor). [Note: Except or item #6 below, I could not tell whether Wilner was quoting or paraphrasing or summarizing Lyon's comments.]

1. Lyons is concerned about a new CFB Super league.

2. Lyons is concerned if there is such a CFB Super league, whether Cal will be included or will be relegated to the sidelines

3. Lyons is concerned that if a school does not invest in a sport that school will not be competitive.

4. Lyons sees the present as the ''tipping point moment" for Cal

5. Some people see sports as a two-dimensional problem: "if you are spending on sports, you are not spending on other things. Lyons sees sports as a three-dimensional problem: "What is the principal device for driving alumni support? When you invest in athletics, you are investing in alumni engagement; and when you invest in in alumni engagement, you advance your mission." ..." The prime drivers of revenue, of course, are football and men's basketball. If they thrive, alumni engagement is sure to follow...Lyons believes Cal's highest programs are currently, or soon will be, funded at levels that provide an avenue for success. As an example, the Bears are negotiating with alumnus Ron Rivera...

6. Lyons actual quote puts Wilcox on the hotseat ."Our revenue sports need to be competitive like so many of our other sports," Lyons said. Another six-win in regular season (in football) will be disappointing given how much we are investing. We can't keep investing and not deliver in our revenue sports..

---

These items are interesting and important.

1. Lyons is concerned about a CFP Super League. Well it is here already. The SEC and B1G control the CFP. they each take larger shares and have the authority to make changes starting in 2026. They most likely will by proclaiming a 4-4-2-2-1-1 system.

4 auto bids for the SEC and B1G. 2 each for ACC and Big 12. 1 for G5 and 1 at large. The at large is Notre Dames path to the CFP. Just need to stay in top 14. This format partially explains why ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips is proposing a new ACC championship game. The #1 team gets an auto bid. #s 2 and 3 play in a play in game to get the other.

2. Will Cal be included? I do think they are not in a great spot. Better than say Wake Forest or Cincinnati but not great. Depends on who TV decides are worthy. Cal needs to win and have their games much better attended and viewed.

3. Invest to be competitive. Has always been true. Cal just simply was not concerned about winning. As long as the old system rewarded participation as they did just having a program was enough for many. Now they have to compete and win or get left out. The ACC is readying itself to reward both winning and brand with new initiatives. Can Cal secure the money to invest? Will they right size the athletic department and budget? Do they get folks in that are working towards the goal of high performance or just employees getting a paycheck.

The House settlement can be a great way to even the scales. But it also takes money from an athletic department that is already underfunded and top heavy in programs and staff. Hard decisions will need to be made.

4. Present day being the "tipping point". Agree 100% with this. Things have moved fast and continue to do so. Cal needs to succeed NOW. No more mediocrity. Got to win.

5. 2 dimensional view vs 3 dimensional view. Good luck with that Chancellor. I think he will continue to face big hurdles in this area. There is not a consensus on how to move forward. Many large donors are not aligned with the new world of college players getting paid and the entire transfer process. Win big and you could change some minds I suppose.

6. Wilcox hot seat. LOL. It is really hard to take that seriously. He has a buyout that in todays market is really sorta low. Yet here he is because nobody will fund it. I think if he continues to fail Cal is as likely to just retreat from trying to win and let him finish and let the big 2 conferences and TV determine Cal's fate. There appears to be no appetite to buy him out. And a 4 win season could seal Cal's fate regardless. This team has to win now. Not 6 wins. 9 or more.

There is likely no other P4 program that would tolerate the poor performance of football relative to their peers over a similar period as Cal has with Wilcox. He has not shown any ability to properly manage the program and his near invisibility does not help.

Lyons says Cal has invested and now football needs to deliver. Well much of the investment is very recent. And many do not see the investments as they revolve around the support staff and player support. But the Head Coach is the visible one. The public face of the program. I cannot think of a less effective person leading this program than Justin Wilcox.

Look at UNC. They hired Bill Belicheck. The great former NFL coach. UNC now is suddenly a hot commodity among recruits. They are getting a lot of publicity. UNC football is in the spotlight at a historic basketball school. Investing in support staff, facilities etc is crucial. You have to have these things. But a head coach is still crucial. The idea that Cal continues along with Justin Wilcox suggests they are not fully invested in winning.You do not have to hire a Bill Belicheck to show you are serious. But staying the course with Wilcox makes believing Cal is serious not a credible argument.

6956bear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

Forgive me if i am posting old news.
Jon Wilner's article in today's East Bay Times should be music to the ears of many disgruntled Cal football fans.
Wilner reports on comments by Rich Lyons (Cal's new Chancellor). [Note: Except or item #6 below, I could not tell whether Wilner was quoting or paraphrasing or summarizing Lyon's comments.]

1. Lyons is concerned about a new CFB Super league.

2. Lyons is concerned if there is such a CFB Super league, whether Cal will be included or will be relegated to the sidelines

3. Lyons is concerned that if a school does not invest in a sport that school will not be competitive.

4. Lyons sees the present as the ''tipping point moment" for Cal

5. Some people see sports as a two-dimensional problem: "if you are spending on sports, you are not spending on other things. Lyons sees sports as a three-dimensional problem: "What is the principal device for driving alumni support? When you invest in athletics, you are investing in alumni engagement; and when you invest in in alumni engagement, you advance your mission." ..." The prime drivers of revenue, of course, are football and men's basketball. If they thrive, alumni engagement is sure to follow...Lyons believes Cal's highest programs are currently, or soon will be, funded at levels that provide an avenue for success. As an example, the Bears are negotiating with alumnus Ron Rivera...

6. Lyons actual quote puts Wilcox on the hotseat ."Our revenue sports need to be competitive like so many of our other sports," Lyons said. Another six-win in regular season (in football) will be disappointing given how much we are investing. We can't keep investing and not deliver in our revenue sports..

---

These items are interesting and important.

1. Lyons is concerned about a CFP Super League. Well it is here already. The SEC and B1G control the CFP. they each take larger shares and have the authority to make changes starting in 2026. They most likely will by proclaiming a 4-4-2-2-1-1 system.

4 auto bids for the SEC and B1G. 2 each for ACC and Big 12. 1 for G5 and 1 at large. The at large is Notre Dames path to the CFP. Just need to stay in top 14. This format partially explains why ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips is proposing a new ACC championship game. The #1 team gets an auto bid. #s 2 and 3 play in a play in game to get the other.

2. Will Cal be included? I do think they are not in a great spot. Better than say Wake Forest or Cincinnati but not great. Depends on who TV decides are worthy. Cal needs to win and have their games much better attended and viewed.

3. Invest to be competitive. Has always been true. Cal just simply was not concerned about winning. As long as the old system rewarded participation as they did just having a program was enough for many. Now they have to compete and win or get left out. The ACC is readying itself to reward both winning and brand with new initiatives. Can Cal secure the money to invest? Will they right size the athletic department and budget? Do they get folks in that are working towards the goal of high performance or just employees getting a paycheck.

The House settlement can be a great way to even the scales. But it also takes money from an athletic department that is already underfunded and top heavy in programs and staff. Hard decisions will need to be made.

4. Present day being the "tipping point". Agree 100% with this. Things have moved fast and continue to do so. Cal needs to succeed NOW. No more mediocrity. Got to win.

5. 2 dimensional view vs 3 dimensional view. Good luck with that Chancellor. I think he will continue to face big hurdles in this area. There is not a consensus on how to move forward. Many large donors are not aligned with the new world of college players getting paid and the entire transfer process. Win big and you could change some minds I suppose.

6. Wilcox hot seat. LOL. It is really hard to take that seriously. He has a buyout that in todays market is really sorta low. Yet here he is because nobody will fund it. I think if he continues to fail Cal is as likely to just retreat from trying to win and let him finish and let the big 2 conferences and TV determine Cal's fate. There appears to be no appetite to buy him out. And a 4 win season could seal Cal's fate regardless. This team has to win now. Not 6 wins. 9 or more.

There is likely no other P4 program that would tolerate the poor performance of football relative to their peers over a similar period as Cal has with Wilcox. He has not shown any ability to properly manage the program and his near invisibility does not help.

Lyons says Cal has invested and now football needs to deliver. Well much of the investment is very recent. And many do not see the investments as they revolve around the support staff and player support. But the Head Coach is the visible one. The public face of the program. I cannot think of a less effective person leading this program than Justin Wilcox.

Look at UNC. They hired Bill Belicheck. The great former NFL coach. UNC now is suddenly a hot commodity among recruits. They are getting a lot of publicity. UNC football is in the spotlight at a historic basketball school. Investing in support staff, facilities etc is crucial. You have to have these things. But a head coach is still crucial. The idea that Cal continues along with Justin Wilcox suggests they are not fully invested in winning.You do not have to hire a Bill Belicheck to show you are serious. But staying the course with Wilcox makes believing Cal is serious not a credible argument.

---

I agree with much of what you say.

My main point is that for the first time in all the years I have been watching Cal football ( starting in fall of 1959.) The CHANCELLOR is talking like a Football fan and appears to mean what he says.
He sees a real reason for Cal football to succeed and that success will help Cal succeed as a university (not only as a football school)
So I see both Wilcox and Knowlton as being on the hotseat. Lyons words are very clear: a six win season is No Longer Acceptable to the head of the University

That is what so many Cal football fans have been saying for quite some time on this board.

Now the message is coming from someone who has clout.
Many might doubt whether Lyons will actually succeed. BUT This is new. There is a new Sheriff in town.

[FYI. I have heard Lyons talk. Lyons has lots of other good ideas on how to monetize many of the good ideas the are created at Cal that will/could create new sources of funding/revenue for Cal.His leadership at the Haas School of business has prepared him well to lead Cal and it comes at the right time. ]

Hire better players, and the record will reflect that investment.

Business 101.

I'm glad that Knowlton will be on the hotseat as well. If Wilcox's does not perform this year then I would not want Knowlton hiring his replacement - thus the no stomach for the buyout. If Rivera were given the reigns for selecting the successor then the buyout is more palatable Knowlton is seemingly not "all in" on Cal sports and his hiring of Mark Fox was a disaster.

Just cannot extend JW, that's it.

calumnus said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

calumnus said:

---

MilleniaBear said:

---

I'm glad that Knowlton will be on the hotseat as well. If Wilcox's does not perform this year then I would not want Knowlton hiring his replacement - thus the no stomach for the buyout. If Rivera were given the reigns for selecting the successor then the buyout is more palatable Knowlton is seemingly not "all in" on Cal sports and his hiring of Mark Fox was a disaster.

---

The guaranteed payments to Wilcox are essentially a sunk cost. If Rivera is here as the GM he could just as easily be here as the head coach. Now. No difference in cost assuming Rivera accepts the same salary he is accepting as GM.

Rivera as HC NOW makes a huge splash with the public and the football world NOW.

Rivera as GM instead of as HC as well as Lyons "being more involved" but keeping Knowlton as AD are just typical examples of Cal lacking guts and vision and instead hoping for incremental improvement to mediocrity and continuing to fall well below our potential when it is right within our reach.

---

I think there is a legitimate debate as to who will be more important to generating wins, the GM of a college football team or the head coach.

---

Perhaps, but there are lots of Cal alums who can handle the GM role. Name recognition is not required as GM and is largely wasted there. You don't see Bill Belichick as UNC's GM, he is their head coach and UNC is getting a lot of valuable mileage in fan, media and recruiting from that. Coaching matters and college football is an emotional sport. Riverboat Ron's best position is head coach: recruiting and coaching up the players. It just seems like another squandered opportunity. Maybe it sorts out after a year or two but time is short.

---

I think what matters most is how the GM of Cal football is positioned and what authority is given. Many of the GMs elsewhere have a role that is very similar to what Marshall Cherrington does now for Cal. I think Rivera would take on a different role. Fundraising for one. Many donors or prospective donors do not like or trust Knowlton. Rivera is a Cal legend and a long time accomplished football coach. He could be that person that is trusted enough to get greater donor engagement.

Since Ron knows football he is very well positioned to provide input and support to Wilcox. Knowlton is not that guy. Since Rivera would supposedly be reporting to the Chancellor he can provide an unvarnished view of how the program looks and is operating. Essentially being the eyes of the Chancellor. And hopefully would take over the football budget and make hiring decisions.

I understand the point of Ron being a HC and is best suited for that. But if Cal is looking to become a professional organization you need someone that has worked with professional organizations. Organizing the football operation into what the football operations need to be now is a full time role.

Wilcox has not shown himself to be a great hiring manager. He has not been good at staff accountability. Between he and Knowlton you can make the case that Cal is the worst run football operation in the P4. Certainly it is in the bottom quartile. Since Knowlton is not being fired, at least in the very short term you need somebody that knows football in that seat. Ron knows ball. Ron loves Cal. Ron and his wife are connected alums. I think he is best suited for what I believe Lyons has in mind with this GM role. Or whatever you want to call it.

And he is right there if a decision is made to move on from Wilcox to jump in and be the next HC. Whether temporary or permanent. I do not believe Lyons wants Rivera to be whatever the GM role is at other programs. Those GMs report to the HC in most cases. In this case it seems the HC would report to Rivera.

Knowlton is an untrustworthy doofus. He needs to be out of the day to day football duties. Wilcox needs a supportive person to go to. I have some concerns regarding Rivera in this role. But whatever concerns I have are not even close to the absolute disaster that Jim Knowlton has been regarding football.

Until we know for certain the role Rivera has and the total scope of authority we do not know how this plays. Cal is in a short window to make football work. I like the idea of Ron being involved. I do think the role can be crucial. We do know already that Wilcox,Knowlton and Carol Christ did not work. Lyons has a huge role as Chancellor. He needs help in getting football successful. Rivera could be that guy.

I am in the camp as many posters here know of removing Wilcox. For at least the past 3 seasons. But absent that this is a plan I would be happy to see go forward. Will it work as hoped? TBD.

Honestly, it's always been about more than just Wilcox. It's about whether or not Cal as an institution cares about having a strong football program that can continue playing with the big boys. Except for that window around Tedford's peak (one that closed quickly), the answer has mostly appeared to be "no." It's good that virtually all of Lyons' remarks on the subject thus far have said "yes."

Of course, words are just words until there are actions to back them up, but with the hiring of Rivera and the direction this appears to be headed I think we are starting to see action. That's good! Results TBD but I'd rather see this than the status quo.

that all sounds nice but doesn't make sense with reality:

• We're at a tipping point.
• We have to win now. 6 wins is not acceptable.
• We decided to run it back with the same coach whose ceiling to date is below the bar for acceptable single season performance.

Yes, creating the football GM position sounds like a good move. But it doesn't impact anything on the field this coming season. If we are at a tipping point and have to win now then why is the only move we make not going to pay dividends until the season after next at the earliest?

Well, so far it looks good but i just keep having nightmares of how you lose a Miami game up by 4 touchdowns in the fourth quarter.

That said = This is what Wilcox did:
1) We've brought in two five stars and one real high school and jc winner at quarterback
2) We kept a tail back who should be one of the best tailbacks in the country
3) OUR OFFENSIVE LINE WILL AVERAGE AROUND 330LBS THIS YEAR.
4) Our new offensive coaches are now or were elite before they came here, respected enough to be hired by the SEC


Lets be happy now while we can before the season starts and begins to fall apart.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

There are thirty something professional minor league teams that have, what, five times the income the UC Berkeley Bears have. How is this situation not well past any "tipping point"?

---

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but honestly it's time to let the "professional minor league team" tag go. We get it, it's getting tired.

---

What do you want to call it, "paid to play ball", "laundry ball", "betters-can't-get-enough-ball", "slavers gonna pay ball", …

The possibilities are endless.

---

How about just "NCAA teams" or "other schools." Honestly, I agree with your take about it, it's just the term is getting tiresome, that's all.

I don't think of academics and athletics as antithetical. The point is that you can raise $$$ WITHOUT athletics.

Again - I think it useful/important to wrap heads around something

Irwin Jacobs have probably - all in - given UCSD AT LEAST over 200 to 300 million dollars. The university has an extremely close relationship with the company he co-founded and with the industry that spawned off of Qualcomm. The entire engineering school is named after him.

Bren has a similar relationship to UCI.

It is just incorrect to argue that the _ONLY_ way to higher ed fundraising is by succeeding athletically. UCI and UCSD show alternative paths.

Now I am NOT arguing that UCB should do that. I am not even arguing some strawman that resembles south parks magic underwear ("Assume our Bren = profit).

What I am saying is that Lyons is likely to say this until he doesn't....and it isn't ridiculous to believe in that alternative path given experiences at other campuses

I do disagree with your 70 team league. If 70 teams worked financially the NFL would be at 70 teams with product from dawn to well past dusk.) My own non-researched take is that it isn't that big because at that size competitive balance would suffer and teams really would be "irrelevant".

To a couple of other points - of course the portal makes them "non-students". We are going to see the impact in a few years when we find out the actual degree achievement of this cohort. It is going to be horrifically low and what we know from higher ed is that for the general population having "some college" but no degree provides no wage bump (and since earnings delayed a negative wealth effect over time).

I also PERSONALLY believe that getting to the top 40 would require investments and choices the university would never make.

So here is a thought excercise to who you that. Raise your hand if you feel (like any self respecting fooltball school would) that it is LONG SINCE TIME that Rugby looses Witter. This board will go ape **** (lead by the ruggers). That is what a real football school that wants to be relevent would do.

6956bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

"5. 2 dimensional view vs 3 dimensional view. Good luck with that Chancellor. I think he will continue to face big hurdles in this area. There is not a consensus on how to move forward. Many large donors are not aligned with the new world of college players getting paid and the entire transfer process. Win big and you could change some minds I suppose."

This is where I think the crux of the problem and Lyons has every reason publically to fudge.

1) There are clearly some donors who vocally connect their giving to sports.
2) There are PLENTY of examples of schools that raise funds without big time athletics.
3) There is also a time dimension here - is the behavior of donors changing as those that have some relationship to when Cal was "good" (yup - we are talking those that are in their 70s and 80s) die off.
4) As well as a repositioning - with the rise of Cal as a research powerhouse is more development tied to that rather than general university good will.

I am agnostic on those questions. I do think they matter and I KNOW that they are not determined by an anecdote here or there from self interested posters on the sports board. But it is the right analysis since by any argument paid semi-pro athletics are pretty much disaligned from the overall mission of the university.

---

Just to point out one fact that I KNOW you are familiar with.
Cal has been a research power house at least since the 1930's and 1940's It is not a new phenomenon

As to whether Lyons is "fudging". I am not certain what you mean.

IMO. Lyons means what he says. He is not trying to change Cal into a football powerhouse (like Ohio State or USC). but only to keep Cal relevant in the future of College football.

Will he be successful? I don't know. But he is certainly going to do his best.

I wouldn't judge him by his predecessors. He is unique among prior Cal chancellors. He is one of us. A Cal Grad who is an Old Blue.

---

"Cal has been a research power house at least since the 1930's and 1940's It is not a new phenomenon"

By this I mean the increasingly close relationship between philanthropy and industry - especially technology focused industry - either directly from companies or from founders who appreciate science. I am most familiar where this plays out in SOCAL - take a look at the donations to USCs and UCSDs engineering schools.

"
As to whether Lyons is "fudging". I am not certain what you mean."

All I mean here is that until there is a dramatic change from the status quo Lyons has no incentive to say the quiet part out loud. I just take all of these statements with a grain of salt as fudging is a key part of the job description for a university president who wants to last.

" Cal relevant in the future of College football."

I don't know what that means. There is no metric. I think it HAS to mean in the future potentially qualifying for the CFB and being part of what will emerge as a 40 (max) team league. The NFL has "revealed" the preference (Economic term) for league size. There isn't much to suggest that the new superleague can/will be bigger than that.

"He is one of us. A Cal Grad who is an Old Blue."

Who is charged with running a campus in a multi-billion dollar system at a time of rapid changes in the higher ed (and College sports) landscape. He cares. That matters. However the times they are a changing (rapidly) and seeing the play live only counts for so much.

---

I think it is entirely possible for Cal to be the research powerhouse you speak of and have excellent athletic programs and teams. It is not a one or the other situation. But it does face a lot of turbulence as you point out.

The semi professional aspect of the games has always been present. The landscape has changed and the "salaries" have gotten big quickly. The players were always entitled to a piece of the pie. How big a piece is what seems to irk many. The transfer portal is likely the bigger problem. These are no longer students in the minds of many.

As to a Super League I think there can be a larger group of conferences playing for a title. the 68-70 teams now playing may be too big, but there is a sweet spot that can be acheived but the 2 big conferences seem to have no interest in giving up any advantage so the game can flourish nationally.

Where Cal sits is a precarious perch in terms of football. They have been bad to mediocre for so long the fanbase has eroded. The gameday experience is not good. The games are played at times to appease TV and hurts attendance. Night games and weekday games simply are not good for attendance in particular for the aging fans.

Is Cal football worth the price it has to pay to get back to some sort of nationally relevant position? I do think it can get good again. Lyons would like to try. But he likely will anger some (many) with what he will need to do for that to happen.

There is a significant number of alums that find the current system distasteful. Winning may change some minds. But there is no real reason that Cal can't be both the academis/research powerhouse you say and be good at athletics. It is money, commitment, investment and leadership. Real leadership.

There are many great Universities across the country that are both great research universities and strong in atheltics. The alums take great pride in their athletic teams. They show up to games, give to the school both for academics and athletics. But this ship (Cal revenue sports) has been steered into the rocks by the many previous adminstrations that did not value athletic success. It has cost the University millions of dollars in lost donations. Including several thousands from me. And close to a Million from my extended family. I doubt me and my extended family are alone.

It will be hard to turn this around. But worthwhile if they can. But my wallet is closed until I see a real effort to change.I believe Cal should strive for excellence in everything they do. But way too many are almost embarrassed by the idea of being good at football and hoops. It is an investment to be sure. But if done with real purpose and leadership it can turn this around. National champ good? No but a winning and fun program can be had with no loss to the academic prestige of the University.

It is IMO not an either or situation. It can be both. But hasn't for so long not many can see it ever happening.

---

Thanks for your candid comments
All I ask is that we give Lyons a chance to deliver

Some posters appear to discount Lyons commitment to make a good faith effort.
It is easy to understand why those posters feel that way. Since none of his predecessors ever have made a good faith effort to improve football

Let us know whether you determine that Lyons is making a good faith effort. AND whether that good faith effort is having a positive material effect on Cal football

GivemTheAxe said:

---

6956bear said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

"5. 2 dimensional view vs 3 dimensional view. Good luck with that Chancellor. I think he will continue to face big hurdles in this area. There is not a consensus on how to move forward. Many large donors are not aligned with the new world of college players getting paid and the entire transfer process. Win big and you could change some minds I suppose."

This is where I think the crux of the problem and Lyons has every reason publically to fudge.

1) There are clearly some donors who vocally connect their giving to sports.
2) There are PLENTY of examples of schools that raise funds without big time athletics.
3) There is also a time dimension here - is the behavior of donors changing as those that have some relationship to when Cal was "good" (yup - we are talking those that are in their 70s and 80s) die off.
4) As well as a repositioning - with the rise of Cal as a research powerhouse is more development tied to that rather than general university good will.

I am agnostic on those questions. I do think they matter and I KNOW that they are not determined by an anecdote here or there from self interested posters on the sports board. But it is the right analysis since by any argument paid semi-pro athletics are pretty much disaligned from the overall mission of the university.

---

Just to point out one fact that I KNOW you are familiar with.
Cal has been a research power house at least since the 1930's and 1940's It is not a new phenomenon

As to whether Lyons is "fudging". I am not certain what you mean.

IMO. Lyons means what he says. He is not trying to change Cal into a football powerhouse (like Ohio State or USC). but only to keep Cal relevant in the future of College football.

Will he be successful? I don't know. But he is certainly going to do his best.

I wouldn't judge him by his predecessors. He is unique among prior Cal chancellors. He is one of us. A Cal Grad who is an Old Blue.

---

"Cal has been a research power house at least since the 1930's and 1940's It is not a new phenomenon"

By this I mean the increasingly close relationship between philanthropy and industry - especially technology focused industry - either directly from companies or from founders who appreciate science. I am most familiar where this plays out in SOCAL - take a look at the donations to USCs and UCSDs engineering schools.

"
As to whether Lyons is "fudging". I am not certain what you mean."

All I mean here is that until there is a dramatic change from the status quo Lyons has no incentive to say the quiet part out loud. I just take all of these statements with a grain of salt as fudging is a key part of the job description for a university president who wants to last.

" Cal relevant in the future of College football."

I don't know what that means. There is no metric. I think it HAS to mean in the future potentially qualifying for the CFB and being part of what will emerge as a 40 (max) team league. The NFL has "revealed" the preference (Economic term) for league size. There isn't much to suggest that the new superleague can/will be bigger than that.

"He is one of us. A Cal Grad who is an Old Blue."

Who is charged with running a campus in a multi-billion dollar system at a time of rapid changes in the higher ed (and College sports) landscape. He cares. That matters. However the times they are a changing (rapidly) and seeing the play live only counts for so much.

---

I think it is entirely possible for Cal to be the research powerhouse you speak of and have excellent athletic programs and teams. It is not a one or the other situation. But it does face a lot of turbulence as you point out.

The semi professional aspect of the games has always been present. The landscape has changed and the "salaries" have gotten big quickly. The players were always entitled to a piece of the pie. How big a piece is what seems to irk many. The transfer portal is likely the bigger problem. These are no longer students in the minds of many.

As to a Super League I think there can be a larger group of conferences playing for a title. the 68-70 teams now playing may be too big, but there is a sweet spot that can be acheived but the 2 big conferences seem to have no interest in giving up any advantage so the game can flourish nationally.

Where Cal sits is a precarious perch in terms of football. They have been bad to mediocre for so long the fanbase has eroded. The gameday experience is not good. The games are played at times to appease TV and hurts attendance. Night games and weekday games simply are not good for attendance in particular for the aging fans.

Is Cal football worth the price it has to pay to get back to some sort of nationally relevant position? I do think it can get good again. Lyons would like to try. But he likely will anger some (many) with what he will need to do for that to happen.

There is a significant number of alums that find the current system distasteful. Winning may change some minds. But there is no real reason that Cal can't be both the academis/research powerhouse you say and be good at athletics. It is money, commitment, investment and leadership. Real leadership.

There are many great Universities across the country that are both great research universities and strong in atheltics. The alums take great pride in their athletic teams. They show up to games, give to the school both for academics and athletics. But this ship (Cal revenue sports) has been steered into the rocks by the many previous adminstrations that did not value athletic success. It has cost the University millions of dollars in lost donations. Including several thousands from me. And close to a Million from my extended family. I doubt me and my extended family are alone.

It will be hard to turn this around. But worthwhile if they can. But my wallet is closed until I see a real effort to change.I believe Cal should strive for excellence in everything they do. But way too many are almost embarrassed by the idea of being good at football and hoops. It is an investment to be sure. But if done with real purpose and leadership it can turn this around. National champ good? No but a winning and fun program can be had with no loss to the academic prestige of the University.

It is IMO not an either or situation. It can be both. But hasn't for so long not many can see it ever happening.

---

Thanks for your candid comments
All I ask is that we give Lyons a chance to deliver

Some posters appear to discount Lyons commitment to make a good faith effort.
It is easy to understand why those posters feel that way. Since none of his predecessors ever have made a good faith effort to improve football

Let us know whether you determine that Lyons is making a good faith effort. AND whether that good faith effort is having a positive material effect on Cal football

---

I am giving Lyons a chance. The 2025 season is a crucial one. There is so much change and happening very quickly. The eventual hiring of Ron Rivera is big. But what is his role exactly and what if any authority will he have.

I think Lyons wants to move this forward. But there are a lot of headwinds. I take him at his word that he is trying to deliver. But it is Cal that has me worried. The bureaucracy, the history and anti-football folks that while a likely minority are vocal and obstructive.

My personal beliefs are that Knowlton and Wilcox are real issues for many of the donors. They do not trust or believe in either. That is why Rivera is important. But he must be given some authority or it will be a wasted moment.

The amount of donors that hate this new world of football is significant. Maybe not in total numbers, but in terms of ability to donate and move the program along. I think winning may be the only thing that works for them. But they have been very reluctant to contribute and may not ever change.

And there are not enough young alums invested in Cal sports. Cal needs the older alums to start giving again. Win on the field and start cultivating the younger potential donors. 2025 is a big season.

There's no such thing as Wilcox haters. There's Cal football lovers, and people who enjoy watching Wilcox continue to burn the program to the ground.

Strykur said:

---

falseintellect said:

---

There's no such thing as Wilcox haters. There's Cal football lovers, and people who enjoy watching Wilcox continue to burn the program to the ground.

---

The first few seasons were fine but everything since 2020 has been as enjoyable as watching a dumpster fire.

---

Wilcox/Baldwin producing some of the worst offenses in the country and finishing last or second to last in the PAC-12 North? Remember the Cheezit Bowl? Wilcox's very best year was so bad on offense it got the OC fired.

Strykur said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

falseintellect said:

---

There's no such thing as Wilcox haters. There's Cal football lovers, and people who enjoy watching Wilcox continue to burn the program to the ground.

---

The first few seasons were fine but everything since 2020 has been as enjoyable as watching a dumpster fire.

---

Wilcox/Baldwin producing some of the worst offenses in the country and finishing last or second to last in the PAC-12 North? Remember the Cheezit Bowl? Wilcox's very best year was so bad on offense it got the OC fired.

---

During that time we also won at SC for the first time in ages, beat the PAC-12 champion in 2018 (Washington) and in 2020 (Oregon), etc. but since then...NADA

---

Wilcox beat a USC team that finished 5-7, the first USC team with a losing record in 18 years (since the year 2000). The luck of coaching Cal when USC is down was part of what got Holmoe extended too.