What a dumpster fire he walked into. I truly pisses me off to go back and time and see Cal consistently in the top 25 and now we can hardly put together decent team. I watch teams like Boise State who can recruit (mostly kids in our own backyard) and be competive in a town with a population of 235k people.

Trumpanzee said:

---

What a dumpster fire he walked into. I truly pisses me off to go back and time and see Cal consistently in the top 25 and now we can hardly put together decent team. I watch teams like Boise State who can recruit (mostly kids in our own backyard) and be competive in a town with a population of 235k people.

---

I wouldn't blame him. It's like being a new hire right as the Enron scandal began.

What century were we consistently in the Top 25?

Holy shit, Cal. pic.twitter.com/WZF0HD3LUV

— Sickos Committee (@SickosCommittee) October 5, 2024

But this was only 6 months ago!

CALiforniALUM said:

---

What century were we consistently in the Top 25?

---

2004 to 2008? A 5 year period lol.

Trumpanzee said:

---

What a dumpster fire he walked into. I truly pisses me off to go back and time and see Cal consistently in the top 25 and now we can hardly put together decent team. I watch teams like Boise State who can recruit (mostly kids in our own backyard) and be competive in a town with a population of 235k people.

---

hmmm...

I just had a long talk with Cal football GM @RonRivera80. He's fired up. "People are wondering if I have the power to make decisions," he said. "Yes, I do. I'm driving the car. Chancellor (Rich) Lyons, (Athletic Director) Jim Knowlton and (HC) Justin Wilcox are in the car with…

— Michael Silver (@MikeSilver) April 18, 2025

CalBearinLA said:

---

Trumpanzee said:

---

What a dumpster fire he walked into. I truly pisses me off to go back and time and see Cal consistently in the top 25 and now we can hardly put together decent team. I watch teams like Boise State who can recruit (mostly kids in our own backyard) and be competive in a town with a population of 235k people.

---

hmmm...

I just had a long talk with Cal football GM @RonRivera80. He's fired up. "People are wondering if I have the power to make decisions," he said. "Yes, I do. I'm driving the car. Chancellor (Rich) Lyons, (Athletic Director) Jim Knowlton and (HC) Justin Wilcox are in the car with…

— Michael Silver (@MikeSilver) April 18, 2025

---

Rivera may be driving but it's a ****ing clown car at the moment

From left to right, Lyons, Knowlton, Rivera, Wilcox

There is a possibility that he is "driving" a FSD Tesla that is on course to drive off a cliff. Silver is a great writer, but he is always positive when it comes to Cal. So I take his optimistic spin with a grain of salt. He covers the NFL, so he is keenly aware of the bad choices Ron made in Washington that led to dismal results.

KoreAmBear said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

What century were we consistently in the Top 25?

---

2004 to 2008? A 5 year period lol.

---

CALiforniALUM, did you really go to school or just partaking in the hippie letuce?

westcoastdude said:

---

There is a possibility that he is "driving" a FSD Tesla that is on course to drive off a cliff. Silver is a great writer, but he is always positive when it comes to Cal. So I take his optimistic spin with a grain of salt. He covers the NFL, so he is keenly aware of the bad choices Ron made in Washington that led to dismal results.

---

Also, no one is going to tell a reporter "Actually, we don't know who's in charge." So maybe that's all accurate and maybe it's just spin.

Trumpanzee said:

---

What a dumpster fire he walked into. I truly pisses me off to go back and time and see Cal consistently in the top 25 and now we can hardly put together decent team. I watch teams like Boise State who can recruit (mostly kids in our own backyard) and be competive in a town with a population of 235k people.

---

If RR walks, he's not the man that we think him to be. He had to know what he was walking into. He certainly knew JW and it wouldn't have taken him 10 minutes to figure out Knowlton, Harsin and Rolo.

The question is, does he have authority to fire them outright, wait a year to fire them, or recommend successfully their firing to Lyons and, if not, then to walk.You only have authority when you have exercised it that first time.

Sumpin's rotten in the state of Denmark. After seeing the lack of action by Lyons, it seems he is in a power struggle in which the faculty is trying to create the conditions under which we drop fb altogether or, at least, drop to a lower, less expensive conference. At least, that's how they believe the state of Denmark to be.

sycasey said:

---

westcoastdude said:

---

There is a possibility that he is "driving" a FSD Tesla that is on course to drive off a cliff. Silver is a great writer, but he is always positive when it comes to Cal. So I take his optimistic spin with a grain of salt. He covers the NFL, so he is keenly aware of the bad choices Ron made in Washington that led to dismal results.

---

Also, no one is going to tell a reporter "Actually, we don't know who's in charge." So maybe that's all accurate and maybe it's just spin.

---

We could use some damn positive spin right now. Also substance. Spin and substance.

KoreAmBear said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

What century were we consistently in the Top 25?

---

2004 to 2008? A 5 year period lol.

---

Compare that to the periods we have not consistently been in the Top 25 and you are really stretching the meaning of consistency. I wouldn't call 5 years an impressive run. Maybe the hippy lettuce is warping your sense of time?

Trumpanzee said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

What century were we consistently in the Top 25?

---

2004 to 2008? A 5 year period lol.

---

CALiforniALUM, did you really go to school or just partaking in the hippie letuce?

---

My sunshine pumping friend you need to take a closer look at our historical performance. A measly 5 years doesn't make for a consistency argument.

CALiforniALUM said:

---

Trumpanzee said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

What century were we consistently in the Top 25?

---

2004 to 2008? A 5 year period lol.

---

CALiforniALUM, did you really go to school or just partaking in the hippie letuce?

---

My sunshine pumping friend you need to take a closer look at our historical performance. A measly 5 years doesn't make for a consistency argument.

---

Don't be too caught up in semantics. I agree we have not been "consistently good," more the opposite. However, Cal has been good in the past which is the proof it is possible. Cal has been good when we have a good (usually offensive minded), charismatic head coach: White, Snyder, Tedford and I think Mariucci would have been if we hired him instead of Gilby or if he had stayed. The problem is we consistently have bad ADs who hire, retain and extend bad coaches or coaches who are not a good fit for Cal.

The departures of the Raiders, A's and Warriors from the East Bay presents an opportunity we have not had since the 50s. With the right coach and marketing, Cal has tremendous potential to grow our brand and fanbase. It works best with a coach that fully embraces Cal and Berkeley. The Calgorithm gets it even if many older alums don't. Game Day was amazing. The ACC is very winnable. However, we are running out of time going with what hasn't worked 8 times in a row hoping for a different result on the 9th.

calumnus said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

Trumpanzee said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

What century were we consistently in the Top 25?

---

2004 to 2008? A 5 year period lol.

---

CALiforniALUM, did you really go to school or just partaking in the hippie letuce?

---

My sunshine pumping friend you need to take a closer look at our historical performance. A measly 5 years doesn't make for a consistency argument.

---

Don't be too caught up in semantics. I agree we have not been "consistently good," more the opposite. However, Cal has been good in the past which is the proof it is possible. Cal has been good when we have a good (usually offensive minded), charismatic head coach: White, Snyder, Tedford and I think Mariucci would have been if we hired him instead of Gilby or if he had stayed. The problem is we consistently have bad ADs who hire, retain and extend bad coaches or coaches who are not a good fit for Cal.

The departures of the Raiders, A's and Warriors from the East Bay presents an opportunity we have not had since the 50s. With the right coach and marketing, Cal has tremendous potential to grow our brand and fanbase. It works best with a coach that fully embraces Cal and Berkeley. The Calgorithm gets it even if many older alums don't. Game Day was amazing. The ACC is very winnable. However, we are running out of time going with what hasn't worked 8 times in a row hoping for a different result on the 9th.

---

It's really the extensions that are the issue. Every program will hire a coach or an AD who is a bad fit sometimes. Other programs will quickly cut bait while Cal keeps them around. The reasons for this probably go very deep and are varied, but I think it boils down to a general assumption that we can't expect to be better than a .500 football team most of the time. I think Cal CAN be better than that but doesn't ever commit to doing it.

I suppose this is still a bit better than the 80s or 90s when everyone just accepted 5 wins or less for years and years. Now if there are a couple of seasons like that in a row, the seat gets hot. And the donors are in revolt over an AD who is presiding over a roughly .500 program. So it seems like, post-Tedford, the expectations of the fans were raised somewhat; the admin seemingly has yet to catch up to that and is needing to be dragged there.

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

Trumpanzee said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

What century were we consistently in the Top 25?

---

2004 to 2008? A 5 year period lol.

---

CALiforniALUM, did you really go to school or just partaking in the hippie letuce?

---

My sunshine pumping friend you need to take a closer look at our historical performance. A measly 5 years doesn't make for a consistency argument.

---

Don't be too caught up in semantics. I agree we have not been "consistently good," more the opposite. However, Cal has been good in the past which is the proof it is possible. Cal has been good when we have a good (usually offensive minded), charismatic head coach: White, Snyder, Tedford and I think Mariucci would have been if we hired him instead of Gilby or if he had stayed. The problem is we consistently have bad ADs who hire, retain and extend bad coaches or coaches who are not a good fit for Cal.

The departures of the Raiders, A's and Warriors from the East Bay presents an opportunity we have not had since the 50s. With the right coach and marketing, Cal has tremendous potential to grow our brand and fanbase. It works best with a coach that fully embraces Cal and Berkeley. The Calgorithm gets it even if many older alums don't. Game Day was amazing. The ACC is very winnable. However, we are running out of time going with what hasn't worked 8 times in a row hoping for a different result on the 9th.

---

It's really the extensions that are the issue. Every program will hire a coach or an AD who is a bad fit sometimes. Other programs will quickly cut bait while Cal keeps them around. The reasons for this probably go very deep and are varied, but I think it boils down to a general assumption that we can't expect to be better than a .500 football team most of the time. I think Cal CAN be better than that but doesn't ever commit to doing it.

I suppose this is still a bit better than the 80s or 90s when everyone just accepted 5 wins or less for years and years. Now if there are a couple of seasons like that in a row, the seat gets hot. And the donors are in revolt over an AD who is presiding over a roughly .500 program. So it seems like, post-Tedford, the expectations of the fans were raised somewhat; the admin seemingly has yet to catch up to that and is needing to be dragged there.

---

I think it is the reality of where we are today. We had a complacency when we were part of the PAC-12, revenues were split, fans (and opposing fans) showed up for rivalry games, .500 records were rewarded. Just being able to be in striking distance of a championship but falling short made you a legend. I agree that Tedford showed winning at a high level is possible at Cal, which eliminated the excuses for .500 records, especially with the easier scheduling we adopted and now that we need to win at a higher level to survive. While it explains our moving on from late Tedford and from Dykes when they delivered losing seasons, it does not explain so much of of fanbase supporting Wilcox for so long. Not long ago Stanford went to three Rose Bowls. SMU came in from G5, is getting zero from the ACC and almost won the ACC in their (and our) first year as conference members. Wilcox has finished at or near the bottom of the conference standings 8 out of 8 seasons. "9th time is a charm" is said by no other program.

calumnus said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

Trumpanzee said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

What century were we consistently in the Top 25?

---

2004 to 2008? A 5 year period lol.

---

CALiforniALUM, did you really go to school or just partaking in the hippie letuce?

---

My sunshine pumping friend you need to take a closer look at our historical performance. A measly 5 years doesn't make for a consistency argument.

---

Don't be too caught up in semantics. I agree we have not been "consistently good," more the opposite. However, Cal has been good in the past which is the proof it is possible. Cal has been good when we have a good (usually offensive minded), charismatic head coach: White, Snyder, Tedford and I think Mariucci would have been if we hired him instead of Gilby or if he had stayed. The problem is we consistently have bad ADs who hire, retain and extend bad coaches or coaches who are not a good fit for Cal.

The departures of the Raiders, A's and Warriors from the East Bay presents an opportunity we have not had since the 50s. With the right coach and marketing, Cal has tremendous potential to grow our brand and fanbase. It works best with a coach that fully embraces Cal and Berkeley. The Calgorithm gets it even if many older alums don't. Game Day was amazing. The ACC is very winnable. However, we are running out of time going with what hasn't worked 8 times in a row hoping for a different result on the 9th.

---

Not sure I agree. The "Cal has been good in the past which is proof its possible" statement doesn't recognize the new state of affairs in college football. The NIL presents an entirely different animal to programs such as ours - spend money, or get left behind. Add to that some questionable hires and contract extentions to those hires and its been near catastrophic. And whatever aura we had from GameDay is gone. It disappeared when we choked later that night. As for the Raiders, A's and Warriors - the Warriors have been gone since 2019. The Raiders the following year and no one went to A's games. This hasn't translated to any increased attendance or interest.

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

Trumpanzee said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

What century were we consistently in the Top 25?

---

2004 to 2008? A 5 year period lol.

---

CALiforniALUM, did you really go to school or just partaking in the hippie letuce?

---

My sunshine pumping friend you need to take a closer look at our historical performance. A measly 5 years doesn't make for a consistency argument.

---

Don't be too caught up in semantics. I agree we have not been "consistently good," more the opposite. However, Cal has been good in the past which is the proof it is possible. Cal has been good when we have a good (usually offensive minded), charismatic head coach: White, Snyder, Tedford and I think Mariucci would have been if we hired him instead of Gilby or if he had stayed. The problem is we consistently have bad ADs who hire, retain and extend bad coaches or coaches who are not a good fit for Cal.

The departures of the Raiders, A's and Warriors from the East Bay presents an opportunity we have not had since the 50s. With the right coach and marketing, Cal has tremendous potential to grow our brand and fanbase. It works best with a coach that fully embraces Cal and Berkeley. The Calgorithm gets it even if many older alums don't. Game Day was amazing. The ACC is very winnable. However, we are running out of time going with what hasn't worked 8 times in a row hoping for a different result on the 9th.

---

It's really the extensions that are the issue. Every program will hire a coach or an AD who is a bad fit sometimes. Other programs will quickly cut bait while Cal keeps them around. The reasons for this probably go very deep and are varied, but I think it boils down to a general assumption that we can't expect to be better than a .500 football team most of the time. I think Cal CAN be better than that but doesn't ever commit to doing it.

I suppose this is still a bit better than the 80s or 90s when everyone just accepted 5 wins or less for years and years. Now if there are a couple of seasons like that in a row, the seat gets hot. And the donors are in revolt over an AD who is presiding over a roughly .500 program. So it seems like, post-Tedford, the expectations of the fans were raised somewhat; the admin seemingly has yet to catch up to that and is needing to be dragged there.

---

I think it is the reality of where we are today. We had a complacency when we were part of the PAC-12, revenues were split, fans (and opposing fans) showed up for rivalry games, .500 records were rewarded. Just being able to be in striking distance of a championship but falling short made you a legend. I agree that Tedford showed winning at a high level is possible at Cal, which eliminated the excuses for .500 records, especially with the easier scheduling we adopted and now that we need to win at a higher level to survive. While it explains our moving on from late Tedford and from Dykes when they delivered losing seasons, it does not explain so much of of fanbase supporting Wilcox for so long. Not long ago Stanford went to three Rose Bowls. SMU came in from G5, is getting zero from the ACC and almost won the ACC in their (and our) first year as conference members. Wilcox has finished at or near the bottom of the conference standings 8 out of 8 seasons. "9th time is a charm" is said by no other program.

---

Not sure how much the fan base supports Wilcox or how much we just feel we're stuck with him because of the dumb extension.

That said, the negative feelings really set in a year after Covid. Before that, he at least seemed on an upward trajectory, and the Covid year was weird and you couldn't be sure what to make of it.

calumnus said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

Trumpanzee said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

What century were we consistently in the Top 25?

---

2004 to 2008? A 5 year period lol.

---

CALiforniALUM, did you really go to school or just partaking in the hippie letuce?

---

My sunshine pumping friend you need to take a closer look at our historical performance. A measly 5 years doesn't make for a consistency argument.

---

Don't be too caught up in semantics. I agree we have not been "consistently good," more the opposite. However, Cal has been good in the past which is the proof it is possible. Cal has been good when we have a good (usually offensive minded), charismatic head coach: White, Snyder, Tedford and I think Mariucci would have been if we hired him instead of Gilby or if he had stayed. The problem is we consistently have bad ADs who hire, retain and extend bad coaches or coaches who are not a good fit for Cal.

The departures of the Raiders, A's and Warriors from the East Bay presents an opportunity we have not had since the 50s. With the right coach and marketing, Cal has tremendous potential to grow our brand and fanbase. It works best with a coach that fully embraces Cal and Berkeley. The Calgorithm gets it even if many older alums don't. Game Day was amazing. The ACC is very winnable. However, we are running out of time going with what hasn't worked 8 times in a row hoping for a different result on the 9th.

---

I can appreciate your perspective and don't disagree. I've lived through all those periods in my life. It's possible to be good but we have trouble sustaining good.

Bottom line I just wanted to blast Nickleback "Rockstar" at the beginning of the season and have it mean something..........

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

Trumpanzee said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

What century were we consistently in the Top 25?

---

2004 to 2008? A 5 year period lol.

---

CALiforniALUM, did you really go to school or just partaking in the hippie letuce?

---

My sunshine pumping friend you need to take a closer look at our historical performance. A measly 5 years doesn't make for a consistency argument.

---

Don't be too caught up in semantics. I agree we have not been "consistently good," more the opposite. However, Cal has been good in the past which is the proof it is possible. Cal has been good when we have a good (usually offensive minded), charismatic head coach: White, Snyder, Tedford and I think Mariucci would have been if we hired him instead of Gilby or if he had stayed. The problem is we consistently have bad ADs who hire, retain and extend bad coaches or coaches who are not a good fit for Cal.

The departures of the Raiders, A's and Warriors from the East Bay presents an opportunity we have not had since the 50s. With the right coach and marketing, Cal has tremendous potential to grow our brand and fanbase. It works best with a coach that fully embraces Cal and Berkeley. The Calgorithm gets it even if many older alums don't. Game Day was amazing. The ACC is very winnable. However, we are running out of time going with what hasn't worked 8 times in a row hoping for a different result on the 9th.

---

It's really the extensions that are the issue. Every program will hire a coach or an AD who is a bad fit sometimes. Other programs will quickly cut bait while Cal keeps them around. The reasons for this probably go very deep and are varied, but I think it boils down to a general assumption that we can't expect to be better than a .500 football team most of the time. I think Cal CAN be better than that but doesn't ever commit to doing it.

I suppose this is still a bit better than the 80s or 90s when everyone just accepted 5 wins or less for years and years. Now if there are a couple of seasons like that in a row, the seat gets hot. And the donors are in revolt over an AD who is presiding over a roughly .500 program. So it seems like, post-Tedford, the expectations of the fans were raised somewhat; the admin seemingly has yet to catch up to that and is needing to be dragged there.

---

I think it is the reality of where we are today. We had a complacency when we were part of the PAC-12, revenues were split, fans (and opposing fans) showed up for rivalry games, .500 records were rewarded. Just being able to be in striking distance of a championship but falling short made you a legend. I agree that Tedford showed winning at a high level is possible at Cal, which eliminated the excuses for .500 records, especially with the easier scheduling we adopted and now that we need to win at a higher level to survive. While it explains our moving on from late Tedford and from Dykes when they delivered losing seasons, it does not explain so much of of fanbase supporting Wilcox for so long. Not long ago Stanford went to three Rose Bowls. SMU came in from G5, is getting zero from the ACC and almost won the ACC in their (and our) first year as conference members. Wilcox has finished at or near the bottom of the conference standings 8 out of 8 seasons. "9th time is a charm" is said by no other program.

---

Not sure how much the fan base supports Wilcox or how much we just feel we're stuck with him because of the dumb extension.

That said, the negative feelings really set in a year after Covid. Before that, he at least seemed on an upward trajectory, and the Covid year was weird and you couldn't be sure what to make of it.

---

The 1-3 COVID year was 2020. Wilcox received his latest extension in January 2022, after going 5-7 in the 2021 season with the #96 scoring offense. Most on this board celebrated the extension and those who even questioned it were personally attacked.

A few months later in June 2022, USC and UCLA announced they were leaving for the B1G. Two weeks later Oregon and UW were reported to be lobbying the B1G for admission.

Wilcox followed up the extension with 4-8 (2-7) and the #96 offense (again) in Fall of 2022. With the future of the conference in question, people started to realize what a horrible situation Knowlton/we had put us/ourselves into by giving a lengthy extension to a coach with a losing record overall and a downward trend. Then doing nothing to try to get us into the B1G.

2022 was a fateful year for Cal sports. Knowlton is a disaster. We will be lucky if we even have a program when he is done.