ac_green33 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

ac_green33 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Few wealthy alums care to get involved. Few players with NFL aspirations care to attend a "sink or swim" university. Few older folks care to attend 7:30pm games which often approach 4 hours in length. Few actual UC Berkeley students have ever been football fans.

The big fallacy is that having a good Professional Minor League Football team matters to school rankings. Stanford, UCLA and UCB do ok with garbage teams wearing their laundry. Getting more applicants who don't qualify anyway don't mean sheet.

---

This sums up the issue.

Cal's community does not care about football the way other schools do. There is a difference between willing to go to games on the rare occasions that Cal stumbles ass backwards into a good team and it is a hot ticket and caring to do what other schools students and alums will do when we suck. Fact is, when it is event, people are there. When it isn't, people just say "next". Other schools alums border on physical and psychological pain when their football team sucks and will spend whatever to make the pain stop. Ours just stop watching football.

Frankly, it is part of why our alums are rich. If you are an innovator you can put your money into what hundreds of people are already doing or you can put your money into something no one has ever done before and make a lot more money in the process.

Or you are just like me who would love to have a good football team but whose price point is much lower than everyone else's. The mistake people make here is that yes, we have enough people who care about football to support a team very well, but not enough of those people are willing to put outlandish sums of cash on the line to do that when you compare it to other schools.

---

This. But I get KILLED on the paid board for pointing it out.

One data point. My son and his 4 roommates hard passed on it. Sophomores. Live over on North Side right off cedar. Kinda a trek. They are normal kids. 1 plays club hockey (which they attend religiously to support their bud when in town). SCT Jr. is taking 14 units PLUS 4 more for the lab he got a job in. Painfully difficult load (dad brag - 90 on his first O Chem test).

One thing that frustrates me on the paid board is how many alumni look at this team through THEIR experience at Cal and want it to serve THEIR needs. It just isn't clear observing my son's behavior that this is the same for the current crop of students who I think have a different relationship to sports and fandom than the generation of Seb's era.

---

You get killed, because you use your son's experience as a stand-in for every student on campus and then argue that Cal should drop down to D3. THE STUDENT SECTION IS PACKED EVERY WEEK and not every kid is an engineer that only cares about school. You're so incredibly out of touch and never stop talking about it. That's why you get killed.

Your son and his 4 loser friends not liking football is not a good reason to give up on intercollegiate athletics, but you DRONE ON ABOUT IT INCESSANTLY FOR MONTHS AT A TIME.

---

So please note in the spirit of "he started it" and got personal.....


Here is what YOU drone on about - that somehow a program that hasn't been to a Rose bowl since you were born (or maybe your FATHER was born) is somehow going to "fire the coach": and suddenly contend for a national championship. That you myopically focus just on Cal, not even appreciating the extent to which "Real" football schools invest. You seem oblivious to the fact that schools like Texas have FOUR football practice fields (3 regulation size) so they can hone their craft. That schools like Oregon want for naught. And that, most importantly and different than basketball, CFB is very very much a zero sum game. TO make the playoff you can't not lose - and when you do the teams you lose to improve their chances of getting in.

You and your ilk drone incessantly about how firing Wilcox is the alpha and the omega. That Cal is some sleeping giant. That it doesn't really need to do what CFP contenders do. That it can avoid those sacrifices and challenges and still "win".

And I have pointed some of those out. A REAL FB school doesn't have the best practice field reserved for rugby. A real FB school long ago built an athlete centric dorm with oversized rooms and beds. At least now we fly Charter - something that upper PAC12 teams did long ago. It is really funny that I draw your ire....go start a ffight with the rugby guys and find out what they really are passionate about.

Now generally I don't really care. We all have our obsessions. It doesn't really matter to me about yours. But what is irritating beyond belief is your expectation that the ADMINSTRATION should follow you. When there no data that it actually helps improve the institution's core mission. It just isn't at ALL clear that it helps with fundraising - since the vast majority of $$$ comes from major gifts which increasingly comes from families/alumni disconnected from the rah rah days of the some mythical past AND that other non-football UCs show that they can raise money as well. Cal DOESN"T need is more applications - because that drives down admission rates and creates headaches in Sacramento. It doesn't need it for the kind of students it currently has...a nice to have but put a Athletic Fee (such as what EVERY other UC has) and it would fail miserably.

Being incredibly out of touch is thinking that what you saw on Saturday is close to a CFP team. The gulf is vast....and that is against DUKE!!!???!!! Imagine what it would look like against Miami or tOSU or Oregon. We would lose by 50. And once you dig under the hood on those programs the investment level is just so vast. Ryan Day makes 2.5 X what Wilcox does. That is what you pay for a CFP coach. And so you and your ilk will incessisantly drone on until cal gets left out of the realignent....and rather than prepare for that day by aligning football to where it makes sense to be for Cal you will slink back. I hope you attend those games - played probably during the day, on Saturday, at CMS and which are pleasant ways of reengaging on campus rather than the Made for TV beat downs we will get to experience for a few more years.

---

Please tell me where I've said any of those things? Again, you just make **** up and project based on your own personal feelings. So incredibly egotistical. I just personally dislike you more than anyone else on this board and that's saying a lot.

---

There are like 6 threats on the paid board that are about firing WIlcox or variations. If you failed to participate my bad. Unlike you I do not obsess about what an individual poster provides nor stalk them through the board.

Burn. Cut low.

ac_green33 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

ac_green33 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

ac_green33 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Few wealthy alums care to get involved. Few players with NFL aspirations care to attend a "sink or swim" university. Few older folks care to attend 7:30pm games which often approach 4 hours in length. Few actual UC Berkeley students have ever been football fans.

The big fallacy is that having a good Professional Minor League Football team matters to school rankings. Stanford, UCLA and UCB do ok with garbage teams wearing their laundry. Getting more applicants who don't qualify anyway don't mean sheet.

---

This sums up the issue.

Cal's community does not care about football the way other schools do. There is a difference between willing to go to games on the rare occasions that Cal stumbles ass backwards into a good team and it is a hot ticket and caring to do what other schools students and alums will do when we suck. Fact is, when it is event, people are there. When it isn't, people just say "next". Other schools alums border on physical and psychological pain when their football team sucks and will spend whatever to make the pain stop. Ours just stop watching football.

Frankly, it is part of why our alums are rich. If you are an innovator you can put your money into what hundreds of people are already doing or you can put your money into something no one has ever done before and make a lot more money in the process.

Or you are just like me who would love to have a good football team but whose price point is much lower than everyone else's. The mistake people make here is that yes, we have enough people who care about football to support a team very well, but not enough of those people are willing to put outlandish sums of cash on the line to do that when you compare it to other schools.

---

This. But I get KILLED on the paid board for pointing it out.

One data point. My son and his 4 roommates hard passed on it. Sophomores. Live over on North Side right off cedar. Kinda a trek. They are normal kids. 1 plays club hockey (which they attend religiously to support their bud when in town). SCT Jr. is taking 14 units PLUS 4 more for the lab he got a job in. Painfully difficult load (dad brag - 90 on his first O Chem test).

One thing that frustrates me on the paid board is how many alumni look at this team through THEIR experience at Cal and want it to serve THEIR needs. It just isn't clear observing my son's behavior that this is the same for the current crop of students who I think have a different relationship to sports and fandom than the generation of Seb's era.

---

You get killed, because you use your son's experience as a stand-in for every student on campus and then argue that Cal should drop down to D3. THE STUDENT SECTION IS PACKED EVERY WEEK and not every kid is an engineer that only cares about school. You're so incredibly out of touch and never stop talking about it. That's why you get killed.

Your son and his 4 loser friends not liking football is not a good reason to give up on intercollegiate athletics, but you DRONE ON ABOUT IT INCESSANTLY FOR MONTHS AT A TIME.

---

So please note in the spirit of "he started it" and got personal.....


Here is what YOU drone on about - that somehow a program that hasn't been to a Rose bowl since you were born (or maybe your FATHER was born) is somehow going to "fire the coach": and suddenly contend for a national championship. That you myopically focus just on Cal, not even appreciating the extent to which "Real" football schools invest. You seem oblivious to the fact that schools like Texas have FOUR football practice fields (3 regulation size) so they can hone their craft. That schools like Oregon want for naught. And that, most importantly and different than basketball, CFB is very very much a zero sum game. TO make the playoff you can't not lose - and when you do the teams you lose to improve their chances of getting in.

You and your ilk drone incessantly about how firing Wilcox is the alpha and the omega. That Cal is some sleeping giant. That it doesn't really need to do what CFP contenders do. That it can avoid those sacrifices and challenges and still "win".

And I have pointed some of those out. A REAL FB school doesn't have the best practice field reserved for rugby. A real FB school long ago built an athlete centric dorm with oversized rooms and beds. At least now we fly Charter - something that upper PAC12 teams did long ago. It is really funny that I draw your ire....go start a ffight with the rugby guys and find out what they really are passionate about.

Now generally I don't really care. We all have our obsessions. It doesn't really matter to me about yours. But what is irritating beyond belief is your expectation that the ADMINSTRATION should follow you. When there no data that it actually helps improve the institution's core mission. It just isn't at ALL clear that it helps with fundraising - since the vast majority of $$$ comes from major gifts which increasingly comes from families/alumni disconnected from the rah rah days of the some mythical past AND that other non-football UCs show that they can raise money as well. Cal DOESN"T need is more applications - because that drives down admission rates and creates headaches in Sacramento. It doesn't need it for the kind of students it currently has...a nice to have but put a Athletic Fee (such as what EVERY other UC has) and it would fail miserably.

Being incredibly out of touch is thinking that what you saw on Saturday is close to a CFP team. The gulf is vast....and that is against DUKE!!!???!!! Imagine what it would look like against Miami or tOSU or Oregon. We would lose by 50. And once you dig under the hood on those programs the investment level is just so vast. Ryan Day makes 2.5 X what Wilcox does. That is what you pay for a CFP coach. And so you and your ilk will incessisantly drone on until cal gets left out of the realignent....and rather than prepare for that day by aligning football to where it makes sense to be for Cal you will slink back. I hope you attend those games - played probably during the day, on Saturday, at CMS and which are pleasant ways of reengaging on campus rather than the Made for TV beat downs we will get to experience for a few more years.

---

Please tell me where I've said any of those things? Again, you just make **** up and project based on your own personal feelings. So incredibly egotistical. I just personally dislike you more than anyone else on this board and that's saying a lot.

---

There are like 6 threats on the paid board that are about firing WIlcox or variations. If you failed to participate my bad. Unlike you I do not obsess about what an individual poster provides nor stalk them through the board.

---

I don't stalk you; I just make sure to call out your BS whenever you post it. Everything you post is antithetical to what this board is all about. I'll try to put it in language you might understand:

Imagine this is an academic forum for UCSB and there is a passionate group of members trying everything in their power to get them to try and be on par with Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD. These members are donating their money, time, and labor to do everything they can to help the university make the jump. They don't always succeed, but they keep trying. Maybe they make some headway and some changes that you could start to see some light at the end of the tunnel. These are cool things to be excited about. But, maybe there are also some setbacks that people get upset about. That happens too.

Now imagine, there's an annoying little gnat who talks about how pointless it all is every single day and that they should just become a CSU or a JC.

---

Sounds like cyberstalking to me. But YMMV

There is a better analogy if you want to go to higher education - SDSUs continued desire to become a PhD granting institution.

Like the AD supporters of Cal, there are a ton of folks in San Diego that would fund the expansion to be able to do that. It likely would come at minimal financial risk to the institution. It is clear that they bring in enough research $$$ that they are not starting from scratch. They have long argued that it would be making SDSU even more "relevant:" and the kind of university that many see them as.

Rightly (IMHO) that has been shot down because of the bad things that would happen. If the system said yes to SDSU it would need to say yes to SLO. If it said yes to both of them it would likely have to say yes to Long Beach. And while PhD programs CAN make sense they often operate at a loss. Moreover, it would erode the core idea of the CSU system. It would absolutely bump up against challenges in the kind of unionized faculty setting CSUSM has (for example, navigating the tensions between giving grad students teaching experience and ensuring that lecturers have opportunities under the contract to get classes). And of course the funny thing is that UC (and possibly chancellor lyons) have been vocal for decades in opposing SDSUs efforts to move in that direction.

The analogy starts to break down because trying keep Cal Football alive in the P4 might not be doing harm. Similarly, I am not sure why arguing that this is a quixitotic quest is doing harm. Your anger and irritation is really strange. But I fundamentally disagree that it is " . Everything you post is antithetical to what this board is all about" . There is a LONG tradition in BI that was skeptical about lowering academic standards. Hell, there is an entire meme (Truck stop school) that poked fun at the sports factories that stood in contrast to Cal. ALL I am pointing out is that if you really want (and I don't think you do) to compete for a P4 then go all in. DOn't be a half ass about it. DOn't do it part way to keep your purity and say that ffiring a coach is all. Make the investment and the trade offs and if the product STILL sucks then fire the coach. Or do both. Just don't ***** about the coaching when those that are more dispassionate and with broader experience in seeing other universties point out that Cal is STILL not all in oin this.

I Bear said:

---

It's real simple: This team is simply not talented! We have one supremely talented player and that's it-JKS! Every other unit/ player is just average at best and many are below average. These kids are playing as hard as they can but they aren't to the level of competing ata D1 level.

The only remaining question is does the University of California care enough to fix it , the blueprint is there, other schools have lauded it out, sadly I don't think the powers that be care enough. We are big time when it's comes to academics ( that's a good thing) but the decision makers simply are willing to put forth the resources necessary to compete in the revenue sports.

---

This. I tend to think that the realistic take is that to "fix it" will take extraordinary efforts. The amount of local talent is fairly limited (I am saying local is everything SLO North). Population in that part of the state is shrinking. SO to recruit you have to go outside of NorCal and to places where the academic reputation of the school is not QUANTUMLY different from their flagships. Yes. Cal is objectively on most academic metrics better than Texas or Wisky or Even Michigan. But for undergrads not quantumly better. And of course on the football side they ARE better. So you have to get investment in football at least within spitting distance of them.

Cal has wider range of advantages with schools in the interwest, some other midwest schools and a bunch of the south. Then there is southern california.

I do know that if I had 2 or 3 million extra I would give it to Cal so they could institute a multi-year SOCal Coaches outreach program. Bring the top HS coaches up for a week or 2 over spring break. Lots of coaches presence in the Southland,. Relentlessly working CIF SoCal playoff games with presence. Of course lots of other programs are recruiting in that goegraphy as well - so at the VERY least benchmark your efforts against what folks like Oregon who are doing who seem to have a strong presence with Youth and HS football especially in the Inland Empire.

socaltownie said:

---

ac_green33 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

ac_green33 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

ac_green33 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Few wealthy alums care to get involved. Few players with NFL aspirations care to attend a "sink or swim" university. Few older folks care to attend 7:30pm games which often approach 4 hours in length. Few actual UC Berkeley students have ever been football fans.

The big fallacy is that having a good Professional Minor League Football team matters to school rankings. Stanford, UCLA and UCB do ok with garbage teams wearing their laundry. Getting more applicants who don't qualify anyway don't mean sheet.

---

This sums up the issue.

Cal's community does not care about football the way other schools do. There is a difference between willing to go to games on the rare occasions that Cal stumbles ass backwards into a good team and it is a hot ticket and caring to do what other schools students and alums will do when we suck. Fact is, when it is event, people are there. When it isn't, people just say "next". Other schools alums border on physical and psychological pain when their football team sucks and will spend whatever to make the pain stop. Ours just stop watching football.

Frankly, it is part of why our alums are rich. If you are an innovator you can put your money into what hundreds of people are already doing or you can put your money into something no one has ever done before and make a lot more money in the process.

Or you are just like me who would love to have a good football team but whose price point is much lower than everyone else's. The mistake people make here is that yes, we have enough people who care about football to support a team very well, but not enough of those people are willing to put outlandish sums of cash on the line to do that when you compare it to other schools.

---

This. But I get KILLED on the paid board for pointing it out.

One data point. My son and his 4 roommates hard passed on it. Sophomores. Live over on North Side right off cedar. Kinda a trek. They are normal kids. 1 plays club hockey (which they attend religiously to support their bud when in town). SCT Jr. is taking 14 units PLUS 4 more for the lab he got a job in. Painfully difficult load (dad brag - 90 on his first O Chem test).

One thing that frustrates me on the paid board is how many alumni look at this team through THEIR experience at Cal and want it to serve THEIR needs. It just isn't clear observing my son's behavior that this is the same for the current crop of students who I think have a different relationship to sports and fandom than the generation of Seb's era.

---

You get killed, because you use your son's experience as a stand-in for every student on campus and then argue that Cal should drop down to D3. THE STUDENT SECTION IS PACKED EVERY WEEK and not every kid is an engineer that only cares about school. You're so incredibly out of touch and never stop talking about it. That's why you get killed.

Your son and his 4 loser friends not liking football is not a good reason to give up on intercollegiate athletics, but you DRONE ON ABOUT IT INCESSANTLY FOR MONTHS AT A TIME.

---

So please note in the spirit of "he started it" and got personal.....


Here is what YOU drone on about - that somehow a program that hasn't been to a Rose bowl since you were born (or maybe your FATHER was born) is somehow going to "fire the coach": and suddenly contend for a national championship. That you myopically focus just on Cal, not even appreciating the extent to which "Real" football schools invest. You seem oblivious to the fact that schools like Texas have FOUR football practice fields (3 regulation size) so they can hone their craft. That schools like Oregon want for naught. And that, most importantly and different than basketball, CFB is very very much a zero sum game. TO make the playoff you can't not lose - and when you do the teams you lose to improve their chances of getting in.

You and your ilk drone incessantly about how firing Wilcox is the alpha and the omega. That Cal is some sleeping giant. That it doesn't really need to do what CFP contenders do. That it can avoid those sacrifices and challenges and still "win".

And I have pointed some of those out. A REAL FB school doesn't have the best practice field reserved for rugby. A real FB school long ago built an athlete centric dorm with oversized rooms and beds. At least now we fly Charter - something that upper PAC12 teams did long ago. It is really funny that I draw your ire....go start a ffight with the rugby guys and find out what they really are passionate about.

Now generally I don't really care. We all have our obsessions. It doesn't really matter to me about yours. But what is irritating beyond belief is your expectation that the ADMINSTRATION should follow you. When there no data that it actually helps improve the institution's core mission. It just isn't at ALL clear that it helps with fundraising - since the vast majority of $$$ comes from major gifts which increasingly comes from families/alumni disconnected from the rah rah days of the some mythical past AND that other non-football UCs show that they can raise money as well. Cal DOESN"T need is more applications - because that drives down admission rates and creates headaches in Sacramento. It doesn't need it for the kind of students it currently has...a nice to have but put a Athletic Fee (such as what EVERY other UC has) and it would fail miserably.

Being incredibly out of touch is thinking that what you saw on Saturday is close to a CFP team. The gulf is vast....and that is against DUKE!!!???!!! Imagine what it would look like against Miami or tOSU or Oregon. We would lose by 50. And once you dig under the hood on those programs the investment level is just so vast. Ryan Day makes 2.5 X what Wilcox does. That is what you pay for a CFP coach. And so you and your ilk will incessisantly drone on until cal gets left out of the realignent....and rather than prepare for that day by aligning football to where it makes sense to be for Cal you will slink back. I hope you attend those games - played probably during the day, on Saturday, at CMS and which are pleasant ways of reengaging on campus rather than the Made for TV beat downs we will get to experience for a few more years.

---

Please tell me where I've said any of those things? Again, you just make **** up and project based on your own personal feelings. So incredibly egotistical. I just personally dislike you more than anyone else on this board and that's saying a lot.

---

There are like 6 threats on the paid board that are about firing WIlcox or variations. If you failed to participate my bad. Unlike you I do not obsess about what an individual poster provides nor stalk them through the board.

---

I don't stalk you; I just make sure to call out your BS whenever you post it. Everything you post is antithetical to what this board is all about. I'll try to put it in language you might understand:

Imagine this is an academic forum for UCSB and there is a passionate group of members trying everything in their power to get them to try and be on par with Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD. These members are donating their money, time, and labor to do everything they can to help the university make the jump. They don't always succeed, but they keep trying. Maybe they make some headway and some changes that you could start to see some light at the end of the tunnel. These are cool things to be excited about. But, maybe there are also some setbacks that people get upset about. That happens too.

Now imagine, there's an annoying little gnat who talks about how pointless it all is every single day and that they should just become a CSU or a JC.

---

Sounds like cyberstalking to me. But YMMV

There is a better analogy if you want to go to higher education - SDSUs continued desire to become a PhD granting institution.

Like the AD supporters of Cal, there are a ton of folks in San Diego that would fund the expansion to be able to do that. It likely would come at minimal financial risk to the institution. It is clear that they bring in enough research $$$ that they are not starting from scratch. They have long argued that it would be making SDSU even more "relevant:" and the kind of university that many see them as.

Rightly (IMHO) that has been shot down because of the bad things that would happen. If the system said yes to SDSU it would need to say yes to SLO. If it said yes to both of them it would likely have to say yes to Long Beach. And while PhD programs CAN make sense they often operate at a loss. Moreover, it would erode the core idea of the CSU system. It would absolutely bump up against challenges in the kind of unionized faculty setting CSUSM has (for example, navigating the tensions between giving grad students teaching experience and ensuring that lecturers have opportunities under the contract to get classes). And of course the funny thing is that UC (and possibly chancellor lyons) have been vocal for decades in opposing SDSUs efforts to move in that direction.

The analogy starts to break down because trying keep Cal Football alive in the P4 might not be doing harm. Similarly, I am not sure why arguing that this is a quixitotic quest is doing harm. Your anger and irritation is really strange. But I fundamentally disagree that it is " . Everything you post is antithetical to what this board is all about" . There is a LONG tradition in BI that was skeptical about lowering academic standards. Hell, there is an entire meme (Truck stop school) that poked fun at the sports factories that stood in contrast to Cal. ALL I am pointing out is that if you really want (and I don't think you do) to compete for a P4 then go all in. DOn't be a half ass about it. DOn't do it part way to keep your purity and say that ffiring a coach is all. Make the investment and the trade offs and if the product STILL sucks then fire the coach. Or do both. Just don't ***** about the coaching when those that are more dispassionate and with broader experience in seeing other universties point out that Cal is STILL not all in oin this.

---

When the athletic department is running $67M in the hole and football revenue from all sources including donations is a fraction of that, and football revenue is at an operating loss, this is a relevant conversation to have.

A few years ago Sebasta laid out all the difficult things Cal as a whole needs to do to make it work. He has done everything he can do. I agreed wholeheartedly with everything he said. I am clearly dubious that the Cal community will do what is necessary. But the decision isn't to step down. It is a choice to either fully understand what the commitment entails and do that or determine what program you want to have at the resources your community is willing to put in. The Cal community is getting the football program they have paid for. 2 conference co-championships, losing the tie break both times, in 65 years. 15 straight losing records in conference. And a record over 65 years that is basically 5 years under Tedford, 1 year under Snyder, Maybe 3 years under White, and a whole lot of suck otherwise. That is not all on Wilcox.

I don't care if your kid goes to games (and Cal students who don't go to games are not losers) or other kids go to games. (and sorry, but no, the student support for a 30K undergrad student campus with a stadium a 5 minute walk from most student housing is not great unless you compare it to the support from the same campus when that campus had 24K undergrads and even then it struggles to match. Compared to many other schools it falls well short) The bottom line is that we have 65 years of the Cal community not prioritizing revenue sports the way that winning programs do. Support that doesn't come up to half what those programs get. Texas, and Ohio State and Alabama - those schools are not laying out $67M for athletics. Athletics are paid for by their communities. Hey, it was fine when Cal athletics was running $5m deficits and relying on conference payouts while occasionally being the plucky underdog. But now Cal is running $67M deficits and facing a conference realignment that will leave it out. It is put up or shut up time for the Cal community and so far the put up is not enough.

It is frankly so Berkeley to just have a discussion where we talk in vague terms about what needs to be done in this world and then adjourn with no solutions. And they practical questions and solutions are viewed as a buzz kill.

The Cal community is putting X resources into this thing. It needs to put 3X. It needs to decide do we:

1. Continue to put X resources into this thing and continue to get pounded or
2. Continue to put X resources into this thing and compete with others who put X resources into this thing. or
3. Put 3X resources into this thing to compete with those putting 3X resources into this thing.

The option that is NOT feasible is putting X resources (or stretching to 1.2X resources) into this thing and magically expecting conference championships. Wilcox or not (and oh baby he needs to be fired) that isn't going to happen. The Cal fandom is so massively out of touch with how far behind we are.

And the university is not going to put an additional $50M into football to bring it in line with the revenue that winning schools get from their alums.

Frankly, yes, alums should be put under a very real threat of stepping down in conference because if Cal doesn't do it voluntarily it will be done soon involuntarily. Time to decide how badly they want this.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

ac_green33 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

ac_green33 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

ac_green33 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Few wealthy alums care to get involved. Few players with NFL aspirations care to attend a "sink or swim" university. Few older folks care to attend 7:30pm games which often approach 4 hours in length. Few actual UC Berkeley students have ever been football fans.

The big fallacy is that having a good Professional Minor League Football team matters to school rankings. Stanford, UCLA and UCB do ok with garbage teams wearing their laundry. Getting more applicants who don't qualify anyway don't mean sheet.

---

This sums up the issue.

Cal's community does not care about football the way other schools do. There is a difference between willing to go to games on the rare occasions that Cal stumbles ass backwards into a good team and it is a hot ticket and caring to do what other schools students and alums will do when we suck. Fact is, when it is event, people are there. When it isn't, people just say "next". Other schools alums border on physical and psychological pain when their football team sucks and will spend whatever to make the pain stop. Ours just stop watching football.

Frankly, it is part of why our alums are rich. If you are an innovator you can put your money into what hundreds of people are already doing or you can put your money into something no one has ever done before and make a lot more money in the process.

Or you are just like me who would love to have a good football team but whose price point is much lower than everyone else's. The mistake people make here is that yes, we have enough people who care about football to support a team very well, but not enough of those people are willing to put outlandish sums of cash on the line to do that when you compare it to other schools.

---

This. But I get KILLED on the paid board for pointing it out.

One data point. My son and his 4 roommates hard passed on it. Sophomores. Live over on North Side right off cedar. Kinda a trek. They are normal kids. 1 plays club hockey (which they attend religiously to support their bud when in town). SCT Jr. is taking 14 units PLUS 4 more for the lab he got a job in. Painfully difficult load (dad brag - 90 on his first O Chem test).

One thing that frustrates me on the paid board is how many alumni look at this team through THEIR experience at Cal and want it to serve THEIR needs. It just isn't clear observing my son's behavior that this is the same for the current crop of students who I think have a different relationship to sports and fandom than the generation of Seb's era.

---

You get killed, because you use your son's experience as a stand-in for every student on campus and then argue that Cal should drop down to D3. THE STUDENT SECTION IS PACKED EVERY WEEK and not every kid is an engineer that only cares about school. You're so incredibly out of touch and never stop talking about it. That's why you get killed.

Your son and his 4 loser friends not liking football is not a good reason to give up on intercollegiate athletics, but you DRONE ON ABOUT IT INCESSANTLY FOR MONTHS AT A TIME.

---

So please note in the spirit of "he started it" and got personal.....


Here is what YOU drone on about - that somehow a program that hasn't been to a Rose bowl since you were born (or maybe your FATHER was born) is somehow going to "fire the coach": and suddenly contend for a national championship. That you myopically focus just on Cal, not even appreciating the extent to which "Real" football schools invest. You seem oblivious to the fact that schools like Texas have FOUR football practice fields (3 regulation size) so they can hone their craft. That schools like Oregon want for naught. And that, most importantly and different than basketball, CFB is very very much a zero sum game. TO make the playoff you can't not lose - and when you do the teams you lose to improve their chances of getting in.

You and your ilk drone incessantly about how firing Wilcox is the alpha and the omega. That Cal is some sleeping giant. That it doesn't really need to do what CFP contenders do. That it can avoid those sacrifices and challenges and still "win".

And I have pointed some of those out. A REAL FB school doesn't have the best practice field reserved for rugby. A real FB school long ago built an athlete centric dorm with oversized rooms and beds. At least now we fly Charter - something that upper PAC12 teams did long ago. It is really funny that I draw your ire....go start a ffight with the rugby guys and find out what they really are passionate about.

Now generally I don't really care. We all have our obsessions. It doesn't really matter to me about yours. But what is irritating beyond belief is your expectation that the ADMINSTRATION should follow you. When there no data that it actually helps improve the institution's core mission. It just isn't at ALL clear that it helps with fundraising - since the vast majority of $$$ comes from major gifts which increasingly comes from families/alumni disconnected from the rah rah days of the some mythical past AND that other non-football UCs show that they can raise money as well. Cal DOESN"T need is more applications - because that drives down admission rates and creates headaches in Sacramento. It doesn't need it for the kind of students it currently has...a nice to have but put a Athletic Fee (such as what EVERY other UC has) and it would fail miserably.

Being incredibly out of touch is thinking that what you saw on Saturday is close to a CFP team. The gulf is vast....and that is against DUKE!!!???!!! Imagine what it would look like against Miami or tOSU or Oregon. We would lose by 50. And once you dig under the hood on those programs the investment level is just so vast. Ryan Day makes 2.5 X what Wilcox does. That is what you pay for a CFP coach. And so you and your ilk will incessisantly drone on until cal gets left out of the realignent....and rather than prepare for that day by aligning football to where it makes sense to be for Cal you will slink back. I hope you attend those games - played probably during the day, on Saturday, at CMS and which are pleasant ways of reengaging on campus rather than the Made for TV beat downs we will get to experience for a few more years.

---

Please tell me where I've said any of those things? Again, you just make **** up and project based on your own personal feelings. So incredibly egotistical. I just personally dislike you more than anyone else on this board and that's saying a lot.

---

There are like 6 threats on the paid board that are about firing WIlcox or variations. If you failed to participate my bad. Unlike you I do not obsess about what an individual poster provides nor stalk them through the board.

---

I don't stalk you; I just make sure to call out your BS whenever you post it. Everything you post is antithetical to what this board is all about. I'll try to put it in language you might understand:

Imagine this is an academic forum for UCSB and there is a passionate group of members trying everything in their power to get them to try and be on par with Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD. These members are donating their money, time, and labor to do everything they can to help the university make the jump. They don't always succeed, but they keep trying. Maybe they make some headway and some changes that you could start to see some light at the end of the tunnel. These are cool things to be excited about. But, maybe there are also some setbacks that people get upset about. That happens too.

Now imagine, there's an annoying little gnat who talks about how pointless it all is every single day and that they should just become a CSU or a JC.

---

Sounds like cyberstalking to me. But YMMV

There is a better analogy if you want to go to higher education - SDSUs continued desire to become a PhD granting institution.

Like the AD supporters of Cal, there are a ton of folks in San Diego that would fund the expansion to be able to do that. It likely would come at minimal financial risk to the institution. It is clear that they bring in enough research $$$ that they are not starting from scratch. They have long argued that it would be making SDSU even more "relevant:" and the kind of university that many see them as.

Rightly (IMHO) that has been shot down because of the bad things that would happen. If the system said yes to SDSU it would need to say yes to SLO. If it said yes to both of them it would likely have to say yes to Long Beach. And while PhD programs CAN make sense they often operate at a loss. Moreover, it would erode the core idea of the CSU system. It would absolutely bump up against challenges in the kind of unionized faculty setting CSUSM has (for example, navigating the tensions between giving grad students teaching experience and ensuring that lecturers have opportunities under the contract to get classes). And of course the funny thing is that UC (and possibly chancellor lyons) have been vocal for decades in opposing SDSUs efforts to move in that direction.

The analogy starts to break down because trying keep Cal Football alive in the P4 might not be doing harm. Similarly, I am not sure why arguing that this is a quixitotic quest is doing harm. Your anger and irritation is really strange. But I fundamentally disagree that it is " . Everything you post is antithetical to what this board is all about" . There is a LONG tradition in BI that was skeptical about lowering academic standards. Hell, there is an entire meme (Truck stop school) that poked fun at the sports factories that stood in contrast to Cal. ALL I am pointing out is that if you really want (and I don't think you do) to compete for a P4 then go all in. DOn't be a half ass about it. DOn't do it part way to keep your purity and say that ffiring a coach is all. Make the investment and the trade offs and if the product STILL sucks then fire the coach. Or do both. Just don't ***** about the coaching when those that are more dispassionate and with broader experience in seeing other universties point out that Cal is STILL not all in oin this.

---

When the athletic department is running $67M in the hole and football revenue from all sources including donations is a fraction of that, and football revenue is at an operating loss, this is a relevant conversation to have.

A few years ago Sebasta laid out all the difficult things Cal as a whole needs to do to make it work. He has done everything he can do. I agreed wholeheartedly with everything he said. I am clearly dubious that the Cal community will do what is necessary. But the decision isn't to step down. It is a choice to either fully understand what the commitment entails and do that or determine what program you want to have at the resources your community is willing to put in. The Cal community is getting the football program they have paid for. 2 conference co-championships, losing the tie break both times, in 65 years. 15 straight losing records in conference. And a record over 65 years that is basically 5 years under Tedford, 1 year under Snyder, Maybe 3 years under White, and a whole lot of suck otherwise. That is not all on Wilcox.

I don't care if your kid goes to games (and Cal students who don't go to games are not losers) or other kids go to games. (and sorry, but no, the student support for a 30K undergrad student campus with a stadium a 5 minute walk from most student housing is not great unless you compare it to the support from the same campus when that campus had 24K undergrads and even then it struggles to match. Compared to many other schools it falls well short) The bottom line is that we have 65 years of the Cal community not prioritizing revenue sports the way that winning programs do. Support that doesn't come up to half what those programs get. Texas, and Ohio State and Alabama - those schools are not laying out $67M for athletics. Athletics are paid for by their communities. Hey, it was fine when Cal athletics was running $5m deficits and relying on conference payouts while occasionally being the plucky underdog. But now Cal is running $67M deficits and facing a conference realignment that will leave it out. It is put up or shut up time for the Cal community and so far the put up is not enough.

It is frankly so Berkeley to just have a discussion where we talk in vague terms about what needs to be done in this world and then adjourn with no solutions. And they practical questions and solutions are viewed as a buzz kill.

The Cal community is putting X resources into this thing. It needs to put 3X. It needs to decide do we:

1. Continue to put X resources into this thing and continue to get pounded or
2. Continue to put X resources into this thing and compete with others who put X resources into this thing. or
3. Put 3X resources into this thing to compete with those putting 3X resources into this thing.

The option that is NOT feasible is putting X resources (or stretching to 1.2X resources) into this thing and magically expecting conference championships. Wilcox or not (and oh baby he needs to be fired) that isn't going to happen. The Cal fandom is so massively out of touch with how far behind we are.

And the university is not going to put an additional $50M into football to bring it in line with the revenue that winning schools get from their alums.

Frankly, yes, alums should be put under a very real threat of stepping down in conference because if Cal doesn't do it voluntarily it will be done soon involuntarily. Time to decide how badly they want this.

---

Much more elegant than I. I am NOT ever going to begrudge Seb's work. I am not going to besmirch that Lyons seems all in and doing what he can. If it has ever come off that way very Bad on me. The only time donors should be dinged is when they are pulling in a way that causes the organization to go in a strange direction and Seb and the collective have absolutely not.


As you point out, it just is that this isn't enough when judged against what schools who are (and I would argue NEED to be) all in for football do. And it isn 't even the alumni - and isn't the easy stuff. It is the HARD stuff that would require both donors and the admin to tell important stakeholders - tough cookies.

And I agree - the vague **** (and then attacking the neysayers) is exhausting. I have repeatedly said AT LEAST three specific things.

1) Put a fee on students. Every other UC does. We know that revenue from Cal Athletics isn't enough to be in the big boy league. Sad but true. If students value it then they should be able to pass 100 a semester. It would bring in and additional 8 million. If at UCSD's level (1000 for the YEAR) it would generate an additional 40 million. Under UC rules you have to vote. Lets see if students are really "all in".

2) Take Whitter for football in the Fall. THe team needs a 3rd practice field. It isn't ideal but you can run golf carts. Probably also close down that section of Strawberry Canyon road. It Prioritizes football. The howls from especially LBL should be hysterical. Oh well.

3) Dedicate at least 3 floors of the new dorm at Peoples park for FB. Bigger rooms, bigger beds, Athlete only rec facilities. Free and dedicated parking.

Now I use these, only semi-farcically, because I KNOW they are third rails for the campus. But the point is, at schools all in they wouldn't be. They are NON CONTROVERSIES. And if the community could see that maybe then we could have a rational discussion about whether Cal really should/can compete in the new landscape and whether being mediacore in it is better than a fully alumni/fan centric focus at a lower level.

But I also get that there are datapoints which are inconsistent. We DID win under Tedford. Game day was a ROARING success. I just want us to commit to excellence and not do things half way because it isn't good for the health of the university and our half assed approach bleeds into perceptions about things the university IS doing well..

I don't expect Cal football to get to the level of Ohio State or Alabama or the other titans of the sport. At least not without a lot of other steps over a long period of time (longer than most of us will live anyway). But can we at least take a step up and be like Duke or Arizona State or something? Have the occasional big year once a decade? This doesn't seem out of the question with what donors seem willing to give, but correct me if I'm wrong there.

Interesting that a fee the same as ucsd gets you close to dukes top line

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I don't expect Cal football to get to the level of Ohio State or Alabama or the other titans of the sport. At least not without a lot of other steps over a long period of time (longer than most of us will live anyway). But can we at least take a step up and be like Duke or Arizona State or something? Have the occasional big year once a decade? This doesn't seem out of the question with what donors seem willing to give, but correct me if I'm wrong there.

---

2023 Duke Football Revenue: $68M (all sources including tickets, donations, etc.)
2023 Cal Football Revenue: $38M ( (all sources including tickets, donations, etc.)

2023 Duke Athletic Revenue (minus institutional support): $166M
2023 Cal Athletic Revenue (minus institutional support): $93M

And frankly, Duke isn't very good. We'll see if this lasts or if it is a Tedfordesque blip.

---

Dook going back 3 decades had a stretch including:

• 3 winless seasons in 6 years
• 23-game losing streak
• Won no more than 4 games in a season over 14 seasons
• Prior to 2015 had not won a bowl game since 1960

They have been much better over the last 15 years or so and were good enough to kick our asses in Strawberry Canyon last Saturday, yet historically have been a sub-.500 program and an ACC cellar dweller

socaltownie said:

---

Interesting that a fee the same as ucsd gets you close to dukes top line

---

Student fee at UCSD is $777 per year. That would net Cal $25M which still leaves you way short of Duke's revenue on athletics.

When I was at Cal the students overwhelmingly turned down a much smaller fee. I don't think you are going to get close to that approved by the students and I think Cal very well knows that. But sure, put it to a vote as I have said. If the students want to support athletics, they should.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I don't expect Cal football to get to the level of Ohio State or Alabama or the other titans of the sport. At least not without a lot of other steps over a long period of time (longer than most of us will live anyway). But can we at least take a step up and be like Duke or Arizona State or something? Have the occasional big year once a decade? This doesn't seem out of the question with what donors seem willing to give, but correct me if I'm wrong there.

---

2023 Duke Football Revenue: $68M (all sources including tickets, donations, etc.)
2023 Cal Football Revenue: $38M ( (all sources including tickets, donations, etc.)

2023 Duke Athletic Revenue (minus institutional support): $166M
2023 Cal Athletic Revenue (minus institutional support): $93M

And frankly, Duke isn't very good. We'll see if this lasts or if it is a Tedfordesque blip.

edit:

Because I had done this before as an example of a sorta meh football team in our conference, UNC's athletic revenue not including institutional support was $140M

And also remember Cal runs an insane number of sports and so far has refused to cut any.

I'm not talking about titans either, but:

Texas $330M
Ohio State $255M
Alabama $235M

---

Hmm, seems like Cal donors will need to step up a lot. And yes, we will have to cut sports.

No. 1000. Remember they are quarter. So x3

socaltownie said:

---

No. 1000. Remember they are quarter. So x3

---

Nevermind. You are right. Mine was out of date.

But, adding $33M, while extraordinarily meaningful does not get Cal athletics revenue remotely close to Duke's

Haleiwabear said:

---

their two d ends were killing our tackles in obvious passing downs which was most of the game. they have an all American corner and manny Diaz is a good defensive coach. they had some sick pressures where they stunted inside to force JKS left and then trapped him with a spy. Our nose tackle being out the majority of the first half did not help our cause either

---

Do we ever do anything like that ourselves? Seems to me that we seldom blitz, twist or stunt but focus instead on trying to be sound in our scheme and execute it well.

Feels like creativity is missing and a good opponent can scout us and predict where we will always be on D.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

No. 1000. Remember they are quarter. So x3

---

Nevermind. You are right. Mine was out of date.

But, adding $33M, while extraordinarily meaningful does not get Cal athletics revenue remotely close to Duke's

---

True. I was guestimating over next decade undergrad averaging 40k enrollment but i havnet looked at masterplan in a while

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

6956bear said:

---

59bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

DaveT said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

DaveT said:

---

No reason we can't field a talented team. We're the flagship university in the most populous state in the country. We are located in a beautiful, warm, and economically-vibrant area with a gorgeous campus. We have a huge reservoir of wealthy alums, provide a great educational experience, play in a major sports conference, and graduate players to the NFL.

If Duke can field a talented team, so can we. If Indiana can field a talented team, so can we. If Iowa State, Arizona State, Texas Tech, Utah, Missouri, and Georgia Tech can field talented teams, so can we.

We've chosen to be inept. Despite all these advantages, we've somehow convinced ourselves we're just not cut out to play high-caliber college football. It's really sad. Other programs would long-ago have demanded better, but our donors, students, alums and supporters (those that are left) seem okay with the perpetual Groundhog Day of unwarranted hope, disappointment, resignation, apathy every season.

---

This is a bad take because it equate population, ignores demographics, and fails to analyze the consistent problem for the last decade OL (and DL) play. It is a very narrow part of the population that is 6.4 and capable fo putting 330 pounds on the frame. As a general rule this is not guys with Hispanic and Asian ethnicities. Until we figure out how to recruit in the Midwest and in the Sunbelt we are a 7 win program.

---

Odd response in the age of ChatGPT, just go look it up. Of the top 250 high school recruits in the class of 2024, California, Texas, and combined western states accounted for over half of them.
____________________________________________________________
Percentage Breakdown (Top 250)

• California: Around 20-22% of the Top 250.
• Texas: Around 20-22% of the Top 250.
• Western States (Excluding California): Around 15-18% of the Top 250.

Key Takeaways

• California and Texas dominate the Top 250 rankings, together accounting for about 40-45% of the nation's best recruits.
• Western states (including Washington, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Oregon, and Colorado) continue to show their strength, contributing around 15-18% of the talent pool.

_____________________________________________________________

Over the past decade Wilcox has been the coach and we've sucked in most areas, including OL/DL, Don't think that has much to do with Hispanic and Asian demographics.

We have loads of competitive advantages in recruiting. We should be a better football program than we are.

---

Wilcox has simply never been a good recruiter. It's why our donor collective has had to work hard to supplement his teams with portal classes.

OL is one place where it's VERY hard to reload through the portal. You need to develop those guys over time. Telling that it's where Wilcox teams are consistently weak.

---

On the contrary, the essence of the portal is you let others do the development. I've long felt OL is the most difficult position to accurately project development of young talent, a problem magnified by the fluidity of movement in the game today. I suspect the concept of extended development of prospects is passed. I'm a dinosaur and much of what motivates young people mystifies me but it seems to me we've had only 3 coaches since Waldorf who could recruit enough talent to be competitive: Mike White (who got us on probation), Bruce Snyder and Jeff Tedford. As to the California talent pool, clearly it is ever more heading out of state to the Big 10/SEC and is disproportionately skewed to skill position players as opposed to OL studs.

---

I understand your point but how many of the OL players that Cal has brought in have panned out? This season to me it looks like Ruffins may be the best of the group. Bell got exposed on Saturday and Moko has been very inconsistent and is not light on his feet, yet rarely gets much push either.

As to the players the depth of players in the west it is still good. It does favor skill players like QB, WR and DB over OL and DL. But there are some good LOS players here. John Mills for example is starting as a true frosh right now at UW.

What is hard to know especially with OL that enter the portal from the P4 is just how good they are. They are in the portal mostly because they are not playing. The G5 players often have tape but it is against G5 teams not the P4. The biggest difference in P4 and G5 is often found on the DL. You can see some physical traits but you need to be able to determine if they will translate against the improved quality of competition.

If you cannot find the sort of OL you need to play bully ball then you need to adjust your scheme to play a style they are better suited for. It is apparent to me that Cal has a preference in style that is not ideal for the personnel on hand.

---

And this is the point that gets tiresome every year now. We rarely if ever get P4 players with successful track records. And every year we get logically inconsistent buy in on the new transfers.

When we get a P4 player who has done barely anything we get "He's from Ohio State! He must be good!" (and yes, I picked Ohio State deliberately) without any acknowledgment that there may be a reason the guy hasn't played.

When we get a G5 player who has done well against substandard competition, we get "Look at those stats! He must be good!" without any acknowledgement that their skills may not translate to a higher level. For instance, big OL who can physically dominate at a lower level may not be able to do so when the size and athleticism of their opponents increases significantly.

The reality is, much like high school recruiting - some will thrive and some won't. You won't know until you get them here.

This has led to an annual unrealistically optimistic view of our personnel, which I feel really increased this year. I don't know if it is coming from the pay board or it just is what it is, but when you point out the fallacy and the fact that experts who are impartial and make a living doing this don't agree about our class, the "We know something you/they don't" smugness comes out when you know, they don't.

When I pointed out that it is very unlikely that a QB with limited playing time and poor stats when he played and a true Freshman are going to be better than a quality third year starter who is getting first round pick run in the media, I was told, no, the coaches are ecstatic because Brown (who did a good Seeney impression this week) is already better than Mendoza and JKS looks to be better than Brown. (that was half right) There is no way anyone in their right mind thought Brown was better than Mendoza. And basically, JKS is the bright spot on the team and, as you would expect with a true freshman QB with a lot of talent, you get a lot of highs interspersed with some real costly and poor decision making at times (frankly, a lot like Mendoza's first year)

Honestly, I haven't seen knowing optimism backed up by such little fact since the Let the Big Bear Eat phenomenon of the offseason before Holmoe's last year.

And I will add this. The fact that guys who excel for us sometimes transfer and do squat elsewhere does not mean they weren't our best players and that we don't miss them. It just means our best players might not be as good as we think they are. Somebody has to lead in rushing, in tackles, in receiving, etc. On a bad team, that somebody is going to pile up stats they aren't going to pile up elsewhere.

---

I think it was pretty obvious to most of us that this year's roster wasn't going to be quite as good as last year's. We signed some good players in the portal, but we just lost too much (including our DBs to the NFL).

The hope/speculation was that a few other factors might buy us 1-3 more W's than last season:

+ easier schedule (supposedly)
+ better offensive coaches
+ better S & C

Most of the speculation about the QB position was that three years of JKS (potentially) would trump one year of Mendoza... and that Brown would be competent as an interim starter or as a backup.

Big C said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

6956bear said:

---

59bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

DaveT said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

DaveT said:

---

No reason we can't field a talented team. We're the flagship university in the most populous state in the country. We are located in a beautiful, warm, and economically-vibrant area with a gorgeous campus. We have a huge reservoir of wealthy alums, provide a great educational experience, play in a major sports conference, and graduate players to the NFL.

If Duke can field a talented team, so can we. If Indiana can field a talented team, so can we. If Iowa State, Arizona State, Texas Tech, Utah, Missouri, and Georgia Tech can field talented teams, so can we.

We've chosen to be inept. Despite all these advantages, we've somehow convinced ourselves we're just not cut out to play high-caliber college football. It's really sad. Other programs would long-ago have demanded better, but our donors, students, alums and supporters (those that are left) seem okay with the perpetual Groundhog Day of unwarranted hope, disappointment, resignation, apathy every season.

---

This is a bad take because it equate population, ignores demographics, and fails to analyze the consistent problem for the last decade OL (and DL) play. It is a very narrow part of the population that is 6.4 and capable fo putting 330 pounds on the frame. As a general rule this is not guys with Hispanic and Asian ethnicities. Until we figure out how to recruit in the Midwest and in the Sunbelt we are a 7 win program.

---

Odd response in the age of ChatGPT, just go look it up. Of the top 250 high school recruits in the class of 2024, California, Texas, and combined western states accounted for over half of them.
____________________________________________________________
Percentage Breakdown (Top 250)

• California: Around 20-22% of the Top 250.
• Texas: Around 20-22% of the Top 250.
• Western States (Excluding California): Around 15-18% of the Top 250.

Key Takeaways

• California and Texas dominate the Top 250 rankings, together accounting for about 40-45% of the nation's best recruits.
• Western states (including Washington, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Oregon, and Colorado) continue to show their strength, contributing around 15-18% of the talent pool.

_____________________________________________________________

Over the past decade Wilcox has been the coach and we've sucked in most areas, including OL/DL, Don't think that has much to do with Hispanic and Asian demographics.

We have loads of competitive advantages in recruiting. We should be a better football program than we are.

---

Wilcox has simply never been a good recruiter. It's why our donor collective has had to work hard to supplement his teams with portal classes.

OL is one place where it's VERY hard to reload through the portal. You need to develop those guys over time. Telling that it's where Wilcox teams are consistently weak.

---

On the contrary, the essence of the portal is you let others do the development. I've long felt OL is the most difficult position to accurately project development of young talent, a problem magnified by the fluidity of movement in the game today. I suspect the concept of extended development of prospects is passed. I'm a dinosaur and much of what motivates young people mystifies me but it seems to me we've had only 3 coaches since Waldorf who could recruit enough talent to be competitive: Mike White (who got us on probation), Bruce Snyder and Jeff Tedford. As to the California talent pool, clearly it is ever more heading out of state to the Big 10/SEC and is disproportionately skewed to skill position players as opposed to OL studs.

---

I understand your point but how many of the OL players that Cal has brought in have panned out? This season to me it looks like Ruffins may be the best of the group. Bell got exposed on Saturday and Moko has been very inconsistent and is not light on his feet, yet rarely gets much push either.

As to the players the depth of players in the west it is still good. It does favor skill players like QB, WR and DB over OL and DL. But there are some good LOS players here. John Mills for example is starting as a true frosh right now at UW.

What is hard to know especially with OL that enter the portal from the P4 is just how good they are. They are in the portal mostly because they are not playing. The G5 players often have tape but it is against G5 teams not the P4. The biggest difference in P4 and G5 is often found on the DL. You can see some physical traits but you need to be able to determine if they will translate against the improved quality of competition.

If you cannot find the sort of OL you need to play bully ball then you need to adjust your scheme to play a style they are better suited for. It is apparent to me that Cal has a preference in style that is not ideal for the personnel on hand.

---

And this is the point that gets tiresome every year now. We rarely if ever get P4 players with successful track records. And every year we get logically inconsistent buy in on the new transfers.

When we get a P4 player who has done barely anything we get "He's from Ohio State! He must be good!" (and yes, I picked Ohio State deliberately) without any acknowledgment that there may be a reason the guy hasn't played.

When we get a G5 player who has done well against substandard competition, we get "Look at those stats! He must be good!" without any acknowledgement that their skills may not translate to a higher level. For instance, big OL who can physically dominate at a lower level may not be able to do so when the size and athleticism of their opponents increases significantly.

The reality is, much like high school recruiting - some will thrive and some won't. You won't know until you get them here.

This has led to an annual unrealistically optimistic view of our personnel, which I feel really increased this year. I don't know if it is coming from the pay board or it just is what it is, but when you point out the fallacy and the fact that experts who are impartial and make a living doing this don't agree about our class, the "We know something you/they don't" smugness comes out when you know, they don't.

When I pointed out that it is very unlikely that a QB with limited playing time and poor stats when he played and a true Freshman are going to be better than a quality third year starter who is getting first round pick run in the media, I was told, no, the coaches are ecstatic because Brown (who did a good Seeney impression this week) is already better than Mendoza and JKS looks to be better than Brown. (that was half right) There is no way anyone in their right mind thought Brown was better than Mendoza. And basically, JKS is the bright spot on the team and, as you would expect with a true freshman QB with a lot of talent, you get a lot of highs interspersed with some real costly and poor decision making at times (frankly, a lot like Mendoza's first year)

Honestly, I haven't seen knowing optimism backed up by such little fact since the Let the Big Bear Eat phenomenon of the offseason before Holmoe's last year.

And I will add this. The fact that guys who excel for us sometimes transfer and do squat elsewhere does not mean they weren't our best players and that we don't miss them. It just means our best players might not be as good as we think they are. Somebody has to lead in rushing, in tackles, in receiving, etc. On a bad team, that somebody is going to pile up stats they aren't going to pile up elsewhere.

---

I think it was pretty obvious to most of us that this year's roster wasn't going to be quite as good as last year's. We signed some good players in the portal, but we just lost too much (including our DBs to the NFL).

The hope/speculation was that a few other factors might buy us 1-3 more W's than last season:

+ easier schedule (supposedly)
+ better offensive coaches
+ better S & C

Most of the speculation about the QB position was that three years of JKS (potentially) would trump one year of Mendoza... and that Brown would be competent as an interim starter or as a backup.

---

BigC - the problem is you are eminently level headed and reasonable and you project those traits onto others. I several times argued that JKS may be better in the long run, but there was a low probability that any freshman was going to walk in and be better than Mendoza and I was met with a lot of people who hadn't see him play a game say JKS was better now. One of our more reasonable posters told me specifically that the coaches thought both QB's were better than Mendoza right now. A couple of other reasonable posters said JKS was better now. If you look at the Mendoza hate threads, the concept that we leveled up was all over the place. One of the same reasonable posters told me that we improved our RB's. But the biggest whiff was the completely misplaced confidence in the O-line.

I do agree that many hung their hats on the offensive coaching changes which at least has a basis with Harsin's history as an offensive coach

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Big C said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

6956bear said:

---

59bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

DaveT said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

DaveT said:

---

No reason we can't field a talented team. We're the flagship university in the most populous state in the country. We are located in a beautiful, warm, and economically-vibrant area with a gorgeous campus. We have a huge reservoir of wealthy alums, provide a great educational experience, play in a major sports conference, and graduate players to the NFL.

If Duke can field a talented team, so can we. If Indiana can field a talented team, so can we. If Iowa State, Arizona State, Texas Tech, Utah, Missouri, and Georgia Tech can field talented teams, so can we.

We've chosen to be inept. Despite all these advantages, we've somehow convinced ourselves we're just not cut out to play high-caliber college football. It's really sad. Other programs would long-ago have demanded better, but our donors, students, alums and supporters (those that are left) seem okay with the perpetual Groundhog Day of unwarranted hope, disappointment, resignation, apathy every season.

---

This is a bad take because it equate population, ignores demographics, and fails to analyze the consistent problem for the last decade OL (and DL) play. It is a very narrow part of the population that is 6.4 and capable fo putting 330 pounds on the frame. As a general rule this is not guys with Hispanic and Asian ethnicities. Until we figure out how to recruit in the Midwest and in the Sunbelt we are a 7 win program.

---

Odd response in the age of ChatGPT, just go look it up. Of the top 250 high school recruits in the class of 2024, California, Texas, and combined western states accounted for over half of them.
____________________________________________________________
Percentage Breakdown (Top 250)

• California: Around 20-22% of the Top 250.
• Texas: Around 20-22% of the Top 250.
• Western States (Excluding California): Around 15-18% of the Top 250.

Key Takeaways

• California and Texas dominate the Top 250 rankings, together accounting for about 40-45% of the nation's best recruits.
• Western states (including Washington, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Oregon, and Colorado) continue to show their strength, contributing around 15-18% of the talent pool.

_____________________________________________________________

Over the past decade Wilcox has been the coach and we've sucked in most areas, including OL/DL, Don't think that has much to do with Hispanic and Asian demographics.

We have loads of competitive advantages in recruiting. We should be a better football program than we are.

---

Wilcox has simply never been a good recruiter. It's why our donor collective has had to work hard to supplement his teams with portal classes.

OL is one place where it's VERY hard to reload through the portal. You need to develop those guys over time. Telling that it's where Wilcox teams are consistently weak.

---

On the contrary, the essence of the portal is you let others do the development. I've long felt OL is the most difficult position to accurately project development of young talent, a problem magnified by the fluidity of movement in the game today. I suspect the concept of extended development of prospects is passed. I'm a dinosaur and much of what motivates young people mystifies me but it seems to me we've had only 3 coaches since Waldorf who could recruit enough talent to be competitive: Mike White (who got us on probation), Bruce Snyder and Jeff Tedford. As to the California talent pool, clearly it is ever more heading out of state to the Big 10/SEC and is disproportionately skewed to skill position players as opposed to OL studs.

---

I understand your point but how many of the OL players that Cal has brought in have panned out? This season to me it looks like Ruffins may be the best of the group. Bell got exposed on Saturday and Moko has been very inconsistent and is not light on his feet, yet rarely gets much push either.

As to the players the depth of players in the west it is still good. It does favor skill players like QB, WR and DB over OL and DL. But there are some good LOS players here. John Mills for example is starting as a true frosh right now at UW.

What is hard to know especially with OL that enter the portal from the P4 is just how good they are. They are in the portal mostly because they are not playing. The G5 players often have tape but it is against G5 teams not the P4. The biggest difference in P4 and G5 is often found on the DL. You can see some physical traits but you need to be able to determine if they will translate against the improved quality of competition.

If you cannot find the sort of OL you need to play bully ball then you need to adjust your scheme to play a style they are better suited for. It is apparent to me that Cal has a preference in style that is not ideal for the personnel on hand.

---

And this is the point that gets tiresome every year now. We rarely if ever get P4 players with successful track records. And every year we get logically inconsistent buy in on the new transfers.

When we get a P4 player who has done barely anything we get "He's from Ohio State! He must be good!" (and yes, I picked Ohio State deliberately) without any acknowledgment that there may be a reason the guy hasn't played.

When we get a G5 player who has done well against substandard competition, we get "Look at those stats! He must be good!" without any acknowledgement that their skills may not translate to a higher level. For instance, big OL who can physically dominate at a lower level may not be able to do so when the size and athleticism of their opponents increases significantly.

The reality is, much like high school recruiting - some will thrive and some won't. You won't know until you get them here.

This has led to an annual unrealistically optimistic view of our personnel, which I feel really increased this year. I don't know if it is coming from the pay board or it just is what it is, but when you point out the fallacy and the fact that experts who are impartial and make a living doing this don't agree about our class, the "We know something you/they don't" smugness comes out when you know, they don't.

When I pointed out that it is very unlikely that a QB with limited playing time and poor stats when he played and a true Freshman are going to be better than a quality third year starter who is getting first round pick run in the media, I was told, no, the coaches are ecstatic because Brown (who did a good Seeney impression this week) is already better than Mendoza and JKS looks to be better than Brown. (that was half right) There is no way anyone in their right mind thought Brown was better than Mendoza. And basically, JKS is the bright spot on the team and, as you would expect with a true freshman QB with a lot of talent, you get a lot of highs interspersed with some real costly and poor decision making at times (frankly, a lot like Mendoza's first year)

Honestly, I haven't seen knowing optimism backed up by such little fact since the Let the Big Bear Eat phenomenon of the offseason before Holmoe's last year.

And I will add this. The fact that guys who excel for us sometimes transfer and do squat elsewhere does not mean they weren't our best players and that we don't miss them. It just means our best players might not be as good as we think they are. Somebody has to lead in rushing, in tackles, in receiving, etc. On a bad team, that somebody is going to pile up stats they aren't going to pile up elsewhere.

---

I think it was pretty obvious to most of us that this year's roster wasn't going to be quite as good as last year's. We signed some good players in the portal, but we just lost too much (including our DBs to the NFL).

The hope/speculation was that a few other factors might buy us 1-3 more W's than last season:

+ easier schedule (supposedly)
+ better offensive coaches
+ better S & C

Most of the speculation about the QB position was that three years of JKS (potentially) would trump one year of Mendoza... and that Brown would be competent as an interim starter or as a backup.

---

BigC - the problem is you are eminently level headed and reasonable and you project those traits onto others. I several times argued that JKS may be better in the long run, but there was a low probability that any freshman was going to walk in and be better than Mendoza and I was met with a lot of people who hadn't see him play a game say JKS was better now. One of our more reasonable posters told me specifically that the coaches thought both QB's were better than Mendoza right now. A couple of other reasonable posters said JKS was better now. If you look at the Mendoza hate threads, the concept that we leveled up was all over the place. One of the same reasonable posters told me that we improved our RB's. But the biggest whiff was the completely misplaced confidence in the O-line.

I do agree that many hung their hats on the offensive coaching changes which at least has a basis with Harsin's history as an offensive coach

---

You are certainly not the first to think that the problem with Cal Football is that I am eminently level headed.

Personally, I thought the least level headed take was by the people (yes, plural) who were citing QB Joe Burrow transferring from Ohio State (and 1-2 others, I forget who) and crowing at the prospect of Devin Brown being a star. But for every Joe Burrow, there has probably been 10-12 QBs who were recruited to Ohio State, then transferred and finally reached their own, low level... and were never heard from again.

But you hear about the occasional Joe Burrow and it sticks in your mind.

sycasey said:

---

I do think the OL is better than last year, but that's starting from an awfully low bar. They're still not THAT good. Maybe with more time playing together they could be, I dunno.

JKS is more talented than Mendoza IMO, but he has much less skill talent to work with so it's hard to judge the raw production.

---

After the Texas Southern game I had the argument with a poster who was lauding the OL where I pointed out that they did not do better against OSU than the OL last year did against OSU and they did not improve over their game FCS game from the year before and the only reason they looked better is because last year's OL had a full season of real opponents to display their suckitude. I think this still holds true. I'm sure it is recency bias, but I'm hard pressed to think of a worse performance by the OL last year than this performance against a slightly above average Duke team. They were absolutely savaged by 3 man, sometimes 2 man rushes.

To be clear, my analysis above at QB was not specific to JKS but a balance of the probabilities analysis of freshman QB's. I'm very happy with JKS. I think he is as good as you can expect a frosh to be. But man those first two interceptions were simply awful reads that are going to get picked every time in D1 football. (The second one also being very underthrown, but those things happen) Exactly what I would expect out of a freshman. You can't blame those plays on the talent around him. Regardless, was there a chance that JKS today would be better than Mendoza today - yes. Was that remotely likely - no. JKS is a very good QB and a stellar prospect, but he absolutely does have growing pains and his performance against SDSU and in the second half against Duke are part of those growing pains. Just as Aaron Rodgers' performance against OSU in 2003 (man I'm old) was. I'm not sure why this board is so reluctant to simply acknowledge that our stellar QB prospect also goes through some rough patches now and then that are not everyone else's fault.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I don't expect Cal football to get to the level of Ohio State or Alabama or the other titans of the sport. At least not without a lot of other steps over a long period of time (longer than most of us will live anyway). But can we at least take a step up and be like Duke or Arizona State or something? Have the occasional big year once a decade? This doesn't seem out of the question with what donors seem willing to give, but correct me if I'm wrong there.

---

2023 Duke Football Revenue: $68M (all sources including tickets, donations, etc.)
2023 Cal Football Revenue: $38M ( (all sources including tickets, donations, etc.)

2023 Duke Athletic Revenue (minus institutional support): $166M
2023 Cal Athletic Revenue (minus institutional support): $93M

And frankly, Duke isn't very good. We'll see if this lasts or if it is a Tedfordesque blip.

edit:

Because I had done this before as an example of a sorta meh football team in our conference, UNC's athletic revenue not including institutional support was $140M

And also remember Cal runs an insane number of sports and so far has refused to cut any.

I'm not talking about titans either, but:

Texas $330M
Ohio State $255M
Alabama $235M

---

with 1/5 of our undergrad population and 1/2 of our stadium capacity

Rather than just focusing on the QB, let's expand that to "the passing game" with four major components: scheme, OL protection, QB play, receiver play (WR, TE, RB). Comparing this season to last season, my opionion is:

• Scheme - slightly better this year. Seem to be more WRs open and team is willing to try throwing downfield and to sidelines.
• OL protection - slightly better so far this year, but far from good. JKS appears to have slightly more time to throw. Note that a couple of last year's starters are now second-string. Last year's OL seemed to degrade as season progressed - will that happen this year?
• QB play - Overall, slightly better this year. JKS a more talented passer and for a 1st year, runs the team well. Mendoza's options last year were severely limited by poor OL play but he was a surprisingly opportunistic runner. JKS more willing to throw to sideline WRs which helps but I don't know if that's his bias or a change to the overall scheme.
• Receiver play - overall worse than last year due to WR drops this year. Mini's play has really negated Endries' departure - hope Mini stays. Opposition might worry about JKS, but not the WRs.

In summary, I think the passing game is better this year, but may not continue that way. Cal's inability to stop Duke's pass rush may have revealed the weak link and opponents may take advantage going forward.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Rather than just focusing on the QB, let's expand that to "the passing game" with four major components: scheme, OL protection, QB play, receiver play (WR, TE, RB). Comparing this season to last season, my opionion is:

• Scheme - slightly better this year. Seem to be more WRs open and team is willing to try throwing downfield and to sidelines.
• OL protection - slightly better so far this year, but far from good. JKS appears to have slightly more time to throw. Note that a couple of last year's starters are now second-string. Last year's OL seemed to degrade as season progressed - will that happen this year?
• QB play - Overall, slightly better this year. JKS a more talented passer and for a 1st year, runs the team well. Mendoza's options last year were severely limited by poor OL play but he was a surprisingly opportunistic runner. JKS more willing to throw to sideline WRs which helps but I don't know if that's his bias or a change to the overall scheme.
• Receiver play - overall worse than last year due to WR drops this year. Mini's play has really negated Endries' departure - hope Mini stays. Opposition might worry about JKS, but not the WRs.

In summary, I think the passing game is better this year, but may not continue that way. Cal's inability to stop Duke's pass rush may have revealed the weak link and opponents may take advantage going forward.

---

I do not understand why we keep doing this inflation of JKS' performance. JKS is a stellar prospect and a good QB. He is not an improvement THIS YEAR over last year.

Both have 35 attempts per game

Completion %
JKS - 62%
Mendoza 2024 - 68.7%


Interception %
JKS - 3.3%
Mendoza 2024 - 1.6%

Interceptions:
JKS 7 INT in 6 games (1.16 per game)
Mendoza 6 INT in 11 games (.54 per game)

Yards per Attempt
JKS - 7.1
Mendoza - 7.8

Yards per game
JKS - 247.8
Mendoza - 273.1

TDs per game
JKS - 1.5
Mendoza - 1.45

QB rating
JKS - 129.5
Mendoza - 144.6

Rushing:
JKS - Negative 0.7 yds per attempt
Mendoza - 1.2 yds per attempt

And that is with JKS getting the benefit of lesser competition having played only 2 conference games and OSU and Texas Southern having a greater impact than they will over a whole season. He's had 6 INT's in the last 3 games now. If you look at the statistics, JKS' season is incredibly similar to Mendoza's first season (Mendoza had a 132 QB rating)

I 100% understand if people think he is more talented than Mendoza and has a higher future ceiling. The idea that he has been an improvement over last year's QB play is not something that can logically be argued. It isn't a remotely close question.

I understand that we all hate Mendoza now and we are all hoping JKS is an NFL QB in the making, but Mendoza was a very good QB last year and with the benefit of experience really cleaned up the mistakes he made as first year QB. JKS is that first year QB making those first year mistakes that I believe he will clean up as his career progresses. We can acknowledge this while also being absolutely thrilled with JKS so far.

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Rather than just focusing on the QB, let's expand that to "the passing game" with four major components: scheme, OL protection, QB play, receiver play (WR, TE, RB). Comparing this season to last season, my opionion is:

• Scheme - slightly better this year. Seem to be more WRs open and team is willing to try throwing downfield and to sidelines.
• OL protection - slightly better so far this year, but far from good. JKS appears to have slightly more time to throw. Note that a couple of last year's starters are now second-string. Last year's OL seemed to degrade as season progressed - will that happen this year?
• QB play - Overall, slightly better this year. JKS a more talented passer and for a 1st year, runs the team well. Mendoza's options last year were severely limited by poor OL play but he was a surprisingly opportunistic runner. JKS more willing to throw to sideline WRs which helps but I don't know if that's his bias or a change to the overall scheme.
• Receiver play - overall worse than last year due to WR drops this year. Mini's play has really negated Endries' departure - hope Mini stays. Opposition might worry about JKS, but not the WRs.

In summary, I think the passing game is better this year, but may not continue that way. Cal's inability to stop Duke's pass rush may have revealed the weak link and opponents may take advantage going forward.

---

I do not understand why we keep doing this inflation of JKS' performance. JKS is a stellar prospect and a good QB. He is not an improvement THIS YEAR over last year.

Both have 35 attempts per game

Completion %
JKS - 62%
Mendoza 2024 - 68.7%


Interception %
JKS - 3.3%
Mendoza 2024 - 1.6%

Interceptions:
JKS 7 INT in 6 games (1.16 per game)
Mendoza 6 INT in 11 games (.54 per game)

Yards per Attempt
JKS - 7.1
Mendoza - 7.8

Yards per game
JKS - 247.8
Mendoza - 273.1

TDs per game
JKS - 1.5
Mendoza - 1.45

QB rating
JKS - 129.5
Mendoza - 144.6

Rushing:
JKS - Negative 0.7 yds per attempt
Mendoza - 1.2 yds per attempt

And that is with JKS getting the benefit of lesser competition having played only 2 conference games and OSU and Texas Southern having a greater impact than they will over a whole season. He's had 6 INT's in the last 3 games now. If you look at the statistics, JKS' season is incredibly similar to Mendoza's first season (Mendoza had a 132 QB rating)

I 100% understand if people think he is more talented than Mendoza and has a higher future ceiling. The idea that he has been an improvement over last year's QB play is not something that can logically be argued. It isn't a remotely close question.

I understand that we all hate Mendoza now and we are all hoping JKS is an NFL QB in the making, but Mendoza was a very good QB last year and with the benefit of experience really cleaned up the mistakes he made as first year QB. JKS is that first year QB making those first year mistakes that I believe he will clean up as his career progresses. We can acknowledge this while also being absolutely thrilled with JKS so far.

---

---

Whoa Nellie!

• First of all, I like Mendoza and I don't hold a grudge against him for transferring even though I didn't like the way he did it. Do I wish he had stayed? Sure - aside from being a 2* recruit who made good, he was the most enthusiastic and articulate Cal football player I've seen in a long time.
• Secondly, I characterized JKS's play as "SLIGHTLY BETTER" as in "not a lot better, but a little". I guess we disagree on that, and I'll also disagree with your characterization of Mendoza as "very good" last year. He was good, but I was at the Syracuse game and saw Kyle McCord who was clearly better so that's my standard for very good.
• Thirdly, there are two points which your stats above don't capture: the number of WR drops that have occurred this season (no doubt Mendoza had some last year, as well) and JKS's ability to make a wider variety of throws (to the sideline, into the middle, deep, and screen) than last year's Mendoza, who had almost all his success throwing 10-30 yards over the middle and even then many passes were caught slightly behind/low so the receiver didn't have a chance for yards-after-catch. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any YAC stats, so why do I even remember this? Because I watched Cal QBs like Roth, Campbell, Barr, Goff, etc. hit receivers in stride for YAC gains and ground my teeth when Cal receivers couldn't do the same last season.
• Finally, comparing Mendoza's entire 2024 season with JKS's six games is hard to do. An end-of-season comparison will be better. But, if Cal's OL doesn't shape up, it will render this discussion moot because JKS will throw more INTs and suffer more sacks. It certainly looks like the team will ride on his arm and every QB needs time to read the field and make the play. Maybe that's why Mendoza left.

HearstMining said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Rather than just focusing on the QB, let's expand that to "the passing game" with four major components: scheme, OL protection, QB play, receiver play (WR, TE, RB). Comparing this season to last season, my opionion is:

• Scheme - slightly better this year. Seem to be more WRs open and team is willing to try throwing downfield and to sidelines.
• OL protection - slightly better so far this year, but far from good. JKS appears to have slightly more time to throw. Note that a couple of last year's starters are now second-string. Last year's OL seemed to degrade as season progressed - will that happen this year?
• QB play - Overall, slightly better this year. JKS a more talented passer and for a 1st year, runs the team well. Mendoza's options last year were severely limited by poor OL play but he was a surprisingly opportunistic runner. JKS more willing to throw to sideline WRs which helps but I don't know if that's his bias or a change to the overall scheme.
• Receiver play - overall worse than last year due to WR drops this year. Mini's play has really negated Endries' departure - hope Mini stays. Opposition might worry about JKS, but not the WRs.

In summary, I think the passing game is better this year, but may not continue that way. Cal's inability to stop Duke's pass rush may have revealed the weak link and opponents may take advantage going forward.

---

I do not understand why we keep doing this inflation of JKS' performance. JKS is a stellar prospect and a good QB. He is not an improvement THIS YEAR over last year.

Both have 35 attempts per game

Completion %
JKS - 62%
Mendoza 2024 - 68.7%


Interception %
JKS - 3.3%
Mendoza 2024 - 1.6%

Interceptions:
JKS 7 INT in 6 games (1.16 per game)
Mendoza 6 INT in 11 games (.54 per game)

Yards per Attempt
JKS - 7.1
Mendoza - 7.8

Yards per game
JKS - 247.8
Mendoza - 273.1

TDs per game
JKS - 1.5
Mendoza - 1.45

QB rating
JKS - 129.5
Mendoza - 144.6

Rushing:
JKS - Negative 0.7 yds per attempt
Mendoza - 1.2 yds per attempt

And that is with JKS getting the benefit of lesser competition having played only 2 conference games and OSU and Texas Southern having a greater impact than they will over a whole season. He's had 6 INT's in the last 3 games now. If you look at the statistics, JKS' season is incredibly similar to Mendoza's first season (Mendoza had a 132 QB rating)

I 100% understand if people think he is more talented than Mendoza and has a higher future ceiling. The idea that he has been an improvement over last year's QB play is not something that can logically be argued. It isn't a remotely close question.

I understand that we all hate Mendoza now and we are all hoping JKS is an NFL QB in the making, but Mendoza was a very good QB last year and with the benefit of experience really cleaned up the mistakes he made as first year QB. JKS is that first year QB making those first year mistakes that I believe he will clean up as his career progresses. We can acknowledge this while also being absolutely thrilled with JKS so far.

---

---

Whoa Nellie!

• First of all, I like Mendoza and I don't hold a grudge against him for transferring even though I didn't like the way he did it. Do I wish he had stayed? Sure - aside from being a 2* recruit who made good, he was the most enthusiastic and articulate Cal football player I've seen in a long time.
• Secondly, I characterized JKS's play as "SLIGHTLY BETTER" as in "not a lot better, but a little". I guess we disagree on that, and I'll also disagree with your characterization of Mendoza as "very good" last year. He was good, but I was at the Syracuse game and saw Kyle McCord who was clearly better so that's my standard for very good.
• Thirdly, there are two points which your stats above don't capture: the number of WR drops that have occurred this season (no doubt Mendoza had some last year, as well) and JKS's ability to make a wider variety of throws (to the sideline, into the middle, deep, and screen) than last year's Mendoza, who had almost all his success throwing 10-30 yards over the middle and even then many passes were caught slightly behind/low so the receiver didn't have a chance for yards-after-catch. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any YAC stats, so why do I even remember this? Because I watched Cal QBs like Roth, Campbell, Barr, Goff, etc. hit receivers in stride for YAC gains and ground my teeth when Cal receivers couldn't do the same last season.
• Finally, comparing Mendoza's entire 2024 season with JKS's six games is hard to do. An end-of-season comparison will be better. But, if Cal's OL doesn't shape up, it will render this discussion moot because JKS will throw more INTs and suffer more sacks. It certainly looks like the team will ride on his arm and every QB needs time to read the field and make the play. Maybe that's why Mendoza left.

---

You may have seen the Syracuse game last year, but I'm pretty sure you also saw the SDSU game this year and the second half last week. But somehow those get a pass.

Everything you said pretty much is embedded in the stats except receiver drops. For instance, yards per attempt is really the important stat. Doesn't really matter if you get that before or after the catch. And almost all these roll up into QBrating.

Frankly, he gets the benefit of freshman phenom grade inflation. SDSU or two really bad interceptions against Duke are freshman growing pains we expect, but anything good is awesome. And there are drops, but sometimes it feels like every ball within 5 yards of a receiver is blamed on the WR. And in any case, it's hard for us to know, but one receiver dropping balls is on the WR. All of them makes one wonder how catchable the QB's throws are.

I'm sorry, but Cal fans really really want to see QB play as improved and when the stats are this far apart, it is a lot more likely that people are seeing what they want than that the stats are lying that badly.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Rather than just focusing on the QB, let's expand that to "the passing game" with four major components: scheme, OL protection, QB play, receiver play (WR, TE, RB). Comparing this season to last season, my opionion is:

• Scheme - slightly better this year. Seem to be more WRs open and team is willing to try throwing downfield and to sidelines.
• OL protection - slightly better so far this year, but far from good. JKS appears to have slightly more time to throw. Note that a couple of last year's starters are now second-string. Last year's OL seemed to degrade as season progressed - will that happen this year?
• QB play - Overall, slightly better this year. JKS a more talented passer and for a 1st year, runs the team well. Mendoza's options last year were severely limited by poor OL play but he was a surprisingly opportunistic runner. JKS more willing to throw to sideline WRs which helps but I don't know if that's his bias or a change to the overall scheme.
• Receiver play - overall worse than last year due to WR drops this year. Mini's play has really negated Endries' departure - hope Mini stays. Opposition might worry about JKS, but not the WRs.

In summary, I think the passing game is better this year, but may not continue that way. Cal's inability to stop Duke's pass rush may have revealed the weak link and opponents may take advantage going forward.

---

I do not understand why we keep doing this inflation of JKS' performance. JKS is a stellar prospect and a good QB. He is not an improvement THIS YEAR over last year.

Both have 35 attempts per game

Completion %
JKS - 62%
Mendoza 2024 - 68.7%


Interception %
JKS - 3.3%
Mendoza 2024 - 1.6%

Interceptions:
JKS 7 INT in 6 games (1.16 per game)
Mendoza 6 INT in 11 games (.54 per game)

Yards per Attempt
JKS - 7.1
Mendoza - 7.8

Yards per game
JKS - 247.8
Mendoza - 273.1

TDs per game
JKS - 1.5
Mendoza - 1.45

QB rating
JKS - 129.5
Mendoza - 144.6

Rushing:
JKS - Negative 0.7 yds per attempt
Mendoza - 1.2 yds per attempt

And that is with JKS getting the benefit of lesser competition having played only 2 conference games and OSU and Texas Southern having a greater impact than they will over a whole season. He's had 6 INT's in the last 3 games now. If you look at the statistics, JKS' season is incredibly similar to Mendoza's first season (Mendoza had a 132 QB rating)

I 100% understand if people think he is more talented than Mendoza and has a higher future ceiling. The idea that he has been an improvement over last year's QB play is not something that can logically be argued. It isn't a remotely close question.

I understand that we all hate Mendoza now and we are all hoping JKS is an NFL QB in the making, but Mendoza was a very good QB last year and with the benefit of experience really cleaned up the mistakes he made as first year QB. JKS is that first year QB making those first year mistakes that I believe he will clean up as his career progresses. We can acknowledge this while also being absolutely thrilled with JKS so far.

---

Mendoza had a better WR, TE group and explosive RBs that opponents had to account for.

Also, you are comparing JKS as a true freshman vs FM's RS Soph and 2nd year as a starter at Cal.