DaveT said:

---

eastbayyoungbear 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.

---

We've been able to recruit skill positions. Look at the DBs, QBs, WRs, RBs that have become CFB names around the country the past few years. The lines have consistently been our deficiency.

---

Agree OL/DL have been poor. I believe that has more to do with our coaching, development, and overall lack of accountability and program apathy than to a systemic issue we can't control. If Arizona State can field competitive teams, so can we.

---

I have to disagree mainly because we've had 7 OL coaches since Coach Mauler and you'd figure that someone in there would have been able to field an above average O-line by now. Have to believe it's not just a coaching thing at this point.

"Two top 50 CA OL guys in 247 list. Both committed to Washington."

True, but there are 8 total counting other west coast states like Nevada, Hawaii, Utah and Arizona, and many others in the top-100.

Plus, we have two of the top-100 OL recruits for the class. That's as many as Texas, Oregon, BYU, USC, Florida State and Florida.

I still think the problem is with us and how we coach/develop guys (and more broadly the lack of accountability and low expectations), not that we are at some unique systemic disadvantage.

Appreciate the discussion. Whatever the reason, I hope people smarter than me can fix things.

Not having watched the game or seen highlights - I saw at one point we were up 21-0. And then it was a 41-21 final? What changed?

philly1121 said:

---

Not having watched the game or seen highlights - I saw at one point we were up 21-0. And then it was a 41-21 final? What changed?

---

It was never 21-0. It was 14-0 and 21-7 at different points.

philly1121 said:

---

Not having watched the game or seen highlights - I saw at one point we were up 21-0. And then it was a 41-21 final? What changed?

---

Duke started running crossings patterns because we were unable to get any pressure on the QB They also changed their rush packages - puttin in a spy and forcing JKS to roll right. Also started playing a 1 deep Safety. Not sure why they didn't come out with that look but they adjusted. It was ugly.

sycasey said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Not having watched the game or seen highlights - I saw at one point we were up 21-0. And then it was a 41-21 final? What changed?

---

It was never 21-0. It was 14-0 and 21-7 at different points.

---

Ok. Just looked at the box score. Hmm. Guess at some point they figured us out and we didn't score again.

philly1121 said:

---

Not having watched the game or seen highlights - I saw at one point we were up 21-0. And then it was a 41-21 final? What changed?

---

We ran out of scripted plays.

Yep, easy to see after Dook tied it.

Changes still need to be made, and I think we all know what the 1st change is.

GO BEARS!!

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.

---

You have 4 wins over D1 programs but only one above average D1 player? Nonsense.

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.

---

sure, lets others develop your players. But then we better be able to outpay others.

We don't have a phil knight writing blank checks for us. Our NIL is competitive, but now that there is a cap, the difference comes from outside ventures.

Businesses are lining up to endorse players on Texas, Georgia, etc because those local communities care deeply about those teams.

I believe Rivera said he is also trying to line up the same opportunities for JKS, but what we really need besides JKS is a top 25 starting OL

ducktilldeath said:

---

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.

---

You have 4 wins over D1 programs but only one above average D1 player? Nonsense.

---

We've hit a new low when ducktilldeath is our most optimistic poster.

75bear said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

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.

---

You have 4 wins over D1 programs but only one above average D1 player? Nonsense.

---

We've hit a new low when ducktilldeath is our most optimistic poster.

---

I have mentioned quite a few times before, talent has never been our issue, Dook had some dudes but they were running freely through our zone coverages the whole game which made no sense and our guys are not that slow

DiabloWags said:

---

That game became UNWATCHABLE pretty early.
And we all knew the outcome.
Early.

---

I waited until the 3rd quarter to fall asleep. Good thing I was at home!

sonofabear51 said:

---

Yep, easy to see after Dook tied it.

Changes still need to be made, and I think we all know what the 1st change is.

GO BEARS!!

---

Just think, before SDSU people were posting about national championship - because "the schedule was favorable".
Lololol

Strykur said:

---

75bear said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

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.

---

You have 4 wins over D1 programs but only one above average D1 player? Nonsense.

---

We've hit a new low when ducktilldeath is our most optimistic poster.

---

I have mentioned quite a few times before, talent has never been our issue, Dook had some dudes but they were running freely through our zone coverages the whole game which made no sense and our guys are not that slow

---

Credit their QB from SLO.
I'd like to hear about him in 3 months, in 6 months, see if he progresses beyond that.

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.

---

He did it again. When things started to go south, there was JW on the sideline off by himself, his contemplative self. When Duke allowed the early scores, Diaz was all over the place, showing energy, encouraging his players, conferring with his D coaches. They came up with the answer - spy.

Rushinbear 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.

---

He did it again. When things started to go south, there was JW on the sideline off by himself, his contemplative self. When Duke allowed the early scores, Diaz was all over the place, showing energy, encouraging his players, conferring with his D coaches. They came up with the answer - spy.

---

It does seem like Duke made adjustments quickly in the 2nd quarter while Cal waited until halftime . . . after the game had already gotten away from them.

Strykur said:

---

75bear said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

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.

---

You have 4 wins over D1 programs but only one above average D1 player? Nonsense.

---

We've hit a new low when ducktilldeath is our most optimistic poster.

---

I have mentioned quite a few times before, talent has never been our issue, Dook had some dudes but they were running freely through our zone coverages the whole game which made no sense and our guys are not that slow

---

Nah, we're slow and weak.

8k our of 42k. I hole it would be packed. Aint just their friends and 67% of cal indegrads are stem

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.

---

Seems to me that student attendance this season has been good. There are still enough students that will come if the games are fun and exciting. There has always been a faction of students that will not come and have no interest. It may be a higher number now than in the 70's but the students coming this season is not a problem.

Because of time. Anyone can find a window in zone provided enough tine

6956bear 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.

---

Seems to me that student attendance this season has been good. There are still enough students that will come if the games are fun and exciting. There has always been a faction of students that will not come and have no interest. It may be a higher number now than in the 70's but the students coming this season is not a problem.

---

Agreed, the student turnout this year has been the best it's been in a long time. But we need to win to keep the students and everyone else continuing to fill Memorial.

sycasey said:

---

It does seem like Duke made adjustments quickly in the 2nd quarter while Cal waited until halftime . . . after the game had already gotten away from them.

---

Cal didn't appear to make any adjustments on offense at halftime.

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.

Golden One said:

---

sycasey said:

---

It does seem like Duke made adjustments quickly in the 2nd quarter while Cal waited until halftime . . . after the game had already gotten away from them.

---

Cal didn't appear to make any adjustments on offense at halftime.

---

Yeah, I haven't seen our second half stats (except for zero points), but Harsin needed to dial up something.

Our defense came out after halftime fired up, but then they had to keep coming back on to the field and they just wore out.

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.