philly1121 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

The reason there are 18+ threads about dumping Wilcox is because of Cal's inability to get rid of this dead weight! Not only has Cal not fired him, they extended him with an absurdly onerous contract that may have doomed the program.

---

Quite true, but this goes back to the screwed-up administration (as described by Greg) that preceded the current Lyons/Rivera regime. It's fair to give them time to clean this up and to dig out of the hole Knowlton put them in.

---

I think the sunshine pumpers on this board would say, the problem with that is - the clock is ticking. Realignment is in 29/30.

I don't agree that we can magically improve to the extent that we would be invited to the B1G. I suspect most in Administration would think the same. I think its a matter of evaluating what things look like from the standpoint of a reduced ACC. And how to remain competitive from a budgetary and performance standpoint. But I think there are a great many college football programs that are doing this.

A culture shift - what Rivera was brought in to expedite - will take way too long for the time that is in front of us. I think the realization of that is what is driving alot of negativity on this board - some justified, some not. Its the price of middling around for too long.

---

In 2001 Holmoe went 0-10 until the makeup game against 2-8 Rutgers got our only win. Worse we were on NCAA sanctions.

People, especially the insiders and big donors, had been defending Holmoe on this board, saying our stadium and training facilities were terrible , our administration did not support football, the Bay Area is an NFL market….

Only three years later we were 1 play or a missed FG away from an 11-0 season and a berth in the National Championship Game.

The difference was only having a good coach. It helped that Gladstone was the temporary AD and could recognize good coaching, but that was it.

Since then we have spent more on our stadium and facilities than any other school (not arguing they are the best, but far better than under Tedford). We have a Cal alum and fan as our chancellor for the first time in our history. We have put a former Cal All American player and Super Bowl head coach in charge of the program. The Raiders (and A's) are gone. The East Bay market is ours for the taking. We are one of two West Coast teams ESPN owns exclusive rights to and wants to actively promote us. We have one of the easiest schedules on the country, one of the easiest in our history. We are still in the state that produces the most NFL talent and now regularly play in Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania…. We are the nearest D1 school to Hawaii with the most, and cheapest air flights…. We have the wealthiest alumni collectively of any D1 program. We and our rival offer the top academics in D1 football. Our campus and stadium are beautiful. The Bay Area weather and culture are unique and a huge draw…

As in 2001, all it takes is firing the losing coach and hiring a good coach. If anything, everything else is FAR better now.

---

Three years later we finished 10-2. Three years. So, by that metric - and only that metric - we get good by the end of 2028. Far too late for any reasonable convo about "promotion". But let's face it - that was 20+ years ago. The college football landscape hasn't changed. Its completely transformed. It has been overturned.

All of what you describe means - nothing. We are up to our ears in stadium debt. We have a Cal Alum as chancellor. Ok. So he likes sports. The only metric that matters on this board at the moment is his decisionmaking around Wilcox. Rivera seems to be placing partial blame on the fans. Not a good look. It didn't matter about the Bay Area being "ours" when we were winning and sharing media landscape with the Raiders. But they have sucked for so long - the Bay Area has been ours! No one in college football gives a rip about academics. Seriously?

You paint a nice picture. But it's not a reflection of reality.

---

Well, you could argue 1-10 with NCAA sanctions is a lower starting point than where we are now. And with the Portal change can happen A LOT faster with a good coach. Look at Indiana. That is the reality.

---

Absolutely. The Tedford turnaround took 3 years because he had a very senior-laden team in 2002 (which he improved from 1-10 to 7-5), then had to completely rebuild with high school and JC recruits in 2003. The early games that season were rough for that reason, but they rounded into form late and set up a great 2004. A new coach now could theoretically get a lot more ready-to-play talent immediately via the portal. Would be an even better chance if we happen to retain JKS.

---

A quick digression but it is worth writing it - this board has 100% flipped on the "getting good immediately" ethic as opposed to growing talent. lol We are now in the "hired gun" mode. Of course, its because we need to be good now but - its been fun seeing the movement.

---

I don't necessarily expect a new Cal coach to turn things around THAT fast, but it is more possible now than it was in Tedford's day.

$wimming again$t in$urmountable tide$.

BearGoggles said:

---

Tedford was able to turnaround the program quickly because - remarkably - Holmoe actually recruited some pretty good players. He just could not coach them to save his life. Tedford could.

---

Yes but as I noted a lot of the best Holmoe recruits were gone after 2002 and Tedford had to rebuild a lot of the roster in 2003 with JC transfers.

sycasey said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

The reason there are 18+ threads about dumping Wilcox is because of Cal's inability to get rid of this dead weight! Not only has Cal not fired him, they extended him with an absurdly onerous contract that may have doomed the program.

---

Quite true, but this goes back to the screwed-up administration (as described by Greg) that preceded the current Lyons/Rivera regime. It's fair to give them time to clean this up and to dig out of the hole Knowlton put them in.

---

I think the sunshine pumpers on this board would say, the problem with that is - the clock is ticking. Realignment is in 29/30.

I don't agree that we can magically improve to the extent that we would be invited to the B1G. I suspect most in Administration would think the same. I think its a matter of evaluating what things look like from the standpoint of a reduced ACC. And how to remain competitive from a budgetary and performance standpoint. But I think there are a great many college football programs that are doing this.

A culture shift - what Rivera was brought in to expedite - will take way too long for the time that is in front of us. I think the realization of that is what is driving alot of negativity on this board - some justified, some not. Its the price of middling around for too long.

---

In 2001 Holmoe went 0-10 until the makeup game against 2-8 Rutgers got our only win. Worse we were on NCAA sanctions.

People, especially the insiders and big donors, had been defending Holmoe on this board, saying our stadium and training facilities were terrible , our administration did not support football, the Bay Area is an NFL market….

Only three years later we were 1 play or a missed FG away from an 11-0 season and a berth in the National Championship Game.

The difference was only having a good coach. It helped that Gladstone was the temporary AD and could recognize good coaching, but that was it.

Since then we have spent more on our stadium and facilities than any other school (not arguing they are the best, but far better than under Tedford). We have a Cal alum and fan as our chancellor for the first time in our history. We have put a former Cal All American player and Super Bowl head coach in charge of the program. The Raiders (and A's) are gone. The East Bay market is ours for the taking. We are one of two West Coast teams ESPN owns exclusive rights to and wants to actively promote us. We have one of the easiest schedules on the country, one of the easiest in our history. We are still in the state that produces the most NFL talent and now regularly play in Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania…. We are the nearest D1 school to Hawaii with the most, and cheapest air flights…. We have the wealthiest alumni collectively of any D1 program. We and our rival offer the top academics in D1 football. Our campus and stadium are beautiful. The Bay Area weather and culture are unique and a huge draw…

As in 2001, all it takes is firing the losing coach and hiring a good coach. If anything, everything else is FAR better now.

---

Three years later we finished 10-2. Three years. So, by that metric - and only that metric - we get good by the end of 2028. Far too late for any reasonable convo about "promotion". But let's face it - that was 20+ years ago. The college football landscape hasn't changed. Its completely transformed. It has been overturned.

All of what you describe means - nothing. We are up to our ears in stadium debt. We have a Cal Alum as chancellor. Ok. So he likes sports. The only metric that matters on this board at the moment is his decisionmaking around Wilcox. Rivera seems to be placing partial blame on the fans. Not a good look. It didn't matter about the Bay Area being "ours" when we were winning and sharing media landscape with the Raiders. But they have sucked for so long - the Bay Area has been ours! No one in college football gives a rip about academics. Seriously?

You paint a nice picture. But it's not a reflection of reality.

---

Well, you could argue 1-10 with NCAA sanctions is a lower starting point than where we are now. And with the Portal change can happen A LOT faster with a good coach. Look at Indiana. That is the reality.

---

Absolutely. The Tedford turnaround took 3 years because he had a very senior-laden team in 2002 (which he improved from 1-10 to 7-5), then had to completely rebuild with high school and JC recruits in 2003. The early games that season were rough for that reason, but they rounded into form late and set up a great 2004. A new coach now could theoretically get a lot more ready-to-play talent immediately via the portal. Would be an even better chance if we happen to retain JKS.

---

A quick digression but it is worth writing it - this board has 100% flipped on the "getting good immediately" ethic as opposed to growing talent. lol We are now in the "hired gun" mode. Of course, its because we need to be good now but - its been fun seeing the movement.

---

I don't necessarily expect a new Cal coach to turn things around THAT fast, but it is more possible now than it was in Tedford's day.

---

True. But they have to want to come here.

philly1121 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

The reason there are 18+ threads about dumping Wilcox is because of Cal's inability to get rid of this dead weight! Not only has Cal not fired him, they extended him with an absurdly onerous contract that may have doomed the program.

---

Quite true, but this goes back to the screwed-up administration (as described by Greg) that preceded the current Lyons/Rivera regime. It's fair to give them time to clean this up and to dig out of the hole Knowlton put them in.

---

I think the sunshine pumpers on this board would say, the problem with that is - the clock is ticking. Realignment is in 29/30.

I don't agree that we can magically improve to the extent that we would be invited to the B1G. I suspect most in Administration would think the same. I think its a matter of evaluating what things look like from the standpoint of a reduced ACC. And how to remain competitive from a budgetary and performance standpoint. But I think there are a great many college football programs that are doing this.

A culture shift - what Rivera was brought in to expedite - will take way too long for the time that is in front of us. I think the realization of that is what is driving alot of negativity on this board - some justified, some not. Its the price of middling around for too long.

---

In 2001 Holmoe went 0-10 until the makeup game against 2-8 Rutgers got our only win. Worse we were on NCAA sanctions.

People, especially the insiders and big donors, had been defending Holmoe on this board, saying our stadium and training facilities were terrible , our administration did not support football, the Bay Area is an NFL market….

Only three years later we were 1 play or a missed FG away from an 11-0 season and a berth in the National Championship Game.

The difference was only having a good coach. It helped that Gladstone was the temporary AD and could recognize good coaching, but that was it.

Since then we have spent more on our stadium and facilities than any other school (not arguing they are the best, but far better than under Tedford). We have a Cal alum and fan as our chancellor for the first time in our history. We have put a former Cal All American player and Super Bowl head coach in charge of the program. The Raiders (and A's) are gone. The East Bay market is ours for the taking. We are one of two West Coast teams ESPN owns exclusive rights to and wants to actively promote us. We have one of the easiest schedules on the country, one of the easiest in our history. We are still in the state that produces the most NFL talent and now regularly play in Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania…. We are the nearest D1 school to Hawaii with the most, and cheapest air flights…. We have the wealthiest alumni collectively of any D1 program. We and our rival offer the top academics in D1 football. Our campus and stadium are beautiful. The Bay Area weather and culture are unique and a huge draw…

As in 2001, all it takes is firing the losing coach and hiring a good coach. If anything, everything else is FAR better now.

---

Three years later we finished 10-2. Three years. So, by that metric - and only that metric - we get good by the end of 2028. Far too late for any reasonable convo about "promotion". But let's face it - that was 20+ years ago. The college football landscape hasn't changed. Its completely transformed. It has been overturned.

All of what you describe means - nothing. We are up to our ears in stadium debt. We have a Cal Alum as chancellor. Ok. So he likes sports. The only metric that matters on this board at the moment is his decisionmaking around Wilcox. Rivera seems to be placing partial blame on the fans. Not a good look. It didn't matter about the Bay Area being "ours" when we were winning and sharing media landscape with the Raiders. But they have sucked for so long - the Bay Area has been ours! No one in college football gives a rip about academics. Seriously?

You paint a nice picture. But it's not a reflection of reality.

---

Well, you could argue 1-10 with NCAA sanctions is a lower starting point than where we are now. And with the Portal change can happen A LOT faster with a good coach. Look at Indiana. That is the reality.

---

Absolutely. The Tedford turnaround took 3 years because he had a very senior-laden team in 2002 (which he improved from 1-10 to 7-5), then had to completely rebuild with high school and JC recruits in 2003. The early games that season were rough for that reason, but they rounded into form late and set up a great 2004. A new coach now could theoretically get a lot more ready-to-play talent immediately via the portal. Would be an even better chance if we happen to retain JKS.

---

A quick digression but it is worth writing it - this board has 100% flipped on the "getting good immediately" ethic as opposed to growing talent. lol We are now in the "hired gun" mode. Of course, its because we need to be good now but - its been fun seeing the movement.

---

I don't necessarily expect a new Cal coach to turn things around THAT fast, but it is more possible now than it was in Tedford's day.

---

True. But they have to want to come here.

---

A big splashy hire would help. Also, the coach may be able to pull some of his players with him like Deion did. If we can keep JKS, I imagine there are a number of other WRs who are wasting away on teams with bad QBs that would love to be catching balls from him. Unfortuantely, bit of a chicken-and-the-egg situation; we need JKS in order to attract great WRs, but we need great WRs in order to retain JKS. The last thing we need is for a team with great WRs and a bad QB to poach JKS. At this point, the message has got to be that we are 100% building around JKS. That starts with coaching, with the o-line, with solid receivers, and a run game, defense be damned. Hell, a Dykes defense might even be a good selling point because it'll give him the opportunity to post unreal stats (see: Goff).

In looking for a new coach, Cal is not going to be fishing in the same waters as the LSUs of the world. We will be looking to find an up-and-coming coach with west-coast ties, not an established winner at the Power 5 level. That search doesn't depend very much on when other schools fire their coaches.

ac_green33 said:

---

gardenstatebear said:

---

2. There was a piece in The Athlete today about how there is a shortage of good coaching candidates as compared to the many open spots. That's not an argument against firing Wilcox, but it is an argument for moving slowly and carefully.

---

I think that's actually a good reason to fire him this season. There are a lot of openings and therefore a lot of chances for him to get another HC or high-level DC job to offset his buyout. And, for as bad-to-mediocre Wilcox has been, the outside perception is that "he's a good coach that has had to work in Wacky Berkeley". We should use that to our advantage.

---

Is it, though?

ac_green33 said:

---

And, for as bad-to-mediocre Wilcox has been, the outside perception is that "he's a good coach that has had to work in Wacky Berkeley".

---

Actually, I haven't heard anyone on the "outside", including analysts and so-called experts say that Wilcox is a good coach.

Golden One said:

---

ac_green33 said:

---

And, for as bad-to-mediocre Wilcox has been, the outside perception is that "he's a good coach that has had to work in Wacky Berkeley".

---

Actually, I haven't heard anyone on the "outside", including analysts and so-called experts say that Wilcox is a good coach.

---

I see it out there sometimes, but I don't know how widespread it is.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Golden One said:

---

ac_green33 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

ac_green33 said:

---

And, for as bad-to-mediocre Wilcox has been, the outside perception is that "he's a good coach that has had to work in Wacky Berkeley".

---

Actually, I haven't heard anyone on the "outside", including analysts and so-called experts say that Wilcox is a good coach.

---

k maybe try listening better. There's a reason announcers still in 2025 bring up Berkeley COVID restrictions and that the administration has been antagonistic towards football and that it can be a hard job for anyone. A lot of people respect his defense and skills as a coordinator going back years.

---

You haven't really responded to my point. Yes, I've heard people talk about the covid restrictions, but that was 5 years ago. And I haven't heard a single person claim that he is a good coach. He has the best facilities of any Cal head coach in the last 100 years. He allegedly has the support of the current administration, He has a General Manager with lots of experience and love for Cal. And yet, the results are still below mediocre. He is closer to Holmoe than he is to Tedford. He is a bad coach.

---

Frankly, I've heard a lot of "Why on earth did they do that?" referring to play calls, schemes, time management. I haven't heard any tv crew say he's a good coach.

I realize he is a defensive specialist, but in terms of being a head coach, Cal is getting massacred in breakdowns of Mendoza from last year that are constantly talking about Mendoza rising above poor schemes or making a play despite the poor play design or the scheme putting him in a bad position.

Obviously he is a defensive coach and I expect he will get a DC job, but I don't see anyone praising his head coaching ability.

---

The announcers before televised games often say nice things about him even ridiculous things like "one of the most respected coaches in the country" because they are trying to hype the game, but it is typical fluff. Then at various points in the game they say "Why did he call a timeout there" or "I really don't understand that" or "Why not try to put more points on the board?"

Doesn't Wilcox have just 2 more years after this one? That is the crux of the problem - either needs to be extended or let go. If not extended it is a signal that a change is coming and there goes recruiting or any NIL deal that needs to be 2 or more years.

calumnus said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Golden One said:

---

ac_green33 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

ac_green33 said:

---

And, for as bad-to-mediocre Wilcox has been, the outside perception is that "he's a good coach that has had to work in Wacky Berkeley".

---

Actually, I haven't heard anyone on the "outside", including analysts and so-called experts say that Wilcox is a good coach.

---

k maybe try listening better. There's a reason announcers still in 2025 bring up Berkeley COVID restrictions and that the administration has been antagonistic towards football and that it can be a hard job for anyone. A lot of people respect his defense and skills as a coordinator going back years.

---

You haven't really responded to my point. Yes, I've heard people talk about the covid restrictions, but that was 5 years ago. And I haven't heard a single person claim that he is a good coach. He has the best facilities of any Cal head coach in the last 100 years. He allegedly has the support of the current administration, He has a General Manager with lots of experience and love for Cal. And yet, the results are still below mediocre. He is closer to Holmoe than he is to Tedford. He is a bad coach.

---

Frankly, I've heard a lot of "Why on earth did they do that?" referring to play calls, schemes, time management. I haven't heard any tv crew say he's a good coach.

I realize he is a defensive specialist, but in terms of being a head coach, Cal is getting massacred in breakdowns of Mendoza from last year that are constantly talking about Mendoza rising above poor schemes or making a play despite the poor play design or the scheme putting him in a bad position.

Obviously he is a defensive coach and I expect he will get a DC job, but I don't see anyone praising his head coaching ability.

---

The announcers before televised games often say nice things about him even ridiculous things like "one of the most respected coaches in the country" because they are trying to hype the game, but it is typical fluff. Then at various points in the game they say "Why did he call a timeout there" or "I really don't understand that" or "Why not try to put more points on the board?"

---

Andre Ward has mentioned something to that effect pregame, but he would also say that DeShaun Foster was better than Saban in his prime.

ac_green33 said:

---

gardenstatebear said:

---

2. There was a piece in The Athlete today about how there is a shortage of good coaching candidates as compared to the many open spots. That's not an argument against firing Wilcox, but it is an argument for moving slowly and carefully.

---

I think that's actually a good reason to fire him this season. There are a lot of openings and therefore a lot of chances for him to get another HC or high-level DC job to offset his buyout. And, for as bad-to-mediocre Wilcox has been, the outside perception is that "he's a good coach that has had to work in Wacky Berkeley". We should use that to our advantage.

---

The question of how good a job Wilcox can get (and therefore how much buyout he will ultimately get) is a second-order problem. The more important issue is getting the best coach. I do not advocate waiting past this year to fire him. I do advocate moving slowly and carefully. FWIW, I think we have to hope for someone like Tedford who has west coast ties and will have some understanding of what Berkeley is like.

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

The reason there are 18+ threads about dumping Wilcox is because of Cal's inability to get rid of this dead weight! Not only has Cal not fired him, they extended him with an absurdly onerous contract that may have doomed the program.

---

Quite true, but this goes back to the screwed-up administration (as described by Greg) that preceded the current Lyons/Rivera regime. It's fair to give them time to clean this up and to dig out of the hole Knowlton put them in.

---

I think the sunshine pumpers on this board would say, the problem with that is - the clock is ticking. Realignment is in 29/30.

I don't agree that we can magically improve to the extent that we would be invited to the B1G. I suspect most in Administration would think the same. I think its a matter of evaluating what things look like from the standpoint of a reduced ACC. And how to remain competitive from a budgetary and performance standpoint. But I think there are a great many college football programs that are doing this.

A culture shift - what Rivera was brought in to expedite - will take way too long for the time that is in front of us. I think the realization of that is what is driving alot of negativity on this board - some justified, some not. Its the price of middling around for too long.

---

In 2001 Holmoe went 0-10 until the makeup game against 2-8 Rutgers got our only win. Worse we were on NCAA sanctions.

People, especially the insiders and big donors, had been defending Holmoe on this board, saying our stadium and training facilities were terrible , our administration did not support football, the Bay Area is an NFL market….

Only three years later we were 1 play or a missed FG away from an 11-0 season and a berth in the National Championship Game.

The difference was only having a good coach. It helped that Gladstone was the temporary AD and could recognize good coaching, but that was it.

Since then we have spent more on our stadium and facilities than any other school (not arguing they are the best, but far better than under Tedford). We have a Cal alum and fan as our chancellor for the first time in our history. We have put a former Cal All American player and Super Bowl head coach in charge of the program. The Raiders (and A's) are gone. The East Bay market is ours for the taking. We are one of two West Coast teams ESPN owns exclusive rights to and wants to actively promote us. We have one of the easiest schedules on the country, one of the easiest in our history. We are still in the state that produces the most NFL talent and now regularly play in Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania…. We are the nearest D1 school to Hawaii with the most, and cheapest air flights…. We have the wealthiest alumni collectively of any D1 program. We and our rival offer the top academics in D1 football. Our campus and stadium are beautiful. The Bay Area weather and culture are unique and a huge draw…

As in 2001, all it takes is firing the losing coach and hiring a good coach. If anything, everything else is FAR better now.

---

Not that it was all that important relative to your other fine points but: that's really a thing, that Cal is the "wealthiest alumni collectively?" I suspect that some of the groups that come to mind, like a Duke, could be higher per capita, but they are creating a lot less alums on a yearly basis.
Of course the activation and participation of the alumni group relative to sports is always going to be the key, so even if we want to brag about the alumni group relative to LSU, Penn St, Oregon et. al., what those schools are receiving in terms of season ticket holders (or, for that matter game by game purchases) contributions etc. is double and triple (conservatively) compared to Cal. But what you cite is still an important source.

mbBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

The reason there are 18+ threads about dumping Wilcox is because of Cal's inability to get rid of this dead weight! Not only has Cal not fired him, they extended him with an absurdly onerous contract that may have doomed the program.

---

Quite true, but this goes back to the screwed-up administration (as described by Greg) that preceded the current Lyons/Rivera regime. It's fair to give them time to clean this up and to dig out of the hole Knowlton put them in.

---

I think the sunshine pumpers on this board would say, the problem with that is - the clock is ticking. Realignment is in 29/30.

I don't agree that we can magically improve to the extent that we would be invited to the B1G. I suspect most in Administration would think the same. I think its a matter of evaluating what things look like from the standpoint of a reduced ACC. And how to remain competitive from a budgetary and performance standpoint. But I think there are a great many college football programs that are doing this.

A culture shift - what Rivera was brought in to expedite - will take way too long for the time that is in front of us. I think the realization of that is what is driving alot of negativity on this board - some justified, some not. Its the price of middling around for too long.

---

In 2001 Holmoe went 0-10 until the makeup game against 2-8 Rutgers got our only win. Worse we were on NCAA sanctions.

People, especially the insiders and big donors, had been defending Holmoe on this board, saying our stadium and training facilities were terrible , our administration did not support football, the Bay Area is an NFL market….

Only three years later we were 1 play or a missed FG away from an 11-0 season and a berth in the National Championship Game.

The difference was only having a good coach. It helped that Gladstone was the temporary AD and could recognize good coaching, but that was it.

Since then we have spent more on our stadium and facilities than any other school (not arguing they are the best, but far better than under Tedford). We have a Cal alum and fan as our chancellor for the first time in our history. We have put a former Cal All American player and Super Bowl head coach in charge of the program. The Raiders (and A's) are gone. The East Bay market is ours for the taking. We are one of two West Coast teams ESPN owns exclusive rights to and wants to actively promote us. We have one of the easiest schedules on the country, one of the easiest in our history. We are still in the state that produces the most NFL talent and now regularly play in Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania…. We are the nearest D1 school to Hawaii with the most, and cheapest air flights…. We have the wealthiest alumni collectively of any D1 program. We and our rival offer the top academics in D1 football. Our campus and stadium are beautiful. The Bay Area weather and culture are unique and a huge draw…

As in 2001, all it takes is firing the losing coach and hiring a good coach. If anything, everything else is FAR better now.

---

Not that it was all that important relative to your other fine points but: that's really a thing, that Cal is the "wealthiest alumni collectively?" I suspect that some of the groups that come to mind, like a Duke, could be higher per capita, but they are creating a lot less alums on a yearly basis.
Of course the activation and participation of the alumni group relative to sports is always going to be the key, so even if we want to brag about the alumni group relative to LSU, Penn St, Oregon et. al., what those schools are receiving in terms of season ticket holders (or, for that matter game by game purchases) contributions etc. is double and triple (conservatively) compared to Cal. But what you cite is still an important source.

---

OK, I used "wealth" as lazy shorthand for "gross earnings": Cal has far more alumni than the (all private) schools with similar per capita lifetime incomes, and Cal alumni collectively have the greatest gross earnings of any school. Part of that is the Bay Area has the highest earnings in the country and we dwarf Stanford grads in numbers.

A lot of wealth in this country is inherited and people with inherited wealth generally go to privates.

Here are the number of billionaire alumni per Forbes' World Billionaire List 2024;
1. Harvard 127
2. Stanford 93
3. Penn 62
4. Columbia 47
5. MIT 39
6. NYU 28
7. Yale 24
8. University of California, Berkeley 22
9. Cornell 21
10. Princeton 20

What is important to note about the above list is Cal and Stanford are the only two of the ten that play D1 sports, much less are in a P4 Conference.

Cal has 22 billionaires. Rivera just has to find 1 that wants to be our Mark Cuban. Or maybe someone with just $800,000 million? Or maybe each billionaire pledges $10 million (less than 1%) for $220 million total?

You are correct that our current athletics revenues from our wealthy alumni are relatively low, my post was more about our untapped potential.

calumnus said:

---

mbBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

The reason there are 18+ threads about dumping Wilcox is because of Cal's inability to get rid of this dead weight! Not only has Cal not fired him, they extended him with an absurdly onerous contract that may have doomed the program.

---

Quite true, but this goes back to the screwed-up administration (as described by Greg) that preceded the current Lyons/Rivera regime. It's fair to give them time to clean this up and to dig out of the hole Knowlton put them in.

---

I think the sunshine pumpers on this board would say, the problem with that is - the clock is ticking. Realignment is in 29/30.

I don't agree that we can magically improve to the extent that we would be invited to the B1G. I suspect most in Administration would think the same. I think its a matter of evaluating what things look like from the standpoint of a reduced ACC. And how to remain competitive from a budgetary and performance standpoint. But I think there are a great many college football programs that are doing this.

A culture shift - what Rivera was brought in to expedite - will take way too long for the time that is in front of us. I think the realization of that is what is driving alot of negativity on this board - some justified, some not. Its the price of middling around for too long.

---

In 2001 Holmoe went 0-10 until the makeup game against 2-8 Rutgers got our only win. Worse we were on NCAA sanctions.

People, especially the insiders and big donors, had been defending Holmoe on this board, saying our stadium and training facilities were terrible , our administration did not support football, the Bay Area is an NFL market….

Only three years later we were 1 play or a missed FG away from an 11-0 season and a berth in the National Championship Game.

The difference was only having a good coach. It helped that Gladstone was the temporary AD and could recognize good coaching, but that was it.

Since then we have spent more on our stadium and facilities than any other school (not arguing they are the best, but far better than under Tedford). We have a Cal alum and fan as our chancellor for the first time in our history. We have put a former Cal All American player and Super Bowl head coach in charge of the program. The Raiders (and A's) are gone. The East Bay market is ours for the taking. We are one of two West Coast teams ESPN owns exclusive rights to and wants to actively promote us. We have one of the easiest schedules on the country, one of the easiest in our history. We are still in the state that produces the most NFL talent and now regularly play in Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania…. We are the nearest D1 school to Hawaii with the most, and cheapest air flights…. We have the wealthiest alumni collectively of any D1 program. We and our rival offer the top academics in D1 football. Our campus and stadium are beautiful. The Bay Area weather and culture are unique and a huge draw…

As in 2001, all it takes is firing the losing coach and hiring a good coach. If anything, everything else is FAR better now.

---

Not that it was all that important relative to your other fine points but: that's really a thing, that Cal is the "wealthiest alumni collectively?" I suspect that some of the groups that come to mind, like a Duke, could be higher per capita, but they are creating a lot less alums on a yearly basis.
Of course the activation and participation of the alumni group relative to sports is always going to be the key, so even if we want to brag about the alumni group relative to LSU, Penn St, Oregon et. al., what those schools are receiving in terms of season ticket holders (or, for that matter game by game purchases) contributions etc. is double and triple (conservatively) compared to Cal. But what you cite is still an important source.

---

OK, I used "wealth" as lazy shorthand for "gross earnings": Cal has far more alumni than the (all private) schools with similar per capita lifetime incomes, and Cal alumni collectively have the greatest gross earnings of any school. Part of that is the Bay Area has the highest earnings in the country and we dwarf Stanford grads in numbers.

A lot of wealth in this country is inherited and people with inherited wealth generally go to privates.

Here are the number of billionaire alumni per Forbes' World Billionaire List 2024;
1. Harvard 127
2. Stanford 93
3. Penn 62
4. Columbia 47
5. MIT 39
6. NYU 28
7. Yale 24
8. University of California, Berkeley 22
9. Cornell 21
10. Princeton 20

What is important to note about the above list is Cal and Stanford are the only two of the ten that play D1 sports, much less are in a P4 Conference.

Cal has 22 billionaires. Rivera just has to find 1 that wants to be our Mark Cuban. Or maybe someone with just $800,000 million? Or maybe each billionaire pledges $10 million (less than 1%) for $220 million total?

You are correct that our current athletics revenues from our wealthy alumni are relatively low, my post was more about our untapped potential.

---

I took it that way, about being untapped. Interesting list, thanks for posting.
Not going to say the "one billionaire" discovery wouldn't change a lot. But the cruel reality is that "quantity over quality" certainly rules the day here when you talk about the number of people engaged with supporting sports at other schools..

mbBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

mbBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

The reason there are 18+ threads about dumping Wilcox is because of Cal's inability to get rid of this dead weight! Not only has Cal not fired him, they extended him with an absurdly onerous contract that may have doomed the program.

---

Quite true, but this goes back to the screwed-up administration (as described by Greg) that preceded the current Lyons/Rivera regime. It's fair to give them time to clean this up and to dig out of the hole Knowlton put them in.

---

I think the sunshine pumpers on this board would say, the problem with that is - the clock is ticking. Realignment is in 29/30.

I don't agree that we can magically improve to the extent that we would be invited to the B1G. I suspect most in Administration would think the same. I think its a matter of evaluating what things look like from the standpoint of a reduced ACC. And how to remain competitive from a budgetary and performance standpoint. But I think there are a great many college football programs that are doing this.

A culture shift - what Rivera was brought in to expedite - will take way too long for the time that is in front of us. I think the realization of that is what is driving alot of negativity on this board - some justified, some not. Its the price of middling around for too long.

---

In 2001 Holmoe went 0-10 until the makeup game against 2-8 Rutgers got our only win. Worse we were on NCAA sanctions.

People, especially the insiders and big donors, had been defending Holmoe on this board, saying our stadium and training facilities were terrible , our administration did not support football, the Bay Area is an NFL market….

Only three years later we were 1 play or a missed FG away from an 11-0 season and a berth in the National Championship Game.

The difference was only having a good coach. It helped that Gladstone was the temporary AD and could recognize good coaching, but that was it.

Since then we have spent more on our stadium and facilities than any other school (not arguing they are the best, but far better than under Tedford). We have a Cal alum and fan as our chancellor for the first time in our history. We have put a former Cal All American player and Super Bowl head coach in charge of the program. The Raiders (and A's) are gone. The East Bay market is ours for the taking. We are one of two West Coast teams ESPN owns exclusive rights to and wants to actively promote us. We have one of the easiest schedules on the country, one of the easiest in our history. We are still in the state that produces the most NFL talent and now regularly play in Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania…. We are the nearest D1 school to Hawaii with the most, and cheapest air flights…. We have the wealthiest alumni collectively of any D1 program. We and our rival offer the top academics in D1 football. Our campus and stadium are beautiful. The Bay Area weather and culture are unique and a huge draw…

As in 2001, all it takes is firing the losing coach and hiring a good coach. If anything, everything else is FAR better now.

---

Not that it was all that important relative to your other fine points but: that's really a thing, that Cal is the "wealthiest alumni collectively?" I suspect that some of the groups that come to mind, like a Duke, could be higher per capita, but they are creating a lot less alums on a yearly basis.
Of course the activation and participation of the alumni group relative to sports is always going to be the key, so even if we want to brag about the alumni group relative to LSU, Penn St, Oregon et. al., what those schools are receiving in terms of season ticket holders (or, for that matter game by game purchases) contributions etc. is double and triple (conservatively) compared to Cal. But what you cite is still an important source.

---

OK, I used "wealth" as lazy shorthand for "gross earnings": Cal has far more alumni than the (all private) schools with similar per capita lifetime incomes, and Cal alumni collectively have the greatest gross earnings of any school. Part of that is the Bay Area has the highest earnings in the country and we dwarf Stanford grads in numbers.

A lot of wealth in this country is inherited and people with inherited wealth generally go to privates.

Here are the number of billionaire alumni per Forbes' World Billionaire List 2024;
1. Harvard 127
2. Stanford 93
3. Penn 62
4. Columbia 47
5. MIT 39
6. NYU 28
7. Yale 24
8. University of California, Berkeley 22
9. Cornell 21
10. Princeton 20

What is important to note about the above list is Cal and Stanford are the only two of the ten that play D1 sports, much less are in a P4 Conference.

Cal has 22 billionaires. Rivera just has to find 1 that wants to be our Mark Cuban. Or maybe someone with just $800,000 million? Or maybe each billionaire pledges $10 million (less than 1%) for $220 million total?

You are correct that our current athletics revenues from our wealthy alumni are relatively low, my post was more about our untapped potential.

---

I took it that way, about being untapped. Interesting list, thanks for posting.
Not going to say the "one billionaire" discovery wouldn't change a lot. But the cruel reality is that "quantity over quality" certainly rules the day here when you talk about the number of people engaged with supporting sports at other schools..

---

rumor has it that Brian Kelly's buyout ($50M+) was entirely funded by a singular donor. That could be the difference for a billionaire discovery that you mentioned. If someone funds $50M right now we can get a top tier coach for 5 years

mbBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

mbBear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

TandemBear said:

---

The reason there are 18+ threads about dumping Wilcox is because of Cal's inability to get rid of this dead weight! Not only has Cal not fired him, they extended him with an absurdly onerous contract that may have doomed the program.

---

Quite true, but this goes back to the screwed-up administration (as described by Greg) that preceded the current Lyons/Rivera regime. It's fair to give them time to clean this up and to dig out of the hole Knowlton put them in.

---

I think the sunshine pumpers on this board would say, the problem with that is - the clock is ticking. Realignment is in 29/30.

I don't agree that we can magically improve to the extent that we would be invited to the B1G. I suspect most in Administration would think the same. I think its a matter of evaluating what things look like from the standpoint of a reduced ACC. And how to remain competitive from a budgetary and performance standpoint. But I think there are a great many college football programs that are doing this.

A culture shift - what Rivera was brought in to expedite - will take way too long for the time that is in front of us. I think the realization of that is what is driving alot of negativity on this board - some justified, some not. Its the price of middling around for too long.

---

In 2001 Holmoe went 0-10 until the makeup game against 2-8 Rutgers got our only win. Worse we were on NCAA sanctions.

People, especially the insiders and big donors, had been defending Holmoe on this board, saying our stadium and training facilities were terrible , our administration did not support football, the Bay Area is an NFL market….

Only three years later we were 1 play or a missed FG away from an 11-0 season and a berth in the National Championship Game.

The difference was only having a good coach. It helped that Gladstone was the temporary AD and could recognize good coaching, but that was it.

Since then we have spent more on our stadium and facilities than any other school (not arguing they are the best, but far better than under Tedford). We have a Cal alum and fan as our chancellor for the first time in our history. We have put a former Cal All American player and Super Bowl head coach in charge of the program. The Raiders (and A's) are gone. The East Bay market is ours for the taking. We are one of two West Coast teams ESPN owns exclusive rights to and wants to actively promote us. We have one of the easiest schedules on the country, one of the easiest in our history. We are still in the state that produces the most NFL talent and now regularly play in Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania…. We are the nearest D1 school to Hawaii with the most, and cheapest air flights…. We have the wealthiest alumni collectively of any D1 program. We and our rival offer the top academics in D1 football. Our campus and stadium are beautiful. The Bay Area weather and culture are unique and a huge draw…

As in 2001, all it takes is firing the losing coach and hiring a good coach. If anything, everything else is FAR better now.

---

Not that it was all that important relative to your other fine points but: that's really a thing, that Cal is the "wealthiest alumni collectively?" I suspect that some of the groups that come to mind, like a Duke, could be higher per capita, but they are creating a lot less alums on a yearly basis.
Of course the activation and participation of the alumni group relative to sports is always going to be the key, so even if we want to brag about the alumni group relative to LSU, Penn St, Oregon et. al., what those schools are receiving in terms of season ticket holders (or, for that matter game by game purchases) contributions etc. is double and triple (conservatively) compared to Cal. But what you cite is still an important source.

---

OK, I used "wealth" as lazy shorthand for "gross earnings": Cal has far more alumni than the (all private) schools with similar per capita lifetime incomes, and Cal alumni collectively have the greatest gross earnings of any school. Part of that is the Bay Area has the highest earnings in the country and we dwarf Stanford grads in numbers.

A lot of wealth in this country is inherited and people with inherited wealth generally go to privates.

Here are the number of billionaire alumni per Forbes' World Billionaire List 2024;
1. Harvard 127
2. Stanford 93
3. Penn 62
4. Columbia 47
5. MIT 39
6. NYU 28
7. Yale 24
8. University of California, Berkeley 22
9. Cornell 21
10. Princeton 20

What is important to note about the above list is Cal and Stanford are the only two of the ten that play D1 sports, much less are in a P4 Conference.

Cal has 22 billionaires. Rivera just has to find 1 that wants to be our Mark Cuban. Or maybe someone with just $800,000 million? Or maybe each billionaire pledges $10 million (less than 1%) for $220 million total?

You are correct that our current athletics revenues from our wealthy alumni are relatively low, my post was more about our untapped potential.

---

I took it that way, about being untapped. Interesting list, thanks for posting.
Not going to say the "one billionaire" discovery wouldn't change a lot. But the cruel reality is that "quantity over quality" certainly rules the day here when you talk about the number of people engaged with supporting sports at other schools..

---

Agreed. I never say "All we need to do is have big donors give over tens of $millions more of their money to make us good." Not that it couldn't happen, but planning on winning the lottery is not a retirement strategy. I instead always try to come up with ways we can get there by better using the resources we currently have at our disposal.

Similar to the way billionaires enjoy owning professional sports teams, I do think there is an opportunity at this time for someone to step up and be Cal's Phil Knight, with a lot of say over the football and basketball program that wouldn't have been possible with our previous bureaucracy.

I have also suggested in the past that Cal outsource management of its revenue sports to an alumni run and owned non-profit that would take in the revenues and manage the program including hiring and firing decisions, coaching salaries, NIL and the media and gameday replacing Learfield, with any profits donated to the university, which would avoid having players be declared university employees with Olympic sports suing for equal pay.

Alumni donations to NewCo would earn voting shares, which would encourage more people to donate knowing it is not just handing their money over to an idiot like Knowlton to flush down the toilet. They would get a tangible say in the program. The NewCo could also take out loans to help us through the current financial depths. Lyons would not need to replace Knowlton and could keep much lower paid administrators to oversee the Olympic sports whose athletes would remain unpaid by the university.

I am not sure that the above is in alignment with House, but in principle it is. Some other schools have started moving in this direction. I was also thinking that with Cal alums Lyons and Rivera in charge, there is less impetus for a move like this, but I now think they might not be as great as we hoped and an organization with broader alumni input and power could be better.

It all depends on what Ron does for the 2026 season.