BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

September 20, 2025, Cal gets abused by a Mountain West team in what has to be top 5 most humiliating losses in Cal football history. That Wilcox made it to September 27th is a huge problem. If you ask me to guess the number of other P4 schools that would allow a coach with Wilcox's record to have a defeat like that against a non-P4 opponent and still have his job at the end of the week, I'd truly guess zero. I'd be very confident it is fewer than 5. That absolutely can't happen. I'm sorry, from September 21 it is on the Rivera regime that Wilcox is still here. Maybe he wanted to fire him and couldn't. I don't know. But he needed to be fired after that game for us to have any credibility. Instead…

---

This really hits home and resonates so much. We are reminded time and time again that we are basically playing 2 tiers below. Our standards are so damn low.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Records Wise]

Tier 1 schools:
Championship or bust. 3 losses in a year and you are out. Losing to UCLA and Old Dominion and you are out. 2 years is all you get to turn things around.

Tier 3 school (Cal):
9 years, never a winning conference record, 5 losses to teams that either have zero FBS wins or interim coaches. Still fine and employed


[Financially]

Tier 1 schools:
60 million buyouts, 80 million buy outs, doesn't matter. You upset me in a meeting? (Brian Kelly), you are gone
We pay our good coach 10 to 13M a year

Tier 3 school (Cal):
We cannot afford a 10M buy out even though other schools pay that in 1 year salary


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know why this board is hurting? No Cal fan is has delusion that we are a tier 1 school. We are not LSU, PennState, Ohio State. But we thought we are a tier 2 school.

But 2 years ago during realignment, we got blindsided and we all have to accept that we are less desirable than ASU, UA, CO, Utah, Cincinnati and Houston. We are barely more desirable than OSU and WSU.

Then there is this season, where okie state, ucla, virginia tech, our supposed peers all acted before we did. We are once again reminded that we are a tier 3 school.

That is why the fans are so desperate for us to act. That is why Ron got an email after the SDSU/Duke game to fire Wilcox. Are we going to sack up and show the college football world that we also care? Or are we going to just sit around and get to a maybe unceremonious firing at the end of the season. I know it might not be financially prudent, but at least give the fans some hope!

Listen, if you have big pocket donors you can ignore the fans, but we don't have the 50M donors. The fans on this board are your most ardent supporters. Instead Ron and the mods are telling us to just shut up and wait and accept our fate. We are all hurting here and all we want is just a small sign that maybe we do belong after all

TedfordTheGreat said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

September 20, 2025, Cal gets abused by a Mountain West team in what has to be top 5 most humiliating losses in Cal football history. That Wilcox made it to September 27th is a huge problem. If you ask me to guess the number of other P4 schools that would allow a coach with Wilcox's record to have a defeat like that against a non-P4 opponent and still have his job at the end of the week, I'd truly guess zero. I'd be very confident it is fewer than 5. That absolutely can't happen. I'm sorry, from September 21 it is on the Rivera regime that Wilcox is still here. Maybe he wanted to fire him and couldn't. I don't know. But he needed to be fired after that game for us to have any credibility. Instead…

---

This really hits home and resonates so much. We are reminded time and time again that we are basically playing 2 tiers below. Our standards are so damn low.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Records Wise]

Tier 1 schools:
Championship or bust. 3 losses in a year and you are out. Losing to UCLA and Old Dominion and you are out. 2 years is all you get to turn things around.

Tier 3 school (Cal):
9 years, never a winning conference record, 5 losses to teams that either have zero FBS wins or interim coaches. Still fine and employed


[Financially]

Tier 1 schools:
60 million buyouts, 80 million buy outs, doesn't matter. You upset me in a meeting? (Brian Kelly), you are gone
We pay our good coach 10 to 13M a year

Tier 3 school (Cal):
We cannot afford a 10M buy out even though other schools pay that in 1 year salary


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know why this board is hurting? No Cal fan is has delusion that we are a tier 1 school. We are not LSU, PennState, Ohio State. But we thought we are a tier 2 school.

But 2 years ago during realignment, we got blindsided and we all have to accept that we are less desirable than ASU, UA, CO, Utah, Cincinnati and Houston. We are barely more desirable than OSU and WSU.

Then there is this season, where okie state, ucla, virginia tech, our supposed peers all acted before we did. We are once again reminded that we are a tier 3 school.

That is why the fans are so desperate for us to act. That is why Ron got an email after the SDSU/Duke game to fire Wilcox. Are we going to sack up and show the college football world that we also care? Or are we going to just sit around and get to a maybe unceremonious firing at the end of the season. I know it might not be financially prudent, but at least give the fans some hope!

Listen, if you have big pocket donors you can ignore the fans, but we don't have the 50M donors. The fans on this board are your most ardent supporters. Instead Ron and the mods are telling us to just shut up and wait and accept our fate. We are all hurting here and all we want is just a small sign that maybe we do belong after all

---

Oregon is tier 2.

TedfordTheGreat said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

September 20, 2025, Cal gets abused by a Mountain West team in what has to be top 5 most humiliating losses in Cal football history. That Wilcox made it to September 27th is a huge problem. If you ask me to guess the number of other P4 schools that would allow a coach with Wilcox's record to have a defeat like that against a non-P4 opponent and still have his job at the end of the week, I'd truly guess zero. I'd be very confident it is fewer than 5. That absolutely can't happen. I'm sorry, from September 21 it is on the Rivera regime that Wilcox is still here. Maybe he wanted to fire him and couldn't. I don't know. But he needed to be fired after that game for us to have any credibility. Instead…

---

But 2 years ago during realignment, we got blindsided and we all have to accept that we are less desirable than ASU, UA, CO, Utah, Cincinnati and Houston. We are barely more desirable than OSU and WSU.

---

You mentioned a bunch of Big-12 schools (and that was never happening for us), but generally, and the ivory tower folks do not understand this, with the college experience becoming highly scrutinized over diminishing ROI and the shrinking utility of university diplomas (even ours), prospective students are going to be looking at other aspects of college life to validate their higher education decisions, and even with what we have going on outside of California Memorial Stadium, we are becoming less and less relevant in an era when everyone is looking for their bread and circuses and we are serving up breadcrumbs and jesters instead

MinotStateBeav said:

---

Gunga la Gunga said:

---

TBH, We need to move away from the "Our Coach is the Problem" mentality. Yes, our coach is a problem, but he's just a symptom. Our underlying issue an insufficient infrastructure. We do not currently have the fan, community, institutional or financial infrastructure to compete.

Consequently, we hope to hire a coach that can paper over these infrastructural issues, and deliver a short term fix. It's worked two or three times in the 40 years I've paid attention to Cal sports.

If we want to build that infrastructure, we need to think much bigger than who our coach is. Also, it's more than money. It's fan interest. You can't have 20k to 25K people come to a game, and say we have the right amount of support, regardless of how high donations get. Also, the right infrastructure requires we don't have ongoing fights with the COB and/or Faculty.

If Lyons and Rivera really want to build a sustainable capability at Cal, let me understand how they intend to build this infrastructure. Otherwise . . . yawn.

---

California fans do not attend games of losing programs. You have the die hards and the "It's a nice day to go watch a game" fans that will always show up, but this state just doesn't sell out for losers. That's state wide by the way.

---

The only exception was the Warriors even in the down years in the Oakland Arena. But that's a pro team in a much smaller stadium, not really comparable.

Can't really disagree with the general thrust of the OP (though like Greg I am not as bothered by the post-SDSU Rivera statements). Cal athletics has been improving things. As has historically been the case, it is happening too slowly and there is always the worry of an oncoming back-track into not caring, like what happened after Tedford.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

Golden One said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

We are lucky that we have Rich and Ron who are genuinely trying to save the program.

---

Can you share what evidence you have that this is actually happening? I haven't seen anything yet, but I've heard a lot of words. Oh, and I've seen Lyons ride onto the field on a bicycle before the team enters. Big deal.

---

Curious what actions you expect to see if they really are trying to save the program?

Does hiring Ron Rivera count? Firing Jim Knowlton? Giving Ron complete control of the program?

Ron's had that control since April, what actions are you expecting to make you feel like Cal's leadership is trying to save the program?

And as for Ron's comments to the press, they are being overblown. Yes, he wants fans to come out and support the team regardless of the outcome of a game. Not the smartest or most carefully worded statement he could have made for sure. Does that mean he doesn't "get" it or want to save the program? Does it obviate the many statements he's made about the KPIs for the program that are mandatory?

---

Fire Knowlton by August 2024.
Firing Wilcox by December 2024.
Having a succession plan for Knowlton departure that was almost a year into Lyons term
Firing Wilcox after SDSU

I don't see Knowlton's retirement forced or not after he looked the other way while athletes were subject to abusive behavior as an indicator of new winning ways. That seems like baseline. The fact that Christ didn't do it is more a negative toward her than a positive in Lyons.

Major props and kudos for creating the GM position and hiring Rivera.


Major props for improving the fundraising.


We'll agree to disagree on whether the radio statement is overblown. I'm not saying Rivera sucks because of that statement. I'm saying it was one thing he did that was very poor.

And again. No other coach survives the SDSU loss. That would have told me Cal has changed and that is why I fear Cal has not changed enough.

---

Rivera's interview really struck me the wrong way as well. I understand the point that the program needs support. But after so much losing, dysfunction and poor decisions I find it very understandable that fans may want to see the anger expressed towards what happened on the field.

As a fan I used to give more than I do currently. I have made a point to not contribute now that everything is in house. I gave some (not a lot TBH) when the collective was operating. I trusted Sebastabear and others. I do not trust Cal and Wilcox even less. I would be much more inclined to donate if I knew Wilcox was out. I go back and forth on whether I believe he will or not.

This team has the largest coaching staff ever for a Cal football program. They have 2 former HCs on staff and a longtime NFL HC as the GM. They have 3 DB coaches (including Heyward) 2 co-dcs, and other analysts/special assistants like Bob Gregory and on Saturday the defense looked spectacularly awful and poorly coached.

I think the SDSU game while incredibly awful was not fireable. But the number of red flags it created was noticeble. Team meeting that Rivera was involved with. And the HC letting everyone that listened to his presser that there would be no pushing the loss as just a "bad day" Yet I have seen very little since that game that suggests the message took hold. They did beat Minnesota which until this past Saturday seemed like a "good win" They lost to Iowa 41-3. Their wins are Nebraska, Rutgers and Purdue, NW State and Buffalo. Minnesota is mid at best.

There are a lot of things that likely cannot be stated publicly that are known to the major donors and insiders. But I have no idea what things are happening. But we have heard they are "good things". So we wait.

I get not firing Wilcox 8 games in. But I would like to see a bit more pressure applied. Rivera may be very pointed with Wilcox behind closed doors. But I would like to see a bit more public notice that we expect better regardless of the record. The team has not passed the eye test almost every time out. Even in victory (BC and UNC) they were ragged and the defense has taken a big step back in recent weeks. I get McCulloch and Crosby are out but the defense never adjusted on Friday night depsite having a lot of experienced defensive coaches. Including first and foremost the HC. Also Bob Gregory the long time defensive coach and now special assistant.

I think in the end it boils down to trust. Does the majority of the fanbase that has no interaction with Rivera have any idea what is happening? They do not. And there are still many that do trust. When we see programs all over the country fire HCs in season including another UC and an ACC peer (who they just lost to on Friday) trust is hard to muster. Right or wrong regarding Wilcox the idea that making a move in season is not an outlier and not something the larger football community sees as unfair. The opposite seems true. Longtime successful HCs have been shown the door. Franklin and Kelly ( 2 longtime succesful HCs) a result of unmet expectations. When we see nothing happen here I must assume that expectations are being met.

I would love to hear Ron say the results are not satisfactory.That the team is not playing up to expectations. The record suggests the team is making progress until you take a deeper dive into the opponents. This is not a good team. Despite the record.

This was supposed to be the year. New staffers. Ron with the keys. A schedule tailor made for winning. Yet it looks alarmingly similar to past Wilcox teams. Good start then the wheels begin to fall off. Fridays game vs VaTech could have put Cal at 3-1. VaTech has an interim HC. Cal knew before the game that Drones was their biggest weapon, They did not play like a team fighting for a championship nor a team that had any idea that Drones was their best player.

But be patient. Cal is on it. I want to believe. We'll see.

sycasey said:

---

Can't really disagree with the general thrust of the OP (though like Greg I am not as bothered by the post-SDSU Rivera statements). Cal athletics has been improving things. As has historically been the case, it is happening too slowly and there is always the worry of an oncoming back-track into not caring, like what happened after Tedford.

---

Here's the thing on the statement. Things like that are going to bother some people and inspire others and others aren't going to care. But it hit a lot of people the wrong way as you can see both on the thread it was posted on in terms of responses and number of stars on responses. And I think that was the first thing that really got this board to criticize Rivera.

The thing is one can say the criticism is overblown because one doesn't take the statement the way others did. However, the point of doing the interview at all is fan engagement. If a sizable portion of the fans were annoyed by it, it doesn't make sense for others to say "Don't feel that way". It is pretty obvious that if you go on radio 3 days after getting crushed by a MWC team and say fans gotta believe and if you don't believe get out of it, you don't realize a lot of the fans are going to be annoyed. Whether that fan reaction is reasonable or not (I happen to think that it is) that reaction is entirely predictable.

There should have been some responsibility taken. Something like "Oh, I understand they are frustrated. I'm frustrated. Chancellor Lyons is frustrated. Justin is frustrated. The players are frustrated. But here's the thing. We are working hard to change the direction of this program. There's going to be bumps in the road and this weekend was a big bump. Don't leave us when we hit a bump. Because if we are going to turn this around, we need you with us."

Do you see how the second half of my statement is essentially what he said, but hits differently if you acknowledge and share the fan's frustration first? His statement didn't sound like he was frustrated with the state of the program. It sounded like he was frustrated with the fans' reaction. Which he may be. He's human. But you can't say that. It sounded like 3 days after a humiliating loss the thing that most bothered him was the fans.

I'm just saying this interview is essentially an ad for Cal football. And the success of an ad campaign is not the artistic quality but how the target audience responds to it. You can't tell the target audience how they should respond.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Can't really disagree with the general thrust of the OP (though like Greg I am not as bothered by the post-SDSU Rivera statements). Cal athletics has been improving things. As has historically been the case, it is happening too slowly and there is always the worry of an oncoming back-track into not caring, like what happened after Tedford.

---

Here's the thing on the statement. Things like that are going to bother some people and inspire others and others aren't going to care. But it hit a lot of people the wrong way as you can see both on the thread it was posted on in terms of responses and number of stars on responses. And I think that was the first thing that really got this board to criticize Rivera.

The thing is one can say the criticism is overblown because one doesn't take the statement the way others did. However, the point of doing the interview at all is fan engagement. If a sizable portion of the fans were annoyed by it, it doesn't make sense for others to say "Don't feel that way". It is pretty obvious that if you go on radio 3 days after getting crushed by a MWC team and say fans gotta believe and if you don't believe get out of it, you don't realize a lot of the fans are going to be annoyed. Whether that fan reaction is reasonable or not (I happen to think that it is) that reaction is entirely predictable.

There should have been some responsibility taken. Something like "Oh, I understand they are frustrated. I'm frustrated. Chancellor Lyons is frustrated. Justin is frustrated. The players are frustrated. But here's the thing. We are working hard to change the direction of this program. There's going to be bumps in the road and this weekend was a big bump. Don't leave us when we hit a bump. Because if we are going to turn this around, we need you with us."

Do you see how the second half of my statement is essentially what he said, but hits differently if you acknowledge and share the fan's frustration first? His statement didn't sound like he was frustrated with the state of the program. It sounded like he was frustrated with the fans' reaction. Which he may be. He's human. But you can't say that. It sounded like 3 days after a humiliating loss the thing that most bothered him was the fans.

I'm just saying this interview is essentially an ad for Cal football. And the success of an ad campaign is not the artistic quality but how the target audience responds to it. You can't tell the target audience how they should respond.

---

I think, if he had it to do over again, he would've said it pretty much as you did. He hadn't really thought it through.

Words matter; words count. Hell, I am using words right now. That said, what athletes, coaches and GMs say to the press, I kinda don't care. If players, or even fans, get thrown under the proverbial bus in a post-game interview, it doesn't move me one way or the other. I just want better coaching and better playing.

Perhaps ironically, I am more a man of words than of action, so go figure.

Big C said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Can't really disagree with the general thrust of the OP (though like Greg I am not as bothered by the post-SDSU Rivera statements). Cal athletics has been improving things. As has historically been the case, it is happening too slowly and there is always the worry of an oncoming back-track into not caring, like what happened after Tedford.

---

Here's the thing on the statement. Things like that are going to bother some people and inspire others and others aren't going to care. But it hit a lot of people the wrong way as you can see both on the thread it was posted on in terms of responses and number of stars on responses. And I think that was the first thing that really got this board to criticize Rivera.

The thing is one can say the criticism is overblown because one doesn't take the statement the way others did. However, the point of doing the interview at all is fan engagement. If a sizable portion of the fans were annoyed by it, it doesn't make sense for others to say "Don't feel that way". It is pretty obvious that if you go on radio 3 days after getting crushed by a MWC team and say fans gotta believe and if you don't believe get out of it, you don't realize a lot of the fans are going to be annoyed. Whether that fan reaction is reasonable or not (I happen to think that it is) that reaction is entirely predictable.

There should have been some responsibility taken. Something like "Oh, I understand they are frustrated. I'm frustrated. Chancellor Lyons is frustrated. Justin is frustrated. The players are frustrated. But here's the thing. We are working hard to change the direction of this program. There's going to be bumps in the road and this weekend was a big bump. Don't leave us when we hit a bump. Because if we are going to turn this around, we need you with us."

Do you see how the second half of my statement is essentially what he said, but hits differently if you acknowledge and share the fan's frustration first? His statement didn't sound like he was frustrated with the state of the program. It sounded like he was frustrated with the fans' reaction. Which he may be. He's human. But you can't say that. It sounded like 3 days after a humiliating loss the thing that most bothered him was the fans.

I'm just saying this interview is essentially an ad for Cal football. And the success of an ad campaign is not the artistic quality but how the target audience responds to it. You can't tell the target audience how they should respond.

---

I think, if he had it to do over again, he would've said it pretty much as you did. He hadn't really thought it through.

Word matter; words count. Hell, I am using words right now. That said, what athletes, coaches and GMs say to the press, I kinda don't care. If players, or even fans, get thrown under the proverbial bus in a post-game interview, it doesn't move me one way or the other. I just want better coaching and better playing.

Perhaps ironically, I am more a man of words than of action, so go figure.

---

So what actions has RR taken to make the team better? He still hasn't replaced Wilsux with a competent coach. Until he does that, everything is just empty words.

Big C said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Can't really disagree with the general thrust of the OP (though like Greg I am not as bothered by the post-SDSU Rivera statements). Cal athletics has been improving things. As has historically been the case, it is happening too slowly and there is always the worry of an oncoming back-track into not caring, like what happened after Tedford.

---

Here's the thing on the statement. Things like that are going to bother some people and inspire others and others aren't going to care. But it hit a lot of people the wrong way as you can see both on the thread it was posted on in terms of responses and number of stars on responses. And I think that was the first thing that really got this board to criticize Rivera.

The thing is one can say the criticism is overblown because one doesn't take the statement the way others did. However, the point of doing the interview at all is fan engagement. If a sizable portion of the fans were annoyed by it, it doesn't make sense for others to say "Don't feel that way". It is pretty obvious that if you go on radio 3 days after getting crushed by a MWC team and say fans gotta believe and if you don't believe get out of it, you don't realize a lot of the fans are going to be annoyed. Whether that fan reaction is reasonable or not (I happen to think that it is) that reaction is entirely predictable.

There should have been some responsibility taken. Something like "Oh, I understand they are frustrated. I'm frustrated. Chancellor Lyons is frustrated. Justin is frustrated. The players are frustrated. But here's the thing. We are working hard to change the direction of this program. There's going to be bumps in the road and this weekend was a big bump. Don't leave us when we hit a bump. Because if we are going to turn this around, we need you with us."

Do you see how the second half of my statement is essentially what he said, but hits differently if you acknowledge and share the fan's frustration first? His statement didn't sound like he was frustrated with the state of the program. It sounded like he was frustrated with the fans' reaction. Which he may be. He's human. But you can't say that. It sounded like 3 days after a humiliating loss the thing that most bothered him was the fans.

I'm just saying this interview is essentially an ad for Cal football. And the success of an ad campaign is not the artistic quality but how the target audience responds to it. You can't tell the target audience how they should respond.

---

I think, if he had it to do over again, he would've said it pretty much as you did. He hadn't really thought it through.

Word matter; words count. Hell, I am using words right now. That said, what athletes, coaches and GMs say to the press, I kinda don't care. If players, or even fans, get thrown under the proverbial bus in a post-game interview, it doesn't move me one way or the other. I just want better coaching and better playing.

Perhaps ironically, I am more a man of words than of action, so go figure.

---

I generally agree. I don't care much at all. Especially because if a coach who has just won his fifth straight game goes to the post game presser and says "Our tackling sucked. The players need to do better" the fans are going to laud him for holding players accountable. If he says that after his fifth straight loss they are going to say he is throwing them under the bus.

Blaming the fans, though, who honestly have very little to do with success? That kind of bothered me, especially the believe or get out of it part. Cause I don't believe, so do you really want me to go? I mean, I don't want a QB who doesn't believe or a coach that doesn't believe, but a fan? I think want to believe is good enough.

Cal fans want to be engaged. They want to be excited.

Tedford was proof of that.
Gameday was proof of that.
The Calgorithm was proof of that.

The opportunity has never been greater:

The A's are gone
The Raiders are gone
The Warriors moved to San Francisco
The East bay has been abandoned.

The cost has never been higher:
The way things are going now if we don't make the B1G in the next round of realignment we will have to seriously consider packing it up as an FBS team.

Cal needs to act fast for its very survival. The problem? Cal is bloated in bureaucracy.

We need reasons to be excited. And we have a few: Ron as football GM. Knowleton fired. Those are both needed things that had to happen.

But its not enough. We need a reason to be excited NOW. We need to drive engagement NOW. We need to show the B1G that we are serious about football and we need to show Fox / ESPN / whoever gets the next B1G contract that we will draw eyeballs given the chance.

If nothing else firing Wilcox now would send a message to the fans that we aren't going to accept mediocrity. We aren't going to just let the season play out. We are taking action now. It would drive interest and excitement in the program...and we have a fan base that's laying dormant, just waiting for a reason to show interest...being given none.

MrGPAC said:

---

Cal fans want to be engaged. They want to be excited.

Tedford was proof of that.
Gameday was proof of that.
The Calgorithm was proof of that.

The opportunity has never been greater:

The A's are gone
The Raiders are gone
The Warriors moved to San Francisco
The East bay has been abandoned.

The cost has never been higher:
The way things are going now if we don't make the B1G in the next round of realignment we will have to seriously consider packing it up as an FBS team.

Cal needs to act fast for its very survival. The problem? Cal is bloated in bureaucracy.

We need reasons to be excited. And we have a few: Ron as football GM. Knowleton fired. Those are both needed things that had to happen.

But its not enough. We need a reason to be excited NOW. We need to drive engagement NOW. We need to show the B1G that we are serious about football and we need to show Fox / ESPN / whoever gets the next B1G contract that we will draw eyeballs given the chance.

If nothing else firing Wilcox now would send a message to the fans that we aren't going to accept mediocrity. We aren't going to just let the season play out. We are taking action now. It would drive interest and excitement in the program...and we have a fan base that's laying dormant, just waiting for a reason to show interest...being given none.

---

I agree with most of what you say but I have to ask those of you who think the Raiders, A's, and Warriors leaving the East Bay is a huge opportunity for Cal, do any of you live in the East Bay?

I absolutely see that generally speaking Cal could get a lot of East Bay attention, but I don't think the Raiders, A's or Warriors have anything to do with it.

1. Warriors. 99.999999999999% of East Bay Warriors fans are still Warriors fans. Disappointed they moved to SF, but they have an awesome arena in an awesome location. Vast majority of people don't begrudge them that. If anything, I think the opportunity Cal is missing is that the Warriors have made this area a basketball area and created a ton of basketball fans. I think being a cheap family alternative is enhanced by the presence of the Warriors. That is what we haven't taken advantage of.

2. The A's. It's baseball guys. It doesn't scratch the same itch. I for one was very sad to see the A's go because it was the last cheap professional option where you could go, get good seats and be pretty entertained. But going to A's games does not stop me going to Cal games. The reaction, though, has been pretty ho hum. And the thing is, the East Bay is not a separate city. There are a ton of Giants fans here. A lot of people moved from the West Bay to the East when real estate prices went through the roof. The East Bay is just not a separate community anymore. And the A's and Giants never really hated each other, so most people will just root for the Giants.

3. Raiders. When the Raiders moved to LA, it was soul crushing for this community. But the return was never quite the same. But again, the Raiders and Cal do not scratch the same itch. Oh, there are alums who are Raiders fans. But, HAVE ANY OF YOU BEEN TO AN OAKLAND RAIDERS GAME? That ain't the same crowd. Raiders fans, and I used to be one for a lot of years, are a unique bunch. A game at Memorial would be like attending high tea at a cricket match. I genuinely think a big problem for the Raiders, in addition to completely sucking for a long time, and crazy ownership, and, well I digress, is that Raiders games are an acquired taste and a lot of people don't acquire it. Those that do LOOOOOOVE it. And Cal games don't have that flavor. But, like the A's, their leaving for Las Vegas was kind of ho hum. The die hards just fly to Vegas. The others, I don't think miss it. Now, Raiders fans traditionally hate the 49ers. Hate. Despise. Though I haven't been a Raiders fan for about 15 years, if I got given 49ers tickets, I would go to root for the other team. When I do watch the NFL, I watch the 49ers game to root against them. I say this because real Raiders fans aren't moving over. But the East Bay is filled with 49ers fans. Sundays when there was a 49ers-Raiders game used to be hilarious because there would be houses that were very loud, one cheering when the 49ers scored, another when the Raiders scored.

But, there is no vacuum here. We are the East BAY AREA. Depending on where you live, Giants and Warriors and 49ers (less so) are almost as easy if in some cases easier to get to than Cal. We have plenty of options and the two major options are literally 30-45 minutes by BART.

The issue isn't the East Bay. It's the WHOLE Bay. Our alums are crawling all over this place with a built in rooting interest if it can be ignited. Cal could absolutely offer a great family experience at a much better value than the pros for EVERYONE in the Bay. That is the real opportunity. Few people are going to pay $1000 to take their kids to a 49ers game. It is not feasible family entertainment. Cal needs to make this the exciting alternative you can take your kids to. Right now, for many, it is a chore.

Strykur said:

---

TedfordTheGreat said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

September 20, 2025, Cal gets abused by a Mountain West team in what has to be top 5 most humiliating losses in Cal football history. That Wilcox made it to September 27th is a huge problem. If you ask me to guess the number of other P4 schools that would allow a coach with Wilcox's record to have a defeat like that against a non-P4 opponent and still have his job at the end of the week, I'd truly guess zero. I'd be very confident it is fewer than 5. That absolutely can't happen. I'm sorry, from September 21 it is on the Rivera regime that Wilcox is still here. Maybe he wanted to fire him and couldn't. I don't know. But he needed to be fired after that game for us to have any credibility. Instead…

---

But 2 years ago during realignment, we got blindsided and we all have to accept that we are less desirable than ASU, UA, CO, Utah, Cincinnati and Houston. We are barely more desirable than OSU and WSU.

---

You mentioned a bunch of Big-12 schools (and that was never happening for us), but generally, and the ivory tower folks do not understand this, with the college experience becoming highly scrutinized over diminishing ROI and the shrinking utility of university diplomas (even ours), prospective students are going to be looking at other aspects of college life to validate their higher education decisions, and even with what we have going on outside of California Memorial Stadium, we are becoming less and less relevant in an era when everyone is looking for their bread and circuses and we are serving up breadcrumbs and jesters instead

---

You might be surprised to learn that for Cal application numbers grew from approximately 61,700 in 2013-2014 to over 126,800 for the fall 2025 class. It turns out that plenty of applicants cared more about their education than about the football team.

GoCal80 said:

---

Strykur said:

---

TedfordTheGreat said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

September 20, 2025, Cal gets abused by a Mountain West team in what has to be top 5 most humiliating losses in Cal football history. That Wilcox made it to September 27th is a huge problem. If you ask me to guess the number of other P4 schools that would allow a coach with Wilcox's record to have a defeat like that against a non-P4 opponent and still have his job at the end of the week, I'd truly guess zero. I'd be very confident it is fewer than 5. That absolutely can't happen. I'm sorry, from September 21 it is on the Rivera regime that Wilcox is still here. Maybe he wanted to fire him and couldn't. I don't know. But he needed to be fired after that game for us to have any credibility. Instead…

---

But 2 years ago during realignment, we got blindsided and we all have to accept that we are less desirable than ASU, UA, CO, Utah, Cincinnati and Houston. We are barely more desirable than OSU and WSU.

---

You mentioned a bunch of Big-12 schools (and that was never happening for us), but generally, and the ivory tower folks do not understand this, with the college experience becoming highly scrutinized over diminishing ROI and the shrinking utility of university diplomas (even ours), prospective students are going to be looking at other aspects of college life to validate their higher education decisions, and even with what we have going on outside of California Memorial Stadium, we are becoming less and less relevant in an era when everyone is looking for their bread and circuses and we are serving up breadcrumbs and jesters instead

---

You might be surprised to learn that for Cal application numbers grew from approximately 61,700 in 2013-2014 to over 126,800 for the fall 2025 class. It turns out that plenty of applicants cared more about their education than about the football team.

---

Joe McCarthy was right about Berkeley!

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

You still have to get the millions in "chump change" from someplace, while still having enough left over to hire the next coach and pay recruits. That is why I have come to the conclusion that the next coach, for 2-3 years, will have to be Rivera.

---

If we can't get the money to fire Wilcox now and hire a new, quality coach, then we out to just throw in the towel and drop to a lower-tier conference or drop football altogether. I don't like saying that, since I've been a season ticket holder for 58 years and am a current ESP seat holder. I love Cal football. But continuing to slog through the mud of the last 9 years with 5-7 and 6-6 seasons and going to a meaningless, bottom level bowl game every two to three years is not an attractive scenario, especially when we are spending a lot of money for mediocrity. We are the University of California. We need to either go all-in or drop out. And I don't expect that we will be competitive with Alabama, Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, Oregon,etc. But we sure as hell should be at least consistently competitive with Indiana, UCLA, Washington, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, etc. We have plenty of potential mega-donors out there. They just need to be identified and cultivated. That's the job of Lyons and Rivera. We need to see action from them, not just more words.

---

And if there is literally no action what can be done about it? Fire Ron, start a new GM search? The clock doesn't reset to realignment. I don't know what they are doing behind the scenes if anything at all. My point is, it doesn't matter - they are our only hope so just support them so we have as many fans at games and watching on TV to do our small part. You don't have to of course but there is no point boycotting them until there is proof because there is no time left to go in a different direction is all I am trying to say

---

Sorry. I've had too many years of "just support them. They are our only hope. If they fail Cal is going to die". Cal is always going to die. And I know. This time really.

You can't just keep playing to an imaginary 3 year window. And I'll tell you where Cal will be in 5 years. In the ACC with 10-12 teams left after the top 5 or so are skimmed off.

---

I'm also not sure the ACC can't backfill with other members after some of the top schools leave. Some Big 12 schools (like our former Pac-12 mates) might be willing to jump ship depending on the circumstances, and their media rights deal ends sooner than the ACC's.

sycasey said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

You still have to get the millions in "chump change" from someplace, while still having enough left over to hire the next coach and pay recruits. That is why I have come to the conclusion that the next coach, for 2-3 years, will have to be Rivera.

---

If we can't get the money to fire Wilcox now and hire a new, quality coach, then we out to just throw in the towel and drop to a lower-tier conference or drop football altogether. I don't like saying that, since I've been a season ticket holder for 58 years and am a current ESP seat holder. I love Cal football. But continuing to slog through the mud of the last 9 years with 5-7 and 6-6 seasons and going to a meaningless, bottom level bowl game every two to three years is not an attractive scenario, especially when we are spending a lot of money for mediocrity. We are the University of California. We need to either go all-in or drop out. And I don't expect that we will be competitive with Alabama, Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, Oregon,etc. But we sure as hell should be at least consistently competitive with Indiana, UCLA, Washington, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, etc. We have plenty of potential mega-donors out there. They just need to be identified and cultivated. That's the job of Lyons and Rivera. We need to see action from them, not just more words.

---

And if there is literally no action what can be done about it? Fire Ron, start a new GM search? The clock doesn't reset to realignment. I don't know what they are doing behind the scenes if anything at all. My point is, it doesn't matter - they are our only hope so just support them so we have as many fans at games and watching on TV to do our small part. You don't have to of course but there is no point boycotting them until there is proof because there is no time left to go in a different direction is all I am trying to say

---

Sorry. I've had too many years of "just support them. They are our only hope. If they fail Cal is going to die". Cal is always going to die. And I know. This time really.

You can't just keep playing to an imaginary 3 year window. And I'll tell you where Cal will be in 5 years. In the ACC with 10-12 teams left after the top 5 or so are skimmed off.

---

I'm also not sure the ACC can't backfill with other members after some of the top schools leave. Some Big 12 schools (like our former Pac-12 mates) might be willing to jump ship depending on the circumstances, and their media rights deal ends sooner than the ACC's.

---

unlikely

the big 12 intentionally put themselves in the position they are in. They were cunning as they used CO to destablize the rest of the pac12 , and then they turned around and designed this new round of media rights so that they renew first. Way first.

They were betting on the fact that the new media rights will yet again be higher (up from their $30M+ guaranteed this year to even more). This will widen the gap between ACC and Big12 again. ACC teams were placated slightly when Cal, Stanford and SMU gave up $ to join. But hypothetically let's say the new agreement is at $40M or god forbid $50M in 2029/2030, many ACC teams will now begin to jump ship with the new lower buyout from the ACC.

Miami, FSU, Clemson (maybe) and UNC will have landing spots and might aim higher. But you bet Virginia, Virginia Tech, Pitt and SMU will jump at the opportunity to join the big 12 at that time.

Brett Yormark is a shrew businessman. Many on this board hates the idea of the big 12, but if we don't get picked up by the big 10 at that time, and big 12 is not an option, then we are left to pick up the pieces alongside BC, Syracuse, Wake, etc. We may then have to turn around to picking up OSU/WSU/Fresno State to form the 4th best league. Thats why we all say we have only 3 years to turn it around.

Make no mistake, the big 12 is out to destroy the ACC. They know they got nothing on the SEC and Big10, and its a matter of survival for them. They were this close to dissolving, and under Brett's leadership they will make sure it will never happen again.

TedfordTheGreat said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

Golden One said:

---

annarborbear said:

---

You still have to get the millions in "chump change" from someplace, while still having enough left over to hire the next coach and pay recruits. That is why I have come to the conclusion that the next coach, for 2-3 years, will have to be Rivera.

---

If we can't get the money to fire Wilcox now and hire a new, quality coach, then we out to just throw in the towel and drop to a lower-tier conference or drop football altogether. I don't like saying that, since I've been a season ticket holder for 58 years and am a current ESP seat holder. I love Cal football. But continuing to slog through the mud of the last 9 years with 5-7 and 6-6 seasons and going to a meaningless, bottom level bowl game every two to three years is not an attractive scenario, especially when we are spending a lot of money for mediocrity. We are the University of California. We need to either go all-in or drop out. And I don't expect that we will be competitive with Alabama, Texas, Ohio State, Michigan, Oregon,etc. But we sure as hell should be at least consistently competitive with Indiana, UCLA, Washington, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, etc. We have plenty of potential mega-donors out there. They just need to be identified and cultivated. That's the job of Lyons and Rivera. We need to see action from them, not just more words.

---

And if there is literally no action what can be done about it? Fire Ron, start a new GM search? The clock doesn't reset to realignment. I don't know what they are doing behind the scenes if anything at all. My point is, it doesn't matter - they are our only hope so just support them so we have as many fans at games and watching on TV to do our small part. You don't have to of course but there is no point boycotting them until there is proof because there is no time left to go in a different direction is all I am trying to say

---

Sorry. I've had too many years of "just support them. They are our only hope. If they fail Cal is going to die". Cal is always going to die. And I know. This time really.

You can't just keep playing to an imaginary 3 year window. And I'll tell you where Cal will be in 5 years. In the ACC with 10-12 teams left after the top 5 or so are skimmed off.

---

I'm also not sure the ACC can't backfill with other members after some of the top schools leave. Some Big 12 schools (like our former Pac-12 mates) might be willing to jump ship depending on the circumstances, and their media rights deal ends sooner than the ACC's.

---

unlikely

the big 12 intentionally put themselves in the position they are in. They were cunning as they used CO to destablize the rest of the pac12 , and then they turned around and designed this new round of media rights so that they renew first. Way first.

They were betting on the fact that the new media rights will yet again be higher (up from their $30M+ guaranteed this year to even more). This will widen the gap between ACC and Big12 again. ACC teams were placated slightly when Cal, Stanford and SMU gave up $ to join. But hypothetically let's say the new agreement is at $40M or god forbid $50M in 2029/2030, many ACC teams will now begin to jump ship with the new lower buyout from the ACC.

Miami, FSU, Clemson (maybe) and UNC will have landing spots and might aim higher. But you bet Virginia, Virginia Tech, Pitt and SMU will jump at the opportunity to join the big 12 at that time.

Brett Yormark is a shrew businessman. Many on this board hates the idea of the big 12, but if we don't get picked up by the big 10 at that time, and big 12 is not an option, then we are left to pick up the pieces alongside BC, Syracuse, Wake, etc. We may then have to turn around to picking up OSU/WSU/Fresno State to form the 4th best league. Thats why we all say we have only 3 years to turn it around.

Make no mistake, the big 12 is out to destroy the ACC. They know they got nothing on the SEC and Big10, and its a matter of survival for them. They were this close to dissolving, and under Brett's leadership they will make sure it will never happen again.

---

Perhaps. I am just skeptical that the Big 12 in its present form is actually going to command such a great deal when it's time to renegotiate.

Circling back to the comment that Wilcox should have been terminated after the San Diego state loss, I asked AI for some additional context on how bad this loss was.

Unsurprisingly, it was the worst loss against the spread factoring in margin of defeat in Cal history. Runner up was 2013 Stanford although we were underdogs in that game.

It was also the first time we've been shut out against a non-power conference opponent in 55 years! Last time being against Rice in 1970.

It's insane to me that so many folks, including our new GM, just casually brushed off that loss. And this was in a coach's 9th freaking season!

PtownBear1 said:

---

Circling back to the comment that Wilcox should have been terminated after the San Diego state loss, I asked AI for some additional context on how bad this loss was.

Unsurprisingly, it was the worst loss against the spread factoring in margin of defeat in Cal history. Runner up was 2013 Stanford although we were underdogs in that game.

It was also the first time we've been shut out against a non-power conference opponent in 55 years! Last time being against Rice in 1970.

It's insane to me that so many folks, including our new GM, just casually brushed off that loss. And this was in a coach's 9th freaking season!

---

But...but...but...Wilcox doesn't have resources! And...and...and the athletes suck! Also, the admin hates football! Additionally, it's too expensive to fire Wilcox! Plus, JKS will leave if Wilcox is fired!

Did I miss any of the (tired and lazy) excuses made by the Wilcox fans in the forum?

PtownBear1 said:

---

Circling back to the comment that Wilcox should have been terminated after the San Diego state loss, I asked AI for some additional context on how bad this loss was.

Unsurprisingly, it was the worst loss against the spread factoring in margin of defeat in Cal history. Runner up was 2013 Stanford although we were underdogs in that game.

It was also the first time we've been shut out against a non-power conference opponent in 55 years! Last time being against Rice in 1970.

It's insane to me that so many folks, including our new GM, just casually brushed off that loss. And this was in a coach's 9th freaking season!

---

But we're 5-3! /s

PtownBear1 said:

---

Circling back to the comment that Wilcox should have been terminated after the San Diego state loss, I asked AI for some additional context on how bad this loss was.

Unsurprisingly, it was the worst loss against the spread factoring in margin of defeat in Cal history. Runner up was 2013 Stanford although we were underdogs in that game.

It was also the first time we've been shut out against a non-power conference opponent in 55 years! Last time being against Rice in 1970.

It's insane to me that so many folks, including our new GM, just casually brushed off that loss. And this was in a coach's 9th freaking season!

---

I'd love to see anyone name a P4 program they think wouldn't have fired him.

Frankly, no P4 program would have still had him on staff after the first 8 years.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

Circling back to the comment that Wilcox should have been terminated after the San Diego state loss, I asked AI for some additional context on how bad this loss was.

Unsurprisingly, it was the worst loss against the spread factoring in margin of defeat in Cal history. Runner up was 2013 Stanford although we were underdogs in that game.

It was also the first time we've been shut out against a non-power conference opponent in 55 years! Last time being against Rice in 1970.

It's insane to me that so many folks, including our new GM, just casually brushed off that loss. And this was in a coach's 9th freaking season!

---

I'd love to see anyone name a P4 program they think wouldn't have fired him.

Frankly, no P4 program would have still had him on staff after the first 8 years.

---

A decade gone and a losing tenure over that period, nobody at the P4 level is doing anything remotely close

Strykur said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

Circling back to the comment that Wilcox should have been terminated after the San Diego state loss, I asked AI for some additional context on how bad this loss was.

Unsurprisingly, it was the worst loss against the spread factoring in margin of defeat in Cal history. Runner up was 2013 Stanford although we were underdogs in that game.

It was also the first time we've been shut out against a non-power conference opponent in 55 years! Last time being against Rice in 1970.

It's insane to me that so many folks, including our new GM, just casually brushed off that loss. And this was in a coach's 9th freaking season!

---

I'd love to see anyone name a P4 program they think wouldn't have fired him.

Frankly, no P4 program would have still had him on staff after the first 8 years.

---

A decade gone and a losing tenure over that period, nobody at the P4 level is doing anything remotely close

---

I looked at Pac-12 schools during the offseason and the only comparable situation I could find was Rich Brooks at Oregon and that was decades ago.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Strykur said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

Circling back to the comment that Wilcox should have been terminated after the San Diego state loss, I asked AI for some additional context on how bad this loss was.

Unsurprisingly, it was the worst loss against the spread factoring in margin of defeat in Cal history. Runner up was 2013 Stanford although we were underdogs in that game.

It was also the first time we've been shut out against a non-power conference opponent in 55 years! Last time being against Rice in 1970.

It's insane to me that so many folks, including our new GM, just casually brushed off that loss. And this was in a coach's 9th freaking season!

---

I'd love to see anyone name a P4 program they think wouldn't have fired him.

Frankly, no P4 program would have still had him on staff after the first 8 years.

---

A decade gone and a losing tenure over that period, nobody at the P4 level is doing anything remotely close

---

I looked at Pac-12 schools during the offseason and the only comparable situation I could find was Rich Brooks at Oregon and that was decades ago.

---

Back in 2019 when we started 4-0 I read something amusing that said we were somehow in the top 15 despite playing football like it was in 1987, we just extended that concept out to a full decade instead