BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

jy1988 said:

---

We all know that 6-6 would not be acceptable.

---

Just out of curiosity, what is the minimum number of wins/losses this year for Cal to retain Wilcox? This question is open to everyone who claims 6-6 is insufficient but has not supported his firing given his inexcusable losses against SDSU and Duke.

---

We need a new coach regardless of what happens in the remaining two regular season games, plus any bowl game. Even at 9-4, I view this season as a fluke. Wilcox is a nice man but a mediocre coach, and I don't believe that somehow suddenly changed this year. We have to find a new coach who would also be acceptable to JKS. If that's not possible, then IMHO, we're just screwed, and should begin preparing for relegation.

---

Wilcox should've been sent packing a couple years ago. But we kept hearing about how Cal couldn't afford it. Never mind that keeping him meant Cal wasted its two easiest schedules ever and will end up getting relegated.

But there are still numerous Wilcox apologists and defenders who insist that he should be retained because reasons. They try to cover up their irrational support by pointing to his last win, while ignoring all his embarrassing and inexcusable losses. Then they pretend going 8-4 in a ludicrously soft schedule is somehow progress and means he should be retained.

What I want to know, then, is 8-4 the minimum for them to keep supporting Wilcox as Cal HC? Is 7-5 it? Or is 6-6 enough? Where do they draw the line?

---

8-4 with a win over Stanfurd is acceptable to keep him or let him go. Nobody is going to hyper analyze our 8-4, 9-4, or 8-5 finish and say we are getting relegated in 2030 because 01, Calalumnus and Brightbear thought we had too easy of a schedule. The only way we can get an in demand coach to come here, if Wilcox leaves after going 9-4, is if it was mutually agreed upon. Even then, this new coach will have reservations about having to turn a mustang into a ferrari (which a few special coaches can indeed do but many are fired after failing).

---

Ah yes. The old no Coach will want to coach at Cal if we have such a hair trigger on firing that we fire a coach after 9 years argument.

---

Ah yes, the old every coach wants to coach here after we fire a 9-4 coach who has to deal with a university that doesn't support football and a fanbase that demands 10 wins with less resources than the competition.

---

College football coach is not a job that comes with any job security. Virtually every other school fires coaches faster and at the best jobs much faster. Cal has the least demanding fan base on the planet. If anything that fact that it has taken so many years to fire a failed coach might give some pause.

There will be some coaches who don't believe we are committed. Rivera will need to sell like Gladstone sold Tedford (and a very good list of coaching prospects) Definitely not every coach will want to coach here. There will be plenty of good ones that do. Despite the warnings of losers, whenever Cal has done a thorough search, they have found good candidates.

And by the way. It's "fewer resources" not "less resources". Since you think correcting grammar on sports board makes you smartier.

---

01Bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

jy1988 said:

---

We all know that 6-6 would not be acceptable.

---

Just out of curiosity, what is the minimum number of wins/losses this year for Cal to retain Wilcox? This question is open to everyone who claims 6-6 is insufficient but has not supported his firing given his inexcusable losses against SDSU and Duke.

---

We need a new coach regardless of what happens in the remaining two regular season games, plus any bowl game. Even at 9-4, I view this season as a fluke. Wilcox is a nice man but a mediocre coach, and I don't believe that somehow suddenly changed this year. We have to find a new coach who would also be acceptable to JKS. If that's not possible, then IMHO, we're just screwed, and should begin preparing for relegation.

---

Wilcox should've been sent packing a couple years ago. But we kept hearing about how Cal couldn't afford it. Never mind that keeping him meant Cal wasted its two easiest schedules ever and will end up getting relegated.

But there are still numerous Wilcox apologists and defenders who insist that he should be retained because reasons. They try to cover up their irrational support by pointing to his last win, while ignoring all his embarrassing and inexcusable losses. Then they pretend going 8-4 in a ludicrously soft schedule is somehow progress and means he should be retained.

What I want to know, then, is 8-4 the minimum for them to keep supporting Wilcox as Cal HC? Is 7-5 it? Or is 6-6 enough? Where do they draw the line?

---

8-4 with a win over Stanfurd is acceptable to keep him or let him go. Nobody is going to hyper analyze our 8-4, 9-4, or 8-5 finish and say we are getting relegated in 2030 because 01, Calalumnus and Brightbear thought we had too easy of a schedule. The only way we can get an in demand coach to come here, if Wilcox leaves after going 9-4, is if it was mutually agreed upon. Even then, this new coach will have reservations about having to turn a mustang into a ferrari (which a few special coaches can indeed do but many are fired after failing).

---

Ah yes. The old no Coach will want to coach at Cal if we have such a hair trigger on firing that we fire a coach after 9 years argument.

---

Ah yes, the old every coach wants to coach here after we fire a 9-4 coach who has to deal with a university that doesn't support football and a fanbase that demands 10 wins with less resources than the competition.

---

College football coach is not a job that comes with any job security. Virtually every other school fires coaches faster and at the best jobs much faster. Cal has the least demanding fan base on the planet. If anything that fact that it has taken so many years to fire a failed coach might give some pause.

There will be some coaches who don't believe we are committed. Rivera will need to sell like Gladstone sold Tedford (and a very good list of coaching prospects) Definitely not every coach will want to coach here. There will be plenty of good ones that do. Despite the warnings of losers, whenever Cal has done a thorough search, they have found good candidates.

And by the way. It's "fewer resources" not "less resources". Since you think correcting grammar on sports board makes you smartier.

---

Less resources is technically correct. I wasn't counting or itemizing. I was discussing resources as a whole.

Firing a coach after going 9-4, which is what we are discussing unbeknownst to those with poor reading comprehension, isn't the best way to show we are serious about winning. It appears RR is doing other good things though, like stopping the university from taking food away from the football team.

---

Resources is a countable noun and you were using it as such whether you think you were or not. You can't say less sticks when you are referring to half a bucket of sticks instead of a whole bucket of sticks and say you weren't counting or itemizing the sticks. That isn't how that works. But I'm being an ass to demonstrate that correcting someone's grammar on a sports board, especially to specifically post just a grammar correction (when it was clearly a typo) is an arrogant, pedantic attempt at belittling someone you disagree with.

I will also opine that someone who repeatedly displays disdain for people simply because they are on a free board is reminiscent of students in the Stanford prison experiment being mentally weak enough to genuinely take on false roles that are arbitrarily assigned to them. To actually look down your nose at people based on some imagined hierarchy of people who paid a few bucks and people who didn't is hilarious.

Those of you who still support this guy continually try to 1. Make it an argument about but what if he does something he hasn't actually done. He hasn't won 9 games; 2. Always want to look only at the immediate past instead of the whole past. Keeping a coach who is 51-54 over 9 seasons (as he would be) is not a way to show you are serious about winning. He's only still here because of the buyout or he wouldn't be here to have one barely passable season after 8 crappy ones.

---

My disdain for many folks on the free board is with their attitude. It sucks. They sound like intellectual babies that just complain that x coach isn't meeting their demands. As I have previously discussed, coaches leave Cal and do well. You ignore the pattern and just want to put different color lipstick on the pig. If the next coach succeeds, chances are it is because of the changes RR and the chancellor are making so that the new coach won't have less resources THAN Justin and Sonny had.

---

It's funny how Tedford was able to do more and achieve better results with less. Maybe it's not the resources, but the coach.

---

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

jy1988 said:

---

We all know that 6-6 would not be acceptable.

---

Just out of curiosity, what is the minimum number of wins/losses this year for Cal to retain Wilcox? This question is open to everyone who claims 6-6 is insufficient but has not supported his firing given his inexcusable losses against SDSU and Duke.

---

We need a new coach regardless of what happens in the remaining two regular season games, plus any bowl game. Even at 9-4, I view this season as a fluke. Wilcox is a nice man but a mediocre coach, and I don't believe that somehow suddenly changed this year. We have to find a new coach who would also be acceptable to JKS. If that's not possible, then IMHO, we're just screwed, and should begin preparing for relegation.

---

Wilcox should've been sent packing a couple years ago. But we kept hearing about how Cal couldn't afford it. Never mind that keeping him meant Cal wasted its two easiest schedules ever and will end up getting relegated.

But there are still numerous Wilcox apologists and defenders who insist that he should be retained because reasons. They try to cover up their irrational support by pointing to his last win, while ignoring all his embarrassing and inexcusable losses. Then they pretend going 8-4 in a ludicrously soft schedule is somehow progress and means he should be retained.

What I want to know, then, is 8-4 the minimum for them to keep supporting Wilcox as Cal HC? Is 7-5 it? Or is 6-6 enough? Where do they draw the line?

---

8-4 with a win over Stanfurd is acceptable to keep him or let him go. Nobody is going to hyper analyze our 8-4, 9-4, or 8-5 finish and say we are getting relegated in 2030 because 01, Calalumnus and Brightbear thought we had too easy of a schedule. The only way we can get an in demand coach to come here, if Wilcox leaves after going 9-4, is if it was mutually agreed upon. Even then, this new coach will have reservations about having to turn a mustang into a ferrari (which a few special coaches can indeed do but many are fired after failing).

---

Ah yes. The old no Coach will want to coach at Cal if we have such a hair trigger on firing that we fire a coach after 9 years argument.

---

Ah yes, the old every coach wants to coach here after we fire a 9-4 coach who has to deal with a university that doesn't support football and a fanbase that demands 10 wins with less resources than the competition.

---

College football coach is not a job that comes with any job security. Virtually every other school fires coaches faster and at the best jobs much faster. Cal has the least demanding fan base on the planet. If anything that fact that it has taken so many years to fire a failed coach might give some pause.

There will be some coaches who don't believe we are committed. Rivera will need to sell like Gladstone sold Tedford (and a very good list of coaching prospects) Definitely not every coach will want to coach here. There will be plenty of good ones that do. Despite the warnings of losers, whenever Cal has done a thorough search, they have found good candidates.

And by the way. It's "fewer resources" not "less resources". Since you think correcting grammar on sports board makes you smartier.

---

Less resources is technically correct. I wasn't counting or itemizing. I was discussing resources as a whole.

Firing a coach after going 9-4, which is what we are discussing unbeknownst to those with poor reading comprehension, isn't the best way to show we are serious about winning. It appears RR is doing other good things though, like stopping the university from taking food away from the football team.

---

9-4 is a red herring.

If we are going to dismiss Wilcox this offseason it should/will be after SMU. It would be crazy to wait until January when all the vacancies have been filled. That is how we ended up with Justin Wilcox in the first place.

If Wilcox is retained for the bowl game, he is retained for next year, even if that means we finish 6-7 again.

The debate should be around 8-4, 7-5 or 6-6. That is when the decision needs to be made (if not made already).

---

6956bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

jy1988 said:

---

We all know that 6-6 would not be acceptable.

---

Just out of curiosity, what is the minimum number of wins/losses this year for Cal to retain Wilcox? This question is open to everyone who claims 6-6 is insufficient but has not supported his firing given his inexcusable losses against SDSU and Duke.

---

We need a new coach regardless of what happens in the remaining two regular season games, plus any bowl game. Even at 9-4, I view this season as a fluke. Wilcox is a nice man but a mediocre coach, and I don't believe that somehow suddenly changed this year. We have to find a new coach who would also be acceptable to JKS. If that's not possible, then IMHO, we're just screwed, and should begin preparing for relegation.

---

Wilcox should've been sent packing a couple years ago. But we kept hearing about how Cal couldn't afford it. Never mind that keeping him meant Cal wasted its two easiest schedules ever and will end up getting relegated.

But there are still numerous Wilcox apologists and defenders who insist that he should be retained because reasons. They try to cover up their irrational support by pointing to his last win, while ignoring all his embarrassing and inexcusable losses. Then they pretend going 8-4 in a ludicrously soft schedule is somehow progress and means he should be retained.

What I want to know, then, is 8-4 the minimum for them to keep supporting Wilcox as Cal HC? Is 7-5 it? Or is 6-6 enough? Where do they draw the line?

---

8-4 with a win over Stanfurd is acceptable to keep him or let him go. Nobody is going to hyper analyze our 8-4, 9-4, or 8-5 finish and say we are getting relegated in 2030 because 01, Calalumnus and Brightbear thought we had too easy of a schedule. The only way we can get an in demand coach to come here, if Wilcox leaves after going 9-4, is if it was mutually agreed upon. Even then, this new coach will have reservations about having to turn a mustang into a ferrari (which a few special coaches can indeed do but many are fired after failing).

---

Ah yes. The old no Coach will want to coach at Cal if we have such a hair trigger on firing that we fire a coach after 9 years argument.

---

Ah yes, the old every coach wants to coach here after we fire a 9-4 coach who has to deal with a university that doesn't support football and a fanbase that demands 10 wins with less resources than the competition.

---

College football coach is not a job that comes with any job security. Virtually every other school fires coaches faster and at the best jobs much faster. Cal has the least demanding fan base on the planet. If anything that fact that it has taken so many years to fire a failed coach might give some pause.

There will be some coaches who don't believe we are committed. Rivera will need to sell like Gladstone sold Tedford (and a very good list of coaching prospects) Definitely not every coach will want to coach here. There will be plenty of good ones that do. Despite the warnings of losers, whenever Cal has done a thorough search, they have found good candidates.

And by the way. It's "fewer resources" not "less resources". Since you think correcting grammar on sports board makes you smartier.

---

Less resources is technically correct. I wasn't counting or itemizing. I was discussing resources as a whole.

Firing a coach after going 9-4, which is what we are discussing unbeknownst to those with poor reading comprehension, isn't the best way to show we are serious about winning. It appears RR is doing other good things though, like stopping the university from taking food away from the football team.

---

Resources is a countable noun and you were using it as such whether you think you were or not. You can't say less sticks when you are referring to half a bucket of sticks instead of a whole bucket of sticks and say you weren't counting or itemizing the sticks. That isn't how that works. But I'm being an ass to demonstrate that correcting someone's grammar on a sports board, especially to specifically post just a grammar correction (when it was clearly a typo) is an arrogant, pedantic attempt at belittling someone you disagree with.

I will also opine that someone who repeatedly displays disdain for people simply because they are on a free board is reminiscent of students in the Stanford prison experiment being mentally weak enough to genuinely take on false roles that are arbitrarily assigned to them. To actually look down your nose at people based on some imagined hierarchy of people who paid a few bucks and people who didn't is hilarious.

Those of you who still support this guy continually try to 1. Make it an argument about but what if he does something he hasn't actually done. He hasn't won 9 games; 2. Always want to look only at the immediate past instead of the whole past. Keeping a coach who is 51-54 over 9 seasons (as he would be) is not a way to show you are serious about winning. He's only still here because of the buyout or he wouldn't be here to have one barely passable season after 8 crappy ones.

---

My disdain for many folks on the free board is with their attitude. It sucks. They sound like intellectual babies that just complain that x coach isn't meeting their demands. As I have previously discussed, coaches leave Cal and do well. You ignore the pattern and just want to put different color lipstick on the pig. If the next coach succeeds, chances are it is because of the changes RR and the chancellor are making so that the new coach won't have less resources THAN Justin and Sonny had.

---

Boy SDSU must have a ton of resources. And of course VaTech which just had to go their board of regents (or whatever they call them) to get a boost becuase of their lack of resources. But whatever they did have (similar to Cal BTW) was enough to beat Cal despite not having a HC in place. All the while running the same damn play over and over. And now with the increase in support approved they went out and hired James Franklin. A proven coach that is already making an impact in recruiting.

Cal does need to add resources. They are. But that won't solve the actual coaching issues that pop up seemingly every year. Cal loses to teams with similar or less resources often. It is one thing to lose to USC, Oregon and others that do actually invest in football. But Cal loses often to programs that are no better off than Cal. And often to teams with less. Like SDSU. And in many other seasons in the P12 to programs like OSU, WSU, UA that are not exactly overflowing with resources.

Now that Lyons and Rivera are in place and the commitment to improving resources and support has been made by all means lets continue with a HC that has never shown to be a good recruiter, hiring manager or game manager.

Cal needs to back up the commitment to resources with a commitment to winning. We can argue about who should be the next coach. But keeping Wilcox cannot happen. Not if you want to have any credibilty at all with the fan base and frankly the entire college football community.

Cal will never be Ohio St. or Alabama or Texas. But look at what ASU has done by adding a young high energy coach that learned at the feet of proven winners. Or how about Vanderbilt. Or Missouri. Or GaTech. Or of course what about Indiana. They were before they hired Cignetti one of the very worst programs in the country.

Others like Iowa or Utah are almost always 8 or 9 win programs that fill their stadium. And every so often they get to 10 and play in conference championship games. Cal would kill to be like that.

If Cal is now truly committed and will provide resources lets hire somebody that has won or been a major assistant on winning programs. And quit with trying to prop up a HC that has never shown any real progress over his nine seasons.

Justin Wilcox has had his time. If Cal is going to go all in (or all in for Cal) lets get a new voice. New vision. An enthusiastic new voice and vision. Cal can and should be better. Come on Ron lets move forward.

I want Cal to finish strong. Beat Stanford. Then SMU. Then make the change that is necessary. By Sunday afternoon Nov 30 Justin Wilcox can no longer by the Cal head football coach. It can happen earlier like this coming Sunday. But must happen by Nov 30.

---

oski003 said:

---

6956bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

jy1988 said:

---

We all know that 6-6 would not be acceptable.

---

Just out of curiosity, what is the minimum number of wins/losses this year for Cal to retain Wilcox? This question is open to everyone who claims 6-6 is insufficient but has not supported his firing given his inexcusable losses against SDSU and Duke.

---

We need a new coach regardless of what happens in the remaining two regular season games, plus any bowl game. Even at 9-4, I view this season as a fluke. Wilcox is a nice man but a mediocre coach, and I don't believe that somehow suddenly changed this year. We have to find a new coach who would also be acceptable to JKS. If that's not possible, then IMHO, we're just screwed, and should begin preparing for relegation.

---

Wilcox should've been sent packing a couple years ago. But we kept hearing about how Cal couldn't afford it. Never mind that keeping him meant Cal wasted its two easiest schedules ever and will end up getting relegated.

But there are still numerous Wilcox apologists and defenders who insist that he should be retained because reasons. They try to cover up their irrational support by pointing to his last win, while ignoring all his embarrassing and inexcusable losses. Then they pretend going 8-4 in a ludicrously soft schedule is somehow progress and means he should be retained.

What I want to know, then, is 8-4 the minimum for them to keep supporting Wilcox as Cal HC? Is 7-5 it? Or is 6-6 enough? Where do they draw the line?

---

8-4 with a win over Stanfurd is acceptable to keep him or let him go. Nobody is going to hyper analyze our 8-4, 9-4, or 8-5 finish and say we are getting relegated in 2030 because 01, Calalumnus and Brightbear thought we had too easy of a schedule. The only way we can get an in demand coach to come here, if Wilcox leaves after going 9-4, is if it was mutually agreed upon. Even then, this new coach will have reservations about having to turn a mustang into a ferrari (which a few special coaches can indeed do but many are fired after failing).

---

Ah yes. The old no Coach will want to coach at Cal if we have such a hair trigger on firing that we fire a coach after 9 years argument.

---

Ah yes, the old every coach wants to coach here after we fire a 9-4 coach who has to deal with a university that doesn't support football and a fanbase that demands 10 wins with less resources than the competition.

---

College football coach is not a job that comes with any job security. Virtually every other school fires coaches faster and at the best jobs much faster. Cal has the least demanding fan base on the planet. If anything that fact that it has taken so many years to fire a failed coach might give some pause.

There will be some coaches who don't believe we are committed. Rivera will need to sell like Gladstone sold Tedford (and a very good list of coaching prospects) Definitely not every coach will want to coach here. There will be plenty of good ones that do. Despite the warnings of losers, whenever Cal has done a thorough search, they have found good candidates.

And by the way. It's "fewer resources" not "less resources". Since you think correcting grammar on sports board makes you smartier.

---

Less resources is technically correct. I wasn't counting or itemizing. I was discussing resources as a whole.

Firing a coach after going 9-4, which is what we are discussing unbeknownst to those with poor reading comprehension, isn't the best way to show we are serious about winning. It appears RR is doing other good things though, like stopping the university from taking food away from the football team.

---

Resources is a countable noun and you were using it as such whether you think you were or not. You can't say less sticks when you are referring to half a bucket of sticks instead of a whole bucket of sticks and say you weren't counting or itemizing the sticks. That isn't how that works. But I'm being an ass to demonstrate that correcting someone's grammar on a sports board, especially to specifically post just a grammar correction (when it was clearly a typo) is an arrogant, pedantic attempt at belittling someone you disagree with.

I will also opine that someone who repeatedly displays disdain for people simply because they are on a free board is reminiscent of students in the Stanford prison experiment being mentally weak enough to genuinely take on false roles that are arbitrarily assigned to them. To actually look down your nose at people based on some imagined hierarchy of people who paid a few bucks and people who didn't is hilarious.

Those of you who still support this guy continually try to 1. Make it an argument about but what if he does something he hasn't actually done. He hasn't won 9 games; 2. Always want to look only at the immediate past instead of the whole past. Keeping a coach who is 51-54 over 9 seasons (as he would be) is not a way to show you are serious about winning. He's only still here because of the buyout or he wouldn't be here to have one barely passable season after 8 crappy ones.

---

My disdain for many folks on the free board is with their attitude. It sucks. They sound like intellectual babies that just complain that x coach isn't meeting their demands. As I have previously discussed, coaches leave Cal and do well. You ignore the pattern and just want to put different color lipstick on the pig. If the next coach succeeds, chances are it is because of the changes RR and the chancellor are making so that the new coach won't have less resources THAN Justin and Sonny had.

---

Boy SDSU must have a ton of resources. And of course VaTech which just had to go their board of regents (or whatever they call them) to get a boost becuase of their lack of resources. But whatever they did have (similar to Cal BTW) was enough to beat Cal despite not having a HC in place. All the while running the same damn play over and over. And now with the increase in support approved they went out and hired James Franklin. A proven coach that is already making an impact in recruiting.

Cal does need to add resources. They are. But that won't solve the actual coaching issues that pop up seemingly every year. Cal loses to teams with similar or less resources often. It is one thing to lose to USC, Oregon and others that do actually invest in football. But Cal loses often to programs that are no better off than Cal. And often to teams with less. Like SDSU. And in many other seasons in the P12 to programs like OSU, WSU, UA that are not exactly overflowing with resources.

Now that Lyons and Rivera are in place and the commitment to improving resources and support has been made by all means lets continue with a HC that has never shown to be a good recruiter, hiring manager or game manager.

Cal needs to back up the commitment to resources with a commitment to winning. We can argue about who should be the next coach. But keeping Wilcox cannot happen. Not if you want to have any credibilty at all with the fan base and frankly the entire college football community.

Cal will never be Ohio St. or Alabama or Texas. But look at what ASU has done by adding a young high energy coach that learned at the feet of proven winners. Or how about Vanderbilt. Or Missouri. Or GaTech. Or of course what about Indiana. They were before they hired Cignetti one of the very worst programs in the country.

Others like Iowa or Utah are almost always 8 or 9 win programs that fill their stadium. And every so often they get to 10 and play in conference championship games. Cal would kill to be like that.

If Cal is now truly committed and will provide resources lets hire somebody that has won or been a major assistant on winning programs. And quit with trying to prop up a HC that has never shown any real progress over his nine seasons.

Justin Wilcox has had his time. If Cal is going to go all in (or all in for Cal) lets get a new voice. New vision. An enthusiastic new voice and vision. Cal can and should be better. Come on Ron lets move forward.

I want Cal to finish strong. Beat Stanford. Then SMU. Then make the change that is necessary. By Sunday afternoon Nov 30 Justin Wilcox can no longer by the Cal head football coach. It can happen earlier like this coming Sunday. But must happen by Nov 30.

---

I am okay with everything but the first paragraph. I just generally disagree with firing JW if he wins the next two (and looks like has buy in going into the bowl game). If we do fire JW, hopefully we have the donor support to pay the buyout, get a great coach, and inject money into the program and NIL.

---

6956bear said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

oski003 said:

---

6956bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

jy1988 said:

---

We all know that 6-6 would not be acceptable.

---

Just out of curiosity, what is the minimum number of wins/losses this year for Cal to retain Wilcox? This question is open to everyone who claims 6-6 is insufficient but has not supported his firing given his inexcusable losses against SDSU and Duke.

---

We need a new coach regardless of what happens in the remaining two regular season games, plus any bowl game. Even at 9-4, I view this season as a fluke. Wilcox is a nice man but a mediocre coach, and I don't believe that somehow suddenly changed this year. We have to find a new coach who would also be acceptable to JKS. If that's not possible, then IMHO, we're just screwed, and should begin preparing for relegation.

---

Wilcox should've been sent packing a couple years ago. But we kept hearing about how Cal couldn't afford it. Never mind that keeping him meant Cal wasted its two easiest schedules ever and will end up getting relegated.

But there are still numerous Wilcox apologists and defenders who insist that he should be retained because reasons. They try to cover up their irrational support by pointing to his last win, while ignoring all his embarrassing and inexcusable losses. Then they pretend going 8-4 in a ludicrously soft schedule is somehow progress and means he should be retained.

What I want to know, then, is 8-4 the minimum for them to keep supporting Wilcox as Cal HC? Is 7-5 it? Or is 6-6 enough? Where do they draw the line?

---

8-4 with a win over Stanfurd is acceptable to keep him or let him go. Nobody is going to hyper analyze our 8-4, 9-4, or 8-5 finish and say we are getting relegated in 2030 because 01, Calalumnus and Brightbear thought we had too easy of a schedule. The only way we can get an in demand coach to come here, if Wilcox leaves after going 9-4, is if it was mutually agreed upon. Even then, this new coach will have reservations about having to turn a mustang into a ferrari (which a few special coaches can indeed do but many are fired after failing).

---

Ah yes. The old no Coach will want to coach at Cal if we have such a hair trigger on firing that we fire a coach after 9 years argument.

---

Ah yes, the old every coach wants to coach here after we fire a 9-4 coach who has to deal with a university that doesn't support football and a fanbase that demands 10 wins with less resources than the competition.

---

College football coach is not a job that comes with any job security. Virtually every other school fires coaches faster and at the best jobs much faster. Cal has the least demanding fan base on the planet. If anything that fact that it has taken so many years to fire a failed coach might give some pause.

There will be some coaches who don't believe we are committed. Rivera will need to sell like Gladstone sold Tedford (and a very good list of coaching prospects) Definitely not every coach will want to coach here. There will be plenty of good ones that do. Despite the warnings of losers, whenever Cal has done a thorough search, they have found good candidates.

And by the way. It's "fewer resources" not "less resources". Since you think correcting grammar on sports board makes you smartier.

---

Less resources is technically correct. I wasn't counting or itemizing. I was discussing resources as a whole.

Firing a coach after going 9-4, which is what we are discussing unbeknownst to those with poor reading comprehension, isn't the best way to show we are serious about winning. It appears RR is doing other good things though, like stopping the university from taking food away from the football team.

---

Resources is a countable noun and you were using it as such whether you think you were or not. You can't say less sticks when you are referring to half a bucket of sticks instead of a whole bucket of sticks and say you weren't counting or itemizing the sticks. That isn't how that works. But I'm being an ass to demonstrate that correcting someone's grammar on a sports board, especially to specifically post just a grammar correction (when it was clearly a typo) is an arrogant, pedantic attempt at belittling someone you disagree with.

I will also opine that someone who repeatedly displays disdain for people simply because they are on a free board is reminiscent of students in the Stanford prison experiment being mentally weak enough to genuinely take on false roles that are arbitrarily assigned to them. To actually look down your nose at people based on some imagined hierarchy of people who paid a few bucks and people who didn't is hilarious.

Those of you who still support this guy continually try to 1. Make it an argument about but what if he does something he hasn't actually done. He hasn't won 9 games; 2. Always want to look only at the immediate past instead of the whole past. Keeping a coach who is 51-54 over 9 seasons (as he would be) is not a way to show you are serious about winning. He's only still here because of the buyout or he wouldn't be here to have one barely passable season after 8 crappy ones.

---

My disdain for many folks on the free board is with their attitude. It sucks. They sound like intellectual babies that just complain that x coach isn't meeting their demands. As I have previously discussed, coaches leave Cal and do well. You ignore the pattern and just want to put different color lipstick on the pig. If the next coach succeeds, chances are it is because of the changes RR and the chancellor are making so that the new coach won't have less resources THAN Justin and Sonny had.

---

Boy SDSU must have a ton of resources. And of course VaTech which just had to go their board of regents (or whatever they call them) to get a boost becuase of their lack of resources. But whatever they did have (similar to Cal BTW) was enough to beat Cal despite not having a HC in place. All the while running the same damn play over and over. And now with the increase in support approved they went out and hired James Franklin. A proven coach that is already making an impact in recruiting.

Cal does need to add resources. They are. But that won't solve the actual coaching issues that pop up seemingly every year. Cal loses to teams with similar or less resources often. It is one thing to lose to USC, Oregon and others that do actually invest in football. But Cal loses often to programs that are no better off than Cal. And often to teams with less. Like SDSU. And in many other seasons in the P12 to programs like OSU, WSU, UA that are not exactly overflowing with resources.

Now that Lyons and Rivera are in place and the commitment to improving resources and support has been made by all means lets continue with a HC that has never shown to be a good recruiter, hiring manager or game manager.

Cal needs to back up the commitment to resources with a commitment to winning. We can argue about who should be the next coach. But keeping Wilcox cannot happen. Not if you want to have any credibilty at all with the fan base and frankly the entire college football community.

Cal will never be Ohio St. or Alabama or Texas. But look at what ASU has done by adding a young high energy coach that learned at the feet of proven winners. Or how about Vanderbilt. Or Missouri. Or GaTech. Or of course what about Indiana. They were before they hired Cignetti one of the very worst programs in the country.

Others like Iowa or Utah are almost always 8 or 9 win programs that fill their stadium. And every so often they get to 10 and play in conference championship games. Cal would kill to be like that.

If Cal is now truly committed and will provide resources lets hire somebody that has won or been a major assistant on winning programs. And quit with trying to prop up a HC that has never shown any real progress over his nine seasons.

Justin Wilcox has had his time. If Cal is going to go all in (or all in for Cal) lets get a new voice. New vision. An enthusiastic new voice and vision. Cal can and should be better. Come on Ron lets move forward.

I want Cal to finish strong. Beat Stanford. Then SMU. Then make the change that is necessary. By Sunday afternoon Nov 30 Justin Wilcox can no longer by the Cal head football coach. It can happen earlier like this coming Sunday. But must happen by Nov 30.

---

I am okay with everything but the first paragraph. I just generally disagree with firing JW if he wins the next two (and looks like has buy in going into the bowl game). If we do fire JW, hopefully we have the donor support to pay the buyout, get a great coach, and inject money into the program and NIL.

---

There are two reasons why none of this is likely to happen: 1) The buyout is $10.5 million. That's not going to happen in this time of higher education financial chaos. 2) "This time is different" mentality. Look no further than the posts from the owners of this site and many others on this thread - they are likely far closer to how Rivera and the administration thinks than the rest of the board. With Rivera in place, Wilcox and the staff have fewer administrative issues to deal with and can concentrate on football and the results are already showing. Bowl eligible, good recruiting, promising young players on the team. I wouldn't be surprised if they feel Wilcox has been doing a great job with his hands tied behind his back and now he finally has the support to bring the program to the next level and deserves more time. That's likely why Rivera is so dismissive of the questions on Wilcox's future. This is the far more likely outcome than Cal magically conjuring up enough money to buyout Wilcox while being able to afford an upgraded coaching staff - particularly when Wilcox has the Bears bowl eligible for the third year in a row which hasn't happened since the Tedford days.

---

There is no "buyout". His contract is fully guaranteed and would be paid as he is paid now. In monthly payments til the end of his contract. Justin would have a obligation to mitigate and likely would find work and offset some of the payments owed. A buyout would be upfront money paid to go away and have no offset. Now Cal and Justin could work out an agreement to a lower settled amount. He could want that if he wants to take a break from coaching for a bit. Cal owes Justin the $10.5M just not upfront and he does have an obligation to mitigate. The final dollars likely would be less than the $10.5M.

I do agree however that Rivera may see this season as progress. Rivera has been a longtime coach and just a short time GM at Cal. He likely still views things through his "coaches eyes" and may think that Justin has turned the corner and is now ready to actually win games. He talks with the donors all the time and a strong number of them could back another season of Wilcox.

The cost of new staff is a thing. If your next hire wants to bring in all his own people. But what if that next coach is willing to keep most of the staff. There are some that believe Tosh is willing to keep a majority of the current staffers. Some staff could leave on their own and would cost Cal nothing.

The point of bowl eligibility is really weak. There are over 80 teams that will play in a bowl. Cal despite being bowl eligible the past 2 seasons failed to have a winning conference record and finished 6-7 both seasons.


You also mention good recruiting. Not sure what you consider good recruiting but Cal has routinely had well below average recruiting under Wilcox. Right now the current HS class is rated in the 40's overall and #11 (out of 17) in the ACC. Which would qualify as his best HS class in years. But not a good class compared to peer programs they compete with. A new coach could add a substantive portal class as he taps into the roster of his current employer. That is one way that Indiana made a big immediate leap under Cignetti. He brought 15 players with him. This is now considered common practice now matter how we may feel about it.

I at one time was convinced that Wilcox was out but now I am less sure. I still believe his "performance" as HC is not worthy of more time, but less convinced that Rivera see's it that way. I do believe though if Rivera wants Wilcox out they will find some money to make it happen.

Cal needs to decide if they are in this enterprise to win or simply pay lip service to it. Rivera was brought aboard to fix Cal football. JMO but retaining Wilcox is the opposite of that. We'll see.

---

6956bear said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

oski003 said:

---

6956bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

jy1988 said:

---

We all know that 6-6 would not be acceptable.

---

Just out of curiosity, what is the minimum number of wins/losses this year for Cal to retain Wilcox? This question is open to everyone who claims 6-6 is insufficient but has not supported his firing given his inexcusable losses against SDSU and Duke.

---

We need a new coach regardless of what happens in the remaining two regular season games, plus any bowl game. Even at 9-4, I view this season as a fluke. Wilcox is a nice man but a mediocre coach, and I don't believe that somehow suddenly changed this year. We have to find a new coach who would also be acceptable to JKS. If that's not possible, then IMHO, we're just screwed, and should begin preparing for relegation.

---

Wilcox should've been sent packing a couple years ago. But we kept hearing about how Cal couldn't afford it. Never mind that keeping him meant Cal wasted its two easiest schedules ever and will end up getting relegated.

But there are still numerous Wilcox apologists and defenders who insist that he should be retained because reasons. They try to cover up their irrational support by pointing to his last win, while ignoring all his embarrassing and inexcusable losses. Then they pretend going 8-4 in a ludicrously soft schedule is somehow progress and means he should be retained.

What I want to know, then, is 8-4 the minimum for them to keep supporting Wilcox as Cal HC? Is 7-5 it? Or is 6-6 enough? Where do they draw the line?

---

8-4 with a win over Stanfurd is acceptable to keep him or let him go. Nobody is going to hyper analyze our 8-4, 9-4, or 8-5 finish and say we are getting relegated in 2030 because 01, Calalumnus and Brightbear thought we had too easy of a schedule. The only way we can get an in demand coach to come here, if Wilcox leaves after going 9-4, is if it was mutually agreed upon. Even then, this new coach will have reservations about having to turn a mustang into a ferrari (which a few special coaches can indeed do but many are fired after failing).

---

Ah yes. The old no Coach will want to coach at Cal if we have such a hair trigger on firing that we fire a coach after 9 years argument.

---

Ah yes, the old every coach wants to coach here after we fire a 9-4 coach who has to deal with a university that doesn't support football and a fanbase that demands 10 wins with less resources than the competition.

---

College football coach is not a job that comes with any job security. Virtually every other school fires coaches faster and at the best jobs much faster. Cal has the least demanding fan base on the planet. If anything that fact that it has taken so many years to fire a failed coach might give some pause.

There will be some coaches who don't believe we are committed. Rivera will need to sell like Gladstone sold Tedford (and a very good list of coaching prospects) Definitely not every coach will want to coach here. There will be plenty of good ones that do. Despite the warnings of losers, whenever Cal has done a thorough search, they have found good candidates.

And by the way. It's "fewer resources" not "less resources". Since you think correcting grammar on sports board makes you smartier.

---

Less resources is technically correct. I wasn't counting or itemizing. I was discussing resources as a whole.

Firing a coach after going 9-4, which is what we are discussing unbeknownst to those with poor reading comprehension, isn't the best way to show we are serious about winning. It appears RR is doing other good things though, like stopping the university from taking food away from the football team.

---

Resources is a countable noun and you were using it as such whether you think you were or not. You can't say less sticks when you are referring to half a bucket of sticks instead of a whole bucket of sticks and say you weren't counting or itemizing the sticks. That isn't how that works. But I'm being an ass to demonstrate that correcting someone's grammar on a sports board, especially to specifically post just a grammar correction (when it was clearly a typo) is an arrogant, pedantic attempt at belittling someone you disagree with.

I will also opine that someone who repeatedly displays disdain for people simply because they are on a free board is reminiscent of students in the Stanford prison experiment being mentally weak enough to genuinely take on false roles that are arbitrarily assigned to them. To actually look down your nose at people based on some imagined hierarchy of people who paid a few bucks and people who didn't is hilarious.

Those of you who still support this guy continually try to 1. Make it an argument about but what if he does something he hasn't actually done. He hasn't won 9 games; 2. Always want to look only at the immediate past instead of the whole past. Keeping a coach who is 51-54 over 9 seasons (as he would be) is not a way to show you are serious about winning. He's only still here because of the buyout or he wouldn't be here to have one barely passable season after 8 crappy ones.

---

My disdain for many folks on the free board is with their attitude. It sucks. They sound like intellectual babies that just complain that x coach isn't meeting their demands. As I have previously discussed, coaches leave Cal and do well. You ignore the pattern and just want to put different color lipstick on the pig. If the next coach succeeds, chances are it is because of the changes RR and the chancellor are making so that the new coach won't have less resources THAN Justin and Sonny had.

---

Boy SDSU must have a ton of resources. And of course VaTech which just had to go their board of regents (or whatever they call them) to get a boost becuase of their lack of resources. But whatever they did have (similar to Cal BTW) was enough to beat Cal despite not having a HC in place. All the while running the same damn play over and over. And now with the increase in support approved they went out and hired James Franklin. A proven coach that is already making an impact in recruiting.

Cal does need to add resources. They are. But that won't solve the actual coaching issues that pop up seemingly every year. Cal loses to teams with similar or less resources often. It is one thing to lose to USC, Oregon and others that do actually invest in football. But Cal loses often to programs that are no better off than Cal. And often to teams with less. Like SDSU. And in many other seasons in the P12 to programs like OSU, WSU, UA that are not exactly overflowing with resources.

Now that Lyons and Rivera are in place and the commitment to improving resources and support has been made by all means lets continue with a HC that has never shown to be a good recruiter, hiring manager or game manager.

Cal needs to back up the commitment to resources with a commitment to winning. We can argue about who should be the next coach. But keeping Wilcox cannot happen. Not if you want to have any credibilty at all with the fan base and frankly the entire college football community.

Cal will never be Ohio St. or Alabama or Texas. But look at what ASU has done by adding a young high energy coach that learned at the feet of proven winners. Or how about Vanderbilt. Or Missouri. Or GaTech. Or of course what about Indiana. They were before they hired Cignetti one of the very worst programs in the country.

Others like Iowa or Utah are almost always 8 or 9 win programs that fill their stadium. And every so often they get to 10 and play in conference championship games. Cal would kill to be like that.

If Cal is now truly committed and will provide resources lets hire somebody that has won or been a major assistant on winning programs. And quit with trying to prop up a HC that has never shown any real progress over his nine seasons.

Justin Wilcox has had his time. If Cal is going to go all in (or all in for Cal) lets get a new voice. New vision. An enthusiastic new voice and vision. Cal can and should be better. Come on Ron lets move forward.

I want Cal to finish strong. Beat Stanford. Then SMU. Then make the change that is necessary. By Sunday afternoon Nov 30 Justin Wilcox can no longer by the Cal head football coach. It can happen earlier like this coming Sunday. But must happen by Nov 30.

---

I am okay with everything but the first paragraph. I just generally disagree with firing JW if he wins the next two (and looks like has buy in going into the bowl game). If we do fire JW, hopefully we have the donor support to pay the buyout, get a great coach, and inject money into the program and NIL.

---

There are two reasons why none of this is likely to happen: 1) The buyout is $10.5 million. That's not going to happen in this time of higher education financial chaos. 2) "This time is different" mentality. Look no further than the posts from the owners of this site and many others on this thread - they are likely far closer to how Rivera and the administration thinks than the rest of the board. With Rivera in place, Wilcox and the staff have fewer administrative issues to deal with and can concentrate on football and the results are already showing. Bowl eligible, good recruiting, promising young players on the team. I wouldn't be surprised if they feel Wilcox has been doing a great job with his hands tied behind his back and now he finally has the support to bring the program to the next level and deserves more time. That's likely why Rivera is so dismissive of the questions on Wilcox's future. This is the far more likely outcome than Cal magically conjuring up enough money to buyout Wilcox while being able to afford an upgraded coaching staff - particularly when Wilcox has the Bears bowl eligible for the third year in a row which hasn't happened since the Tedford days.

---

There is no "buyout". His contract is fully guaranteed and would be paid as he is paid now. In monthly payments til the end of his contract. Justin would have a obligation to mitigate and likely would find work and offset some of the payments owed. A buyout would be upfront money paid to go away and have no offset. Now Cal and Justin could work out an agreement to a lower settled amount. He could want that if he wants to take a break from coaching for a bit. Cal owes Justin the $10.5M just not upfront and he does have an obligation to mitigate. The final dollars likely would be less than the $10.5M.

I do agree however that Rivera may see this season as progress. Rivera has been a longtime coach and just a short time GM at Cal. He likely still views things through his "coaches eyes" and may think that Justin has turned the corner and is now ready to actually win games. He talks with the donors all the time and a strong number of them could back another season of Wilcox.

The cost of new staff is a thing. If your next hire wants to bring in all his own people. But what if that next coach is willing to keep most of the staff. There are some that believe Tosh is willing to keep a majority of the current staffers. Some staff could leave on their own and would cost Cal nothing.

The point of bowl eligibility is really weak. There are over 80 teams that will play in a bowl. Cal despite being bowl eligible the past 2 seasons failed to have a winning conference record and finished 6-7 both seasons.


You also mention good recruiting. Not sure what you consider good recruiting but Cal has routinely had well below average recruiting under Wilcox. Right now the current HS class is rated in the 40's overall and #11 (out of 17) in the ACC. Which would qualify as his best HS class in years. But not a good class compared to peer programs they compete with. A new coach could add a substantive portal class as he taps into the roster of his current employer. That is one way that Indiana made a big immediate leap under Cignetti. He brought 15 players with him. This is now considered common practice now matter how we may feel about it.

I at one time was convinced that Wilcox was out but now I am less sure. I still believe his "performance" as HC is not worthy of more time, but less convinced that Rivera see's it that way. I do believe though if Rivera wants Wilcox out they will find some money to make it happen.

Cal needs to decide if they are in this enterprise to win or simply pay lip service to it. Rivera was brought aboard to fix Cal football. JMO but retaining Wilcox is the opposite of that. We'll see.

---

calumnus said:

---

Joegeo said:

---

With Aranda confirmed to come back, we got him, Fickell and Locklsey for coaches on hot seats who AD's decided to keep them around for another year.

This can mean different things, of course, but one interpretation can be that those programs decided their struggling coach + more Nil money is better than a new coach with less money for the roster. Especially if they talked to agents and realized the quality of the coach that will go there isn't amazing. So it can be a signal that middle to low tier P4 schools are not in love with who is avaliable in the coaching carousel.

---

We tried giving Wilcox two Top 20 Portal classes back to back with donor NIL, he had a potential Heisman at QB and he went 2-6 in the ACC. I think it will be tough to rally the donors to keep doing that.

Ideally, Rivera is doing his homework on young up and coming HCs and OCs and is talking with their agents, because that is a key part of the equation in deciding whether to bring Wilcox back. His comments seem to indicate otherwise, but we can only hope.

---

Joegeo said:

---

With Aranda confirmed to come back, we got him, Fickell and Locklsey for coaches on hot seats who AD's decided to keep them around for another year.

This can mean different things, of course, but one interpretation can be that those programs decided their struggling coach + more Nil money is better than a new coach with less money for the roster. Especially if they talked to agents and realized the quality of the coach that will go there isn't amazing. So it can be a signal that middle to low tier P4 schools are not in love with who is avaliable in the coaching carousel.

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

Did any other back-to-back, top 20 portal class teams not finish in the top 25 in either year?

---

Joegeo said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

Did any other back-to-back, top 20 portal class teams not finish in the top 25 in either year?

---

using the On3 rankings (which is next transfer), Florida State/Auburn/Kentucky are the big names that stand out who fall in that category.

---

panda said:

---

Cal should win tomorrow. If we dont, that should put the nail in the coffin about keeping him. Unfortunately for us in the Move On Camp, he's very likely to win tmr and we will get a week of "he's earned enough to stay because he beat Furd!" Nevermind, Furd has been at its lowest point in program history but hey whatever floats people's boats.

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

AmadorBear said:

---

NIL $ = The Jimmy's and Joe's

Yes, we've landed a few rockstars like JKS, due to the supreme efforts of a Benji, Marshall, Andrew M and staff.

We don't even sniff being in the same continent as the Oregon's, Tenn's, Bama's, Georgia's.

So get a sanity check. Lots of visions of grandeur on these posts. Get real.

Sonny was in the Natty a few years out from being whacked from Cal. Other coaches see that.

Everyone grouses about our OL, WR's, DB's, Edge Rushers and lack of impact players on this website from alleged talent evaluators. They blame the HC.

All you grouser's need to hit the hip and kick in or STFU. It's the lack on NIL dollars that has impacted the rapid progress for this program.

Tosh is making $2m a year as the Ducks DC.

I'm not sure he's interested in Cal other than using it as a bargaining chip for another program if he's even considering moving on from Eugene. Get real.

---

Fun fact: after one massively outstanding year with another guy's players, Sonny is 12-13 in his conference in the three seasons since

---

oski003 said:

---

6956bear said:

---

HKBear97! said:

---

oski003 said:

---

6956bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

jy1988 said:

---

We all know that 6-6 would not be acceptable.

---

Just out of curiosity, what is the minimum number of wins/losses this year for Cal to retain Wilcox? This question is open to everyone who claims 6-6 is insufficient but has not supported his firing given his inexcusable losses against SDSU and Duke.

---

We need a new coach regardless of what happens in the remaining two regular season games, plus any bowl game. Even at 9-4, I view this season as a fluke. Wilcox is a nice man but a mediocre coach, and I don't believe that somehow suddenly changed this year. We have to find a new coach who would also be acceptable to JKS. If that's not possible, then IMHO, we're just screwed, and should begin preparing for relegation.

---

Wilcox should've been sent packing a couple years ago. But we kept hearing about how Cal couldn't afford it. Never mind that keeping him meant Cal wasted its two easiest schedules ever and will end up getting relegated.

But there are still numerous Wilcox apologists and defenders who insist that he should be retained because reasons. They try to cover up their irrational support by pointing to his last win, while ignoring all his embarrassing and inexcusable losses. Then they pretend going 8-4 in a ludicrously soft schedule is somehow progress and means he should be retained.

What I want to know, then, is 8-4 the minimum for them to keep supporting Wilcox as Cal HC? Is 7-5 it? Or is 6-6 enough? Where do they draw the line?

---

8-4 with a win over Stanfurd is acceptable to keep him or let him go. Nobody is going to hyper analyze our 8-4, 9-4, or 8-5 finish and say we are getting relegated in 2030 because 01, Calalumnus and Brightbear thought we had too easy of a schedule. The only way we can get an in demand coach to come here, if Wilcox leaves after going 9-4, is if it was mutually agreed upon. Even then, this new coach will have reservations about having to turn a mustang into a ferrari (which a few special coaches can indeed do but many are fired after failing).

---

Ah yes. The old no Coach will want to coach at Cal if we have such a hair trigger on firing that we fire a coach after 9 years argument.

---

Ah yes, the old every coach wants to coach here after we fire a 9-4 coach who has to deal with a university that doesn't support football and a fanbase that demands 10 wins with less resources than the competition.

---

College football coach is not a job that comes with any job security. Virtually every other school fires coaches faster and at the best jobs much faster. Cal has the least demanding fan base on the planet. If anything that fact that it has taken so many years to fire a failed coach might give some pause.

There will be some coaches who don't believe we are committed. Rivera will need to sell like Gladstone sold Tedford (and a very good list of coaching prospects) Definitely not every coach will want to coach here. There will be plenty of good ones that do. Despite the warnings of losers, whenever Cal has done a thorough search, they have found good candidates.

And by the way. It's "fewer resources" not "less resources". Since you think correcting grammar on sports board makes you smartier.

---

Less resources is technically correct. I wasn't counting or itemizing. I was discussing resources as a whole.

Firing a coach after going 9-4, which is what we are discussing unbeknownst to those with poor reading comprehension, isn't the best way to show we are serious about winning. It appears RR is doing other good things though, like stopping the university from taking food away from the football team.

---

Resources is a countable noun and you were using it as such whether you think you were or not. You can't say less sticks when you are referring to half a bucket of sticks instead of a whole bucket of sticks and say you weren't counting or itemizing the sticks. That isn't how that works. But I'm being an ass to demonstrate that correcting someone's grammar on a sports board, especially to specifically post just a grammar correction (when it was clearly a typo) is an arrogant, pedantic attempt at belittling someone you disagree with.

I will also opine that someone who repeatedly displays disdain for people simply because they are on a free board is reminiscent of students in the Stanford prison experiment being mentally weak enough to genuinely take on false roles that are arbitrarily assigned to them. To actually look down your nose at people based on some imagined hierarchy of people who paid a few bucks and people who didn't is hilarious.

Those of you who still support this guy continually try to 1. Make it an argument about but what if he does something he hasn't actually done. He hasn't won 9 games; 2. Always want to look only at the immediate past instead of the whole past. Keeping a coach who is 51-54 over 9 seasons (as he would be) is not a way to show you are serious about winning. He's only still here because of the buyout or he wouldn't be here to have one barely passable season after 8 crappy ones.

---

My disdain for many folks on the free board is with their attitude. It sucks. They sound like intellectual babies that just complain that x coach isn't meeting their demands. As I have previously discussed, coaches leave Cal and do well. You ignore the pattern and just want to put different color lipstick on the pig. If the next coach succeeds, chances are it is because of the changes RR and the chancellor are making so that the new coach won't have less resources THAN Justin and Sonny had.

---

Boy SDSU must have a ton of resources. And of course VaTech which just had to go their board of regents (or whatever they call them) to get a boost becuase of their lack of resources. But whatever they did have (similar to Cal BTW) was enough to beat Cal despite not having a HC in place. All the while running the same damn play over and over. And now with the increase in support approved they went out and hired James Franklin. A proven coach that is already making an impact in recruiting.

Cal does need to add resources. They are. But that won't solve the actual coaching issues that pop up seemingly every year. Cal loses to teams with similar or less resources often. It is one thing to lose to USC, Oregon and others that do actually invest in football. But Cal loses often to programs that are no better off than Cal. And often to teams with less. Like SDSU. And in many other seasons in the P12 to programs like OSU, WSU, UA that are not exactly overflowing with resources.

Now that Lyons and Rivera are in place and the commitment to improving resources and support has been made by all means lets continue with a HC that has never shown to be a good recruiter, hiring manager or game manager.

Cal needs to back up the commitment to resources with a commitment to winning. We can argue about who should be the next coach. But keeping Wilcox cannot happen. Not if you want to have any credibilty at all with the fan base and frankly the entire college football community.

Cal will never be Ohio St. or Alabama or Texas. But look at what ASU has done by adding a young high energy coach that learned at the feet of proven winners. Or how about Vanderbilt. Or Missouri. Or GaTech. Or of course what about Indiana. They were before they hired Cignetti one of the very worst programs in the country.

Others like Iowa or Utah are almost always 8 or 9 win programs that fill their stadium. And every so often they get to 10 and play in conference championship games. Cal would kill to be like that.

If Cal is now truly committed and will provide resources lets hire somebody that has won or been a major assistant on winning programs. And quit with trying to prop up a HC that has never shown any real progress over his nine seasons.

Justin Wilcox has had his time. If Cal is going to go all in (or all in for Cal) lets get a new voice. New vision. An enthusiastic new voice and vision. Cal can and should be better. Come on Ron lets move forward.

I want Cal to finish strong. Beat Stanford. Then SMU. Then make the change that is necessary. By Sunday afternoon Nov 30 Justin Wilcox can no longer by the Cal head football coach. It can happen earlier like this coming Sunday. But must happen by Nov 30.

---

I am okay with everything but the first paragraph. I just generally disagree with firing JW if he wins the next two (and looks like has buy in going into the bowl game). If we do fire JW, hopefully we have the donor support to pay the buyout, get a great coach, and inject money into the program and NIL.

---

There are two reasons why none of this is likely to happen: 1) The buyout is $10.5 million. That's not going to happen in this time of higher education financial chaos. 2) "This time is different" mentality. Look no further than the posts from the owners of this site and many others on this thread - they are likely far closer to how Rivera and the administration thinks than the rest of the board. With Rivera in place, Wilcox and the staff have fewer administrative issues to deal with and can concentrate on football and the results are already showing. Bowl eligible, good recruiting, promising young players on the team. I wouldn't be surprised if they feel Wilcox has been doing a great job with his hands tied behind his back and now he finally has the support to bring the program to the next level and deserves more time. That's likely why Rivera is so dismissive of the questions on Wilcox's future. This is the far more likely outcome than Cal magically conjuring up enough money to buyout Wilcox while being able to afford an upgraded coaching staff - particularly when Wilcox has the Bears bowl eligible for the third year in a row which hasn't happened since the Tedford days.

---

There is no "buyout". His contract is fully guaranteed and would be paid as he is paid now. In monthly payments til the end of his contract. Justin would have a obligation to mitigate and likely would find work and offset some of the payments owed. A buyout would be upfront money paid to go away and have no offset. Now Cal and Justin could work out an agreement to a lower settled amount. He could want that if he wants to take a break from coaching for a bit. Cal owes Justin the $10.5M just not upfront and he does have an obligation to mitigate. The final dollars likely would be less than the $10.5M.

I do agree however that Rivera may see this season as progress. Rivera has been a longtime coach and just a short time GM at Cal. He likely still views things through his "coaches eyes" and may think that Justin has turned the corner and is now ready to actually win games. He talks with the donors all the time and a strong number of them could back another season of Wilcox.

The cost of new staff is a thing. If your next hire wants to bring in all his own people. But what if that next coach is willing to keep most of the staff. There are some that believe Tosh is willing to keep a majority of the current staffers. Some staff could leave on their own and would cost Cal nothing.

The point of bowl eligibility is really weak. There are over 80 teams that will play in a bowl. Cal despite being bowl eligible the past 2 seasons failed to have a winning conference record and finished 6-7 both seasons.


You also mention good recruiting. Not sure what you consider good recruiting but Cal has routinely had well below average recruiting under Wilcox. Right now the current HS class is rated in the 40's overall and #11 (out of 17) in the ACC. Which would qualify as his best HS class in years. But not a good class compared to peer programs they compete with. A new coach could add a substantive portal class as he taps into the roster of his current employer. That is one way that Indiana made a big immediate leap under Cignetti. He brought 15 players with him. This is now considered common practice now matter how we may feel about it.

I at one time was convinced that Wilcox was out but now I am less sure. I still believe his "performance" as HC is not worthy of more time, but less convinced that Rivera see's it that way. I do believe though if Rivera wants Wilcox out they will find some money to make it happen.

Cal needs to decide if they are in this enterprise to win or simply pay lip service to it. Rivera was brought aboard to fix Cal football. JMO but retaining Wilcox is the opposite of that. We'll see.

---

How do Cal football facilities compare to Indiana's football facilities from the perspective of a football player? How does our football dedicated weight room compare to theirs? How does their food and entertainment area compared to ours, which actually cut food from football players last year? Do we have a dedicated football nutrition center? Do we have a barbershop just for the football team? Do we have a full length turf field, a full length grass practice field, and a full length indoor field?

Please note that this video is a year old and most of the project was constructed prior to Cignetti's arrival. Are we on par with this? After all, folks here say Indiana had nothing before Cignetti.

---