8-4, Wilcox probably stays. Maybe gets a "cosmetic" extension.
6-6, he almost certainly is gone.
7-5 is no-man's land, but my hunch is that he leaves.

Bowl game is irrelevant because...
- we would want to make a change ASAP (before bowl game)
- all the minor bowl games are less relevant than ever, what with players deciding their futures during that time

What is relevant is what Ron Rivera thinks of the job Wilcox is doing. In fact, this is the most relevant factor and it is exactly why we have a Cal guy and football expert inside the program now. Especially if we find ourselves in 7-5 no-man's-land.

kal kommie said:

---

I'd bet a lot that Wilcox is safe if we beat Stanford. Ron and Lyons can say whatever they want about mediocrity not being acceptable but Cal would not fire a coach who had a winning regular season including a Big Game victory.

---

The question would be, in that case, give him another year on the existing deal or extend the deal a year (hoping that would be all)? That would give RR a chance to sell JW to another team behind the scenes (which hopefully he's doing already for this year - lotta teams gonna be lookin').

HearstMining said:

---

To complicate matters, what if Wilcox stays for next year but Harsin and/or Rolo leave? Wilcox doesn't exactly have a great record for hiring Offensive Coordinators.

---

Harsin could get a HC offer, or a plum (read much higher paying/profile) OC job if Cal wins 8 or more games. The reset of the world thought we were dog crap at the beginning of the season. He certainly seems like a step-up than the last couple Cal OCs. I assume Rolo then becomes the OC. I don't see Rolo leaving unless he is following JKS. The offense probably goes more down field with Rolo and IMO that could work with some fine tuning of the offensive roster.

HearstMining said:

---

To complicate matters, what if Wilcox stays for next year but Harsin and/or Rolo leave? Wilcox doesn't exactly have a great record for hiring Offensive Coordinators.

---

our offense sucks, and that's with what many here think is a generational talent at QB. We have the #104 ranked offense in yards/game and yards/play. Only at Cal would people be concerned with losing the coaches putting out one of the worst offenses in the country.

We took both those guys off the long term unemployed coach scrap heap. They have produced poor results. And folks are worried about them voluntarily leaving? I suppose it could happen but if it does, it's not like we'd be missing much.

And if someone doesn't trust Wilcox to hire someone equal or better than the guys failing to put out a top 100 offense then they should be 100% on board with firing him to begin with.

oski003 said:

---

upsetof86 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

MiZery said:

---

5-3 in ACC. 8-4 overall

Depending on how other teams in the league play- but best case scenario is a gator bowl victory.

Worst case would be a Sun Bowl

Would either of those bowls get JW another year?

---

We are still in the Pac-12 for bowls this year

Here is how Sagarin has us ranked currently;
1. Oregon 8-1 #3
2. Utah 7-2 #12
3. USC 7-2 #13
4. Washington 6-3 #25
5. ASU 6-3 #37
6. Arizona 6-3 #51
7. UCLA 3-6 #67
8. Cal 6-4 #69
9. WSU 4-5 #74

. . ..

---

Is it lost on anyone that we are still second from the bottom in a virtual PAC 12 rank order by this objective measure? The whole 5-3 and 8-4 record is re contextualizing our situation. Oh we are mid conference, we have a winning record in conference, etc etc. We are the same as we ever were 9 years down the road with a very weak schedule.

---

Is it lost on you that this metric accounts for the "very weak" schedule? Also, when did Pac 12 become Pac 9? We should be above UCLA and will end the season as such. They only had a big win over a top ranked PSU team that was playing like dog crap and completely fell apart. Let's win out. JW should be on notice and any sort of extension is completely out of the question.

---

I only included the 9 former Pac-12 teams that are potentially bowl eligible. Stanford, OSU and Colorado are mathematically eliminated and UCLA will likely be also soon too, but Sagarin evaluates them as being slightly better than us because they have played the #18 schedule and we have played the #63 schedule. I think WSU will get to 6-6, but Cal will be more desirable for a bowl in any case.

Other than UCLA, I don't see us jumping any of the other 6 teams that are ahead of us. If we want a "better" bowl we should hope more former Pac-12 teams than just Oregon make the CFPs. I think Vegas would be the best, but some people like the idea of New Years in El Paso. There was some talk that we could get a Hawaii Bowl invite, but I don't see how.

adujan said:

---

Why is the number of players lost to the portal a new measuring stick?

Yes, Cal lost 37 players to the portal last year. The year before that, it looks like we lost 23.

37 was outlandish and it was unacceptable how many offensive starters we lost. We need to see how it plays out this year.

Oregon lost 23 players. Georgia lost 21-24 players. Those are some major programs.

Florida State lost "over 30." TCU lost in the low 20s. Those are currently mid major programs.

So, Cal and Wilcox lost an "average" number in 2023. 2024 was clearly a disaster portal wise, although we did get JKS through the portal. Whatever happened with Harsin was a big driver of our portal losses last year, it seems.

I am not suggesting that we can or should lose 30+ players every year, but college football in 2025 should have most programs losing 20-25 players every year, unfortunately.


__PRESENT__PRESENT

__PRESENT__PRESENT

---

It's not just the number of players that matter, but the quality of players. Top tier programs are going to lose players too, but most of them are going to be 2nd and 3rd stringers going elsewhere for more playing time. Frankly, not a big deal for them because they'll be pulling in players of similar caliber from other teams. Whereas, teams like us also lose starters who move on to schools with more visibility and/or opportunities to get them drafted.

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

upsetof86 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

MiZery said:

---

5-3 in ACC. 8-4 overall

Depending on how other teams in the league play- but best case scenario is a gator bowl victory.

Worst case would be a Sun Bowl

Would either of those bowls get JW another year?

---

We are still in the Pac-12 for bowls this year

Here is how Sagarin has us ranked currently;
1. Oregon 8-1 #3
2. Utah 7-2 #12
3. USC 7-2 #13
4. Washington 6-3 #25
5. ASU 6-3 #37
6. Arizona 6-3 #51
7. UCLA 3-6 #67
8. Cal 6-4 #69
9. WSU 4-5 #74

. . ..

---

Is it lost on anyone that we are still second from the bottom in a virtual PAC 12 rank order by this objective measure? The whole 5-3 and 8-4 record is re contextualizing our situation. Oh we are mid conference, we have a winning record in conference, etc etc. We are the same as we ever were 9 years down the road with a very weak schedule.

---

Is it lost on you that this metric accounts for the "very weak" schedule? Also, when did Pac 12 become Pac 9? We should be above UCLA and will end the season as such. They only had a big win over a top ranked PSU team that was playing like dog crap and completely fell apart. Let's win out. JW should be on notice and any sort of extension is completely out of the question.

---

Other than UCLA, I don't see us jumping any of the other 6 teams that are ahead of us. If we want a "better" bowl we should hope more former Pac-12 teams than just Oregon make the CFPs. I think Vegas would be the best, but some people like the idea of New Years in El Paso. There was some talk that we could get a Hawaii Bowl invite, but I don't see how.

---

Our only shot at a decent bowl like Vegas is if 2 of these teams make the playoff and we win out, plus a bunch of these teams beat each other up, i.e. Oregon/Utah in the playoff, USC/Washington/ASU in Alamo/Holiday/Sun, and maybe we get to Vegas at 8-4, and the Hawaii Bowl tie-in is with the American so unless one of the lower bowls does a swap that is highly unlikely

wifeisafurd said:

---

My two cents:

1) lose Big Game JW is gone. But Cal will be the favorite going in. That is 7 wins.
2) lose to SMU. I still think JW is gone. Probably a battle of 7-4 teams with SMU a mild favorite on the road. Wilcox needs to win this game, and if he does win:

Bowl game: Cal is being talked about for the Sun Bowl, which is close to year end. With the Portal opening Jan 2 and ending Jan 16, they are not going to fire a head coach and walk into the Portal without a head coach or a brand new coach who has no time to pick staff, meet players, prep and then go into the Portal season. The portal period related to when Cal players could be poached is 15 days and begins five days after a new coach is hired or announced, which could mean Cal is extending the Portal period for Cal players. Just not going to happen. If JW survives regular season 2025, he is our coach for 2026. In fact, he probably gets a raise for an 8 or 9 win team. Seems to me RR publicly set out his expectations at the beginning of the season for 8 wins, and as long as the donors are on board, Wilcox needs to win 8 games during the season or he will be let go. Again, my two cents.

---

alex, agreed that if the bears lose the big game wilcox is gone

Fire him no matter what. How do you lose to Virginia Tech AND Sdsu. What a disgrace ! He's had his fair share of chances and does not need this longer leash. In fact he's had the LONGEST leash in all of college football. No other program would tolerate his shenanigans for 9 years ! Just let him go !

If RR even thinks about bringing him back, shut the whole program down !

"shut the whole program down" in a nutshell is the mantra of the small niche of angry & frustrated cal tv fans that are ignored in the real world

Unless we're in the Las Vegas bowl we should already be pulling strings to ensure the Hawaii Bowl can happen. That's a win, win, win.

adujan said:

---

bearsandgiants said:

---

If we win at least one of the next two, and look great in both games, AND look great in the bowl game (win or lose), I could be convinced of giving Wilcox ONE more year to make it to the ACC title game. With the entire system still intact, it makes it easier to build on exactly what we need, keep who we need to keep, and build on what will clearly look like improved momentum. If we look unprepared or lack focus in any of the three games, it's time to move on. This actually seems like a team that might want to stick around for a year and prove something. If it's just going to be a bunch of portal-outs, though, we'd be insane to keep this going for another year and try to build something with the leftovers and a failed coach in his 10th year.

---

You have to see how all major programs are impacted by the portal before using it as a measure with which to judge a coach or a staff.

The data isn't easy to find. According to Google, the Power 4 conferences had over 1,400 players transfer in and 3,700 total players entered the portal in FBS.

It only makes sense to use the portal against Wilcox if Cal loses 30+ players while the average ACC team loses less than 10 (as an example).

what happened to our offense in 2025 when Harsin was hired is not acceptable, but the offense has looked more dynamic than the typical Cal offense, so maybe we can manage to keep some of our studs and recruit a bit more talent on the offensive side to help complement.

---

Wilcox has really lowered the bar with his OC hires. Harsin has the #104 offense and that is playing the weakest schedule we have had since WW2. His playcalling HAS been good. His player retention and recruitment has been bad, worse even thab what happened at Auburn. I also question his decisions on PT. Seems like some of the backups who were better rated than the starters, look better than the starters in the few reps they get but then get no more even when the starters make a repeated drops. Fall Camp was closed so we didn't get to see what was happening then.

The problem with waiting to see what happens in the Portal before making a decision is it will be too late. There is only one Portal this year. We need to have the staff we want and our NIL ready to go ahead of the Portal. If Wilcox and friends have another poor Portal and THEN you fire them, you are dooming the next coach to a first year with even worse talent than we have now.

Uh of course it does, that is the point. Our win/loss record should be better or we should have better quality wins but as usual we don't. Football powerhouses Furd, Colorado, and Oregon State below Wazzu round out the full 12. Recognize the view above us? We are lucky Wazzu, Furd, Colorado and Oregon State usually suck worse than us to keep our egos afloat.

HKBear97! said:

---

MiZery said:

---

5-3 in ACC. 8-4 overall

Depending on how other teams in the league play- but best case scenario is a gator bowl victory.

Worst case would be a Sun Bowl

Would either of those bowls get JW another year?

---

The record doesn't matter - the only thing that matters is the buyout. $10.5 million after December 31, 2025. That would be nearly twice what was paid to Tedford and Dykes. That is not the Cal way and would be terrible optics when college finances are a mess. These incessant posts about firing Wilcox are idiotic - Cal is not a serious power football school where that amount would be a non-issue. Wilcox is here next year regardless of what happens the rest of this season.

Save these posts for next season. Until then, enjoy the wins while you can.

---

Post should be pinned on this board.

JSC 76 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

Bowl game is irrelevant, an exhibition in which players choose to compete or not.

---

After the farce and fiasco of last year's LA Bowl I refuse to get excited about bowl games and will never attend another. Playoff or bust.

---

This year feels different - especially after the Louisville game. The LA Bowl was terrible - no Mendoza and Ott was MIA. Even the starters left the building in the second half. If we win at Stanfurd and play well (and win?) vs SMU, Wilcox definitely will stay and the bowl game arrives before portal dates? Lets just beat the sh*t out of Stanfurd and forget about these projections. Did I read somewhere here that we are after an ACC championship?

It doesn't matter and SHOULDN'T matter because of all the destruction that went into this program. You LOST a Heisman candidate, a WR1, NFL Draft picks and the list goes on.

Classic Justin Wilcox

BrightBear said:

---

It doesn't matter and SHOULDN'T matter because of all the destruction that went into this program. You LOST a Heisman candidate, a WR1, NFL Draft picks and the list goes on.

Classic Justin Wilcox

---

We've ADDED a future Heisman candidate that has more upside than the previous one, and added several draft picks like Masses and Austin. That's how we were able to beat a top 15 team on the road, something which the current Heisman candidate, WR1, NFL Draft picks that left were not able to do last year.

Quote:

---

This year feels different - especially after the Louisville game. The LA Bowl was terrible - no Mendoza and Ott was MIA. Even the starters left the building in the second half. If we win at Stanfurd and play well (and win?) vs SMU, Wilcox definitely will stay

---

Wilcox is staying regardless of what happens in the last 2 regular season games. Everything else is unfounded fan speculation.

Cal88 said:

---

BrightBear said:

---

It doesn't matter and SHOULDN'T matter because of all the destruction that went into this program. You LOST a Heisman candidate, a WR1, NFL Draft picks and the list goes on.

Classic Justin Wilcox

---

We've ADDED a future Heisman candidate that has more upside than the previous one, and added several draft picks like Masses and Austin. That's how we were able to beat a top 15 team on the road, something which the current Heisman candidate, WR1, NFL Draft picks that left were not able to do last year.

Quote:

---

This year feels different - especially after the Louisville game. The LA Bowl was terrible - no Mendoza and Ott was MIA. Even the starters left the building in the second half. If we win at Stanfurd and play well (and win?) vs SMU, Wilcox definitely will stay

---

Wilcox is staying regardless of what happens in the last 2 regular season games. Everything else is unfounded fan speculation.

---

We could have kept Knowlton, not hired Rivera and saved $millions for the same result. Such a waste.

This was always the danger in letting Wilcox coach in 2024 and 2025 and be the beneficiary of this incredibly easy scheduling. And despite these easy schedules he is currently 5-9 in the ACC and we are talking about retaining him if he gets to 6-10.

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BrightBear said:

---

It doesn't matter and SHOULDN'T matter because of all the destruction that went into this program. You LOST a Heisman candidate, a WR1, NFL Draft picks and the list goes on.

Classic Justin Wilcox

---

We've ADDED a future Heisman candidate that has more upside than the previous one, and added several draft picks like Masses and Austin. That's how we were able to beat a top 15 team on the road, something which the current Heisman candidate, WR1, NFL Draft picks that left were not able to do last year.

Quote:

---

This year feels different - especially after the Louisville game. The LA Bowl was terrible - no Mendoza and Ott was MIA. Even the starters left the building in the second half. If we win at Stanfurd and play well (and win?) vs SMU, Wilcox definitely will stay

---

Wilcox is staying regardless of what happens in the last 2 regular season games. Everything else is unfounded fan speculation.

---

We could have kept Knowlton, not hired Rivera and saved $millions for the same result. Such a waste.

This was always the danger in letting Wilcox coach in 2024 and 2025 and be the beneficiary of this incredibly easy scheduling. And despite these easy schedules he is currently 5-9 in the ACC and we are talking about retaining him if he gets to 6-10.

---

I haven't kept up with every "Fire Wilcox" thread because . . . well, it's pretty much a constant rehash. But from what I have read, the only argument for keeping him is that Cal can't/won't spend the $$ for the buy-out. If anybody in this forum is seriously arguing to keep Wilcox at this point based on his record, I haven't seen it.

No Cal coach will ever be fired for fielding a bowl team, and especially not when the buyout is $10 million, an expense that will not be politically or economically acceptable by the administration.

Furthermore, rationally speaking, we would be better off investing millions into upgrading the talent level on offense around JKS (and retaining JKS!) than sinking $10 million into a buyout. And no, we can't do both, we don't have billionaire Cal football fans, we have a fair amount of affluent alums but not one donor who would plunk $10 million because he wants Wilcox gone, on top of the several millions it will take to retain JKS and build up the talent pool on the team.

The cost/benefit calculus does not justify firing Wilcox, that is the cold fact here.

The other aspect here is that what happened earlier in Wilcox' tenure doesn't matter nearly that much, not when we could field a team with the most talented QB in the NCAA next year and a decent supporting cast.

Cal88 said:

---

No Cal coach will ever be fired for fielding a bowl team, and especially not when the buyout is $10 million, an expense that will not be politically or economically acceptable by the administration.

Furthermore, rationally speaking, we would be better off investing millions into upgrading the talent level on offense around JKS (and retaining JKS!) than sinking $10 million into a buyout. And no, we can't do both, we don't have billionaire Cal football fans, we have a fair amount of affluent alums but not one donor who would plunk $10 million because he wants Wilcox gone, on top of the several millions it will take to retain JKS and build up the talent pool on the team.

The cost/benefit calculus does not justify firing Wilcox, that is the cold fact here.

The other aspect here is that what happened earlier in Wilcox' tenure doesn't matter nearly that much, not when we could field a team with the most talented QB in the NCAA next year and a decent supporting cast.

---

Not so sure about that: Being a "bowl team" ain't what it used to be. Nor is a $10 million buyout. And that "better to spend it on NIL" strategy hasn't worked out all that well the past two seasons.

I do not think we will get the money for the talent upgrades you are projecting, other than for JKS, because most of the fan base is convinced that giving Wilcox NIL money is throwing good money after bad. I also think that for the biggest needs, which are the OL and the DL, the money we have available is not solely determinative, because you have to try and fill the bulk of those positions from high school recruiting, not from the portal, and the Wilcox record, both in terms of wins and in terms of developing those positions to go to the NFL, is mediocre at best. You have to change the narrative around the program, and the only way to do that is to get a new coach.

HearstMining said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BrightBear said:

---

It doesn't matter and SHOULDN'T matter because of all the destruction that went into this program. You LOST a Heisman candidate, a WR1, NFL Draft picks and the list goes on.

Classic Justin Wilcox

---

We've ADDED a future Heisman candidate that has more upside than the previous one, and added several draft picks like Masses and Austin. That's how we were able to beat a top 15 team on the road, something which the current Heisman candidate, WR1, NFL Draft picks that left were not able to do last year.

Quote:

---

This year feels different - especially after the Louisville game. The LA Bowl was terrible - no Mendoza and Ott was MIA. Even the starters left the building in the second half. If we win at Stanfurd and play well (and win?) vs SMU, Wilcox definitely will stay

---

Wilcox is staying regardless of what happens in the last 2 regular season games. Everything else is unfounded fan speculation.

---

We could have kept Knowlton, not hired Rivera and saved $millions for the same result. Such a waste.

This was always the danger in letting Wilcox coach in 2024 and 2025 and be the beneficiary of this incredibly easy scheduling. And despite these easy schedules he is currently 5-9 in the ACC and we are talking about retaining him if he gets to 6-10.

---

I haven't kept up with every "Fire Wilcox" thread because . . . well, it's pretty much a constant rehash. But from what I have read, the only argument for keeping him is that Cal can't/won't spend the $$ for the buy-out. If anybody in this forum is seriously arguing to keep Wilcox at this point based on his record, I haven't seen it.

---

Many have. See Cal88 above. The whole question of "how many wins does Wilcox need to be retained" or "he needs to win Big Game" "Cal won't fire a coach that goes to a bowl game" assumes there is a record that would get him fired and that we can and will pay for a new coach (Wilcox gets most of his money whether we keep him or not, but he gets LESS if we fire him) if we did.

calumnus said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BrightBear said:

---

It doesn't matter and SHOULDN'T matter because of all the destruction that went into this program. You LOST a Heisman candidate, a WR1, NFL Draft picks and the list goes on.

Classic Justin Wilcox

---

We've ADDED a future Heisman candidate that has more upside than the previous one, and added several draft picks like Masses and Austin. That's how we were able to beat a top 15 team on the road, something which the current Heisman candidate, WR1, NFL Draft picks that left were not able to do last year.

Quote:

---

This year feels different - especially after the Louisville game. The LA Bowl was terrible - no Mendoza and Ott was MIA. Even the starters left the building in the second half. If we win at Stanfurd and play well (and win?) vs SMU, Wilcox definitely will stay

---

Wilcox is staying regardless of what happens in the last 2 regular season games. Everything else is unfounded fan speculation.

---

We could have kept Knowlton, not hired Rivera and saved $millions for the same result. Such a waste.

This was always the danger in letting Wilcox coach in 2024 and 2025 and be the beneficiary of this incredibly easy scheduling. And despite these easy schedules he is currently 5-9 in the ACC and we are talking about retaining him if he gets to 6-10.

---

I haven't kept up with every "Fire Wilcox" thread because . . . well, it's pretty much a constant rehash. But from what I have read, the only argument for keeping him is that Cal can't/won't spend the $$ for the buy-out. If anybody in this forum is seriously arguing to keep Wilcox at this point based on his record, I haven't seen it.

---

Many have. See Cal88 above. The whole question of "how many wins does Wilcox need to be retained" or "he needs to win Big Game" "Cal won't fire a coach that goes to a bowl game" assumes there is a record that would get him fired and that we can and will pay for a new coach (Wilcox gets most of his money whether we keep him or not, but he gets LESS if we fire him) if we did.

---

I think you need to separate what posters would like to see happen and what they see as the reality of Cal football/athletics. I can't speak for Cal88, but I am willing to bet Cal88 and likely others agree with me that Wilcox would have and should have been terminated long ago at any normal, power-conference football school that takes their athletic programs seriously and thus had the infrastructure in place to handle his buyout. Reality is that Cal is not that school. Moreover, since Cal is not that school, any coach that is bowl eligible and wins more Big Games than they lose, runs a program without any scandals, academic issues, etc. then there is likely no institutional desire and maybe not even any institutional awareness that a change needs to be made. That's Cal sports reality.

That's why these incessant "Wilcox must be fired if this or that" are pointless. What makes sense in the "normal" athletic program world doesn't fully apply to Cal.

calumnus said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BrightBear said:

---

It doesn't matter and SHOULDN'T matter because of all the destruction that went into this program. You LOST a Heisman candidate, a WR1, NFL Draft picks and the list goes on.

Classic Justin Wilcox

---

We've ADDED a future Heisman candidate that has more upside than the previous one, and added several draft picks like Masses and Austin. That's how we were able to beat a top 15 team on the road, something which the current Heisman candidate, WR1, NFL Draft picks that left were not able to do last year.

Quote:

---

This year feels different - especially after the Louisville game. The LA Bowl was terrible - no Mendoza and Ott was MIA. Even the starters left the building in the second half. If we win at Stanfurd and play well (and win?) vs SMU, Wilcox definitely will stay

---

Wilcox is staying regardless of what happens in the last 2 regular season games. Everything else is unfounded fan speculation.

---

We could have kept Knowlton, not hired Rivera and saved $millions for the same result. Such a waste.

This was always the danger in letting Wilcox coach in 2024 and 2025 and be the beneficiary of this incredibly easy scheduling. And despite these easy schedules he is currently 5-9 in the ACC and we are talking about retaining him if he gets to 6-10.

---

I haven't kept up with every "Fire Wilcox" thread because . . . well, it's pretty much a constant rehash. But from what I have read, the only argument for keeping him is that Cal can't/won't spend the $$ for the buy-out. If anybody in this forum is seriously arguing to keep Wilcox at this point based on his record, I haven't seen it.

---

Many have. See Cal88 above. The whole question of "how many wins does Wilcox need to be retained" or "he needs to win Big Game" "Cal won't fire a coach that goes to a bowl game" assumes there is a record that would get him fired and that we can and will pay for a new coach (Wilcox gets most of his money whether we keep him or not, but he gets LESS if we fire him) if we did.

---

Its a bit of conjecture, no? I think if there was any kind of push or desire to fire Wilcox, surely someone connected to the Atheltic Dept. would have said or leaked something. I am in the camp that, if we win out, or even if we beat Stanfurd and lose to SMU - he stays. If we lose both, well then I think there may be a push to sack him.

If we win out, or get one win in two, we will be in some kind of purgatory. Good enough for a pointless bowl; not bad enough to change coaches. This IS Cal.

philly1121 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

BrightBear said:

---

It doesn't matter and SHOULDN'T matter because of all the destruction that went into this program. You LOST a Heisman candidate, a WR1, NFL Draft picks and the list goes on.

Classic Justin Wilcox

---

We've ADDED a future Heisman candidate that has more upside than the previous one, and added several draft picks like Masses and Austin. That's how we were able to beat a top 15 team on the road, something which the current Heisman candidate, WR1, NFL Draft picks that left were not able to do last year.

Quote:

---

This year feels different - especially after the Louisville game. The LA Bowl was terrible - no Mendoza and Ott was MIA. Even the starters left the building in the second half. If we win at Stanfurd and play well (and win?) vs SMU, Wilcox definitely will stay

---

Wilcox is staying regardless of what happens in the last 2 regular season games. Everything else is unfounded fan speculation.

---

We could have kept Knowlton, not hired Rivera and saved $millions for the same result. Such a waste.

This was always the danger in letting Wilcox coach in 2024 and 2025 and be the beneficiary of this incredibly easy scheduling. And despite these easy schedules he is currently 5-9 in the ACC and we are talking about retaining him if he gets to 6-10.

---

I haven't kept up with every "Fire Wilcox" thread because . . . well, it's pretty much a constant rehash. But from what I have read, the only argument for keeping him is that Cal can't/won't spend the $$ for the buy-out. If anybody in this forum is seriously arguing to keep Wilcox at this point based on his record, I haven't seen it.

---

Many have. See Cal88 above. The whole question of "how many wins does Wilcox need to be retained" or "he needs to win Big Game" "Cal won't fire a coach that goes to a bowl game" assumes there is a record that would get him fired and that we can and will pay for a new coach (Wilcox gets most of his money whether we keep him or not, but he gets LESS if we fire him) if we did.

---

Its a bit of conjecture, no? I think if there was any kind of push or desire to fire Wilcox, surely someone connected to the Atheltic Dept. would have said or leaked something. I am in the camp that, if we win out, or even if we beat Stanfurd and lose to SMU - he stays. If we lose both, well then I think there may be a push to sack him.

If we win out, or get one win in two, we will be in some kind of purgatory. Good enough for a pointless bowl; not bad enough to change coaches. This IS Cal.

---

Being "Cal" and rewarding and defending 7 years of losing with Wilcox is what got us left behind when the Pac-12 imploded and we got thrown a life preserver with a partial ACC share, but only after NC State flipped their vote.
Supposedly that all ended when, Lyons, our first chancellor who is an alumnus and fan in the history of the school took over in Sumner of 2024. Then supposed that ended when Lyons hired Rivera as GM earlier this year. Then supposedly that all ended when Rivera was finally "given the keys" months later and Knowlton retired.

If we are going to act like nothing has changed and continue to do nothing, we might as well have let Knowlton continue to do nothing. We are spending $millions trying to turn Wilcox into something he has proven he is not, a winning coach, instead of spending that on a winning coach, or at least someone who hasn't proven he is not.

The ACC is a life preserver, but we need to pull ourselves to the boat and pull ourselves onto the boat and get moving. Floundering around in the water thinking we are saved because we are holding a life preserver is foolish. We are still in stormy water, the sharks are circling and the next big wave is coming. We can't pretend like everything is "good enough."

When people suggest change i often ask "" then what"

You sure the replacement would be better? What else might change if you make the change? What is it that we dont kniw that we dont know?

I am not a JW fan as he is an average coach and i think we could do better, but until you can show me the next coach is the second coming of lou saban i aint gunna just jp and fire his @#$

Oakbear said:

---

When people suggest change i often ask "" then what"

You sure the replacement would be better? What else might change if you make the change? What is it that we dont kniw that we dont know?

I am not a JW fan as he is an average coach and i think we could do better, but until you can show me the next coach is the second coming of lou saban i aint gunna just jp and fire his @#$

---

Wilcox is not an average coach. He is well below average-- mediocre at best.

"[W]ell below average-- mediocre at best."

There's a lot of that going around.

Oakbear said:

---

When people suggest change i often ask "" then what"

You sure the replacement would be better? What else might change if you make the change? What is it that we dont kniw that we dont know?

I am not a JW fan as he is an average coach and i think we could do better, but until you can show me the next coach is the second coming of lou saban i aint gunna just jp and fire his @#$

---

Wilcox went 21-37 the Pac-12.

Wilcox has gone 5-9 in the ACC with much easier schedules.

Fairly consistent.

He basically loses nearly twice as many conference games as he wins. Boosted by going 3-1 OOC playing mostly G5 and an FCS team every year.

Over 9 years his offenses have consistently been among the nation's worst. Currently we are #104, but #135 and second to last in rushing. If wins and offense sells tickets we have seen the results with declining attendance over his 9 years.

Of course any change implies some risk, but if we were really satisfied with the status quo we could have just have kept Knowlton.

Are you satisfied enough with Wilcox to extend him? Because if you don't think he is the right coach for 2028 you are only putting off the day you inevitably take a chance on a new coach and will have only wasted 2 years in the meantime (though there is no way we just play out his contract).

calumnus said:

---

Oakbear said:

---

When people suggest change i often ask "" then what"

You sure the replacement would be better? What else might change if you make the change? What is it that we dont kniw that we dont know?

I am not a JW fan as he is an average coach and i think we could do better, but until you can show me the next coach is the second coming of lou saban i aint gunna just jp and fire his @#$

---

Wilcox went 21-37 the Pac-12.

Wilcox has gone 5-9 in the ACC with much easier schedules.

Fairly consistent.

He basically loses nearly twice as many conference games as he wins. Boosted by going 3-1 OOC playing mostly G5 and an FCS team every year.

Over 9 years his offenses have consistently been among the nation's worst. Currently we are #104, but #135 and second to last in rushing. If wins and offense sells tickets we have seen the results with declining attendance over his 9 years.

Of course any change implies some risk, but if we were really satisfied with the status quo we could have just have kept Knowlton.

Are you satisfied enough with Wilcox to extend him? Because if you don't think he is the right coach for 2028 you are only putting off the day you inevitably take a chance on a new coach and will have only wasted 2 years in the meantime (though there is no way we just play out his contract).

---

A lot of really key points. Very consistent. Consistently bad to below average. The offense in particular has been awful many seasons as you correctly point out.

His record is poor but very poor in conference games with peer P4 schools.

The biggest impediment to his removal has been the contract. The last 2 years of his contract are guaranteed. Cal is going to pay his salary regardless. There is no buyout. No lump sum that must be paid upfront. That of course could change if Wilcox and Cal agree to a settled agreement which could reduce the total but likely paid up front and have no clause for mitigation.

Knowlton who is gone was the architect of that ridiculous contract and much less qualified to select the next HC if Wilcox is removed. Rivera now in charge along with a supportive Rich Lyons in the Chancelllors seat.

And yes it is generally considered very harmful to recruiting to have a coach on a short contract. Extensions are generally provided to help create some stability to help recruiting. Wilcox has not earned an extension. So do you go into the final 2 years of his contract as is?

As noted there is risk in changing the HC. But there is risk in staying the course as well. We will see soon enough regarding Wilcox. This team can still get to 8 wins.9 if they win the bowl game. That could be a nice record but this team does not pass the eye test. The schedule has been light. I do not know what Ron will do. What his plan is if Wilcox is terminated or otherwise leaves. That is where we have to trust. Tust is a hard thing in regards to Cal football. But there are new players involved now. Qualified and supportive. That ensures nothing but is better by multitudes over what was here previously.

There is always some risk. But what are the potential rewards. There is a track record with Wilcox. If that trend continues Cal is very likely to be on the outside in realignment. That is why IMO finding a new HC is crucial. The risk in this case is worth taking. I hope Ron takes it.

6956bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Oakbear said:

---

When people suggest change i often ask "" then what"

You sure the replacement would be better? What else might change if you make the change? What is it that we dont kniw that we dont know?

I am not a JW fan as he is an average coach and i think we could do better, but until you can show me the next coach is the second coming of lou saban i aint gunna just jp and fire his @#$

---

Wilcox went 21-37 the Pac-12.

Wilcox has gone 5-9 in the ACC with much easier schedules.

Fairly consistent.

He basically loses nearly twice as many conference games as he wins. Boosted by going 3-1 OOC playing mostly G5 and an FCS team every year.

Over 9 years his offenses have consistently been among the nation's worst. Currently we are #104, but #135 and second to last in rushing. If wins and offense sells tickets we have seen the results with declining attendance over his 9 years.

Of course any change implies some risk, but if we were really satisfied with the status quo we could have just have kept Knowlton.

Are you satisfied enough with Wilcox to extend him? Because if you don't think he is the right coach for 2028 you are only putting off the day you inevitably take a chance on a new coach and will have only wasted 2 years in the meantime (though there is no way we just play out his contract).

---

A lot of really key points. Very consistent. Consistently bad to below average. The offense in particular has been awful many seasons as you correctly point out.

His record is poor but very poor in conference games with peer P4 schools.

The biggest impediment to his removal has been the contract. The last 2 years of his contract are guaranteed. Cal is going to pay his salary regardless. There is no buyout. No lump sum that must be paid upfront. That of course could change if Wilcox and Cal agree to a settled agreement which could reduce the total but likely paid up front and have no clause for mitigation.

Knowlton who is gone was the architect of that ridiculous contract and much less qualified to select the next HC if Wilcox is removed. Rivera now in charge along with a supportive Rich Lyons in the Chancelllors seat.

And yes it is generally considered very harmful to recruiting to have a coach on a short contract. Extensions are generally provided to help create some stability to help recruiting. Wilcox has not earned an extension. So do you go into the final 2 years of his contract as is?

As noted there is risk in changing the HC. But there is risk in staying the course as well. We will see soon enough regarding Wilcox. This team can still get to 8 wins.9 if they win the bowl game. That could be a nice record but this team does not pass the eye test. The schedule has been light. I do not know what Ron will do. What his plan is if Wilcox is terminated or otherwise leaves. That is where we have to trust. Tust is a hard thing in regards to Cal football. But there are new players involved now. Qualified and supportive. That ensures nothing but is better by multitudes over what was here previously.

There is always some risk. But what are the potential rewards. There is a track record with Wilcox. If that trend continues Cal is very likely to be on the outside in realignment. That is why IMO finding a new HC is crucial. The risk in this case is worth taking. I hope Ron takes it.

---

The Wilcox trend is a cup and handle.

MiZery said:

---

5-3 in ACC. 8-4 overall

Depending on how other teams in the league play- but best case scenario is a gator bowl victory.

Worst case would be a Sun Bowl

Would either of those bowls get JW another
year?

---

This is why I love Cal fans.
Hope springs eternal

How many on this board gave SDS any hope of keeping the Cal v. SDS even close.
Of course check that game as a W for Cal. Bet the farm.

Too Bad Cal got BLOWN OUT
There followed an avalanche of doom and gloom on this board.
Cal had a GREAT game against Louisville. Clearly the best game for Cal on both sides of the ball.
Now many of the posters on this board are expecting Cal to run the table.

Let's not forget that Stanfurd is a better team than they were last year.
Let's not forget that SMU is one of the best teams in the ACC.
Let's not forget the poor performance that Cal has had in postseason games in the last few years.

So let's take the next three games One at a time.
Let's focus on beating Stanfurd.
Only then should we worry about SMU.
And only then worry about the bowl game.

furd game could be a trap game, they are probably not as good as we are, but not far off

we come off a bye, a win for them makes the season much better for them

sad, but I don't trust JW as much of a motivator as too often in clutch times we don't come thru

hope I am wrong

GivemTheAxe said:

---

MiZery said:

---

5-3 in ACC. 8-4 overall

Depending on how other teams in the league play- but best case scenario is a gator bowl victory.

Worst case would be a Sun Bowl

Would either of those bowls get JW another
year?

---

This is why I love Cal fans.
Hope springs eternal

How many on this board gave SDS any hope of keeping the Cal v. SDS even close.
Of course check that game as a W for Cal. Bet the farm.

Too Bad Cal got BLOWN OUT
There followed an avalanche of doom and gloom on this board.
Cal had a GREAT game against Louisville. Clearly the best game for Cal on both sides of the ball.
Now many of the posters on this board are expecting Cal to run the table.

Let's not forget that Stanfurd is a better team than they were last year.
Let's not forget that SMU is one of the best teams in the ACC.
Let's not forget the poor performance that Cal has had in postseason games in the last few years.

So let's take the next three games One at a time.
Let's focus on beating Stanfurd.
Only then should we worry about SMU.
And only then worry about the bowl game.

---

You got that right. We all need to remember that Wilcox is still our head coach, so optimism is never appropriate.