...to hire an offensive coordinator who would succeed here. He hired one coordinator who did a good job for part of a season but did not stick around. Just under a year ago, he sealed his own fate when he hired a coordinator who drove off the vast majority of offensive playmakers.

chazzed said:

---

...to hire an offensive coordinator who would succeed here. He hired one coordinator who did a good job for part of a season but did not stick around. Just under a year ago, he sealed his own fate when he hired a coordinator who drove off the vast majority of offensive playmakers.

---

It is when Spavital left/was forced out that was terrible. This was going to be Wilcox's 4 OC, his third in 3 years. Rather than doing a search and trying to get the hire right this time, Wilcox just promoted his OL coach, Bloesch to OC permanently and not just for the Bowl Game. Bloesch had only been a co-offensive coordinator a single year at North Texas before the staff was fired. Then the offense in the bowl game was absolutely terrible. However,.Wilcox did not change his decision for the coming year. Worse, he did not even bother to backfill for the OL position.

And it was a critical year for Cal. Our first in the ACC. Cal Legends had supplied Wilcox with 2 Top 20 Portal classes in a row. We returned Ott, who lead the Pac-12 in rushing, plus The Jet who looked even better. Mendoza emerged as a top college QB, eliminating the turnovers that was his biggest flaw as a redshirt freshman. We had young 4 star WRs. A great receiving TE. Cal boosters did a national billboard campaign. The Calgorithm got national attention and ESPN finally brought Game Day to Berkeley and the students KILLED it, we even had Miami on the ropes…. We choked away 4 games that we were winning…. Winning 6 when 10 was in reach,

Then yes, given yet another chance, hiring his 5th OC, his 4th in 4 years he hired Harsin, his buddy from Boise who had run off all the talent at Auburn, was reportedly investigated for claims of racism, and got fired for losing, plus he hired Rolovich, who was fired at his previous job, as an offensive assistant too, though it was not obvious how they would mesh their very different offenses. Wilcox let Harsin fire the young African American coaches that were Cal's best offensive recruiters and replaced them with his own guys with the same result as happened at Auburn: Every single player in the RB and WR room hit the Portal and he mostly replaced them with guys from the the MWC with 2 starters from FCS Idaho, and not even their best players. Mini turned out to be good, but he only had 5 catches at Idaho, so basically we got lucky. DeJesus was UNLV's second WR and kick return specialist. True freshman QB Sagapolutele turned out to be great, but we had little talent around him. The offense is #111 in yards per play, #136 (last) in rushing yards and yards per carry. Wilcox again won six games but again lost 4 very winnable games, including embarrassing losses to San Diego State, Stanford, Virginia Tech and Duke.

Just wasted opportunity after wasted opportunity.

calumnus said:

---

Just wasted opportunity after wasted opportunity.

---

I have a friend who is a big Boise donor.

They NEVER want to see Wilcox again. And we kept him for almost 10 years.

That's how poorly run Cal football has been...

He is gone. So should the multitude of posts hashing and rehashing his history. Let's just move on.

That is a great recap of the oc fiasco and a nice anecdote for the pumping sometimes seen

You got your wish - he's fired, yet you still found a reason to ***** and moan

Well he was moderately more successful than most of the coaches since Waldorf. It could be argued that his tenure saved us a couple of non-productive buyouts of other failed coaches.

Quote:

---

Well he was moderately more successful than most of the coaches since Waldorf. It could be argued that his tenure saved us a couple of non-productive buyouts of other failed coaches.

---

He was better than Levy, Kapp, Gilbertson, Holmoe and Dykes. Not as good as Willsey (but it's close), White, Snyder, Mariucci and Tedford. About even with Theder. So pitting him against the other post Pappy coaches he's 5-4-1. Admittedly other opinions may vary depending on which metrics you use.

CALiforniALUM said:

---

He is gone. So should the multitude of posts hashing and rehashing his history. Let's just move on.

---

After a tenure of about 10 years - a run that ended only about a week ago -- post mortem and analysis is appropriate. The debate will shift after the new HC is hired.

Finnish Oski said:

---

Quote:

---

Well he was moderately more successful than most of the coaches since Waldorf. It could be argued that his tenure saved us a couple of non-productive buyouts of other failed coaches.

---

He was better than Levy, Kapp, Gilbertson, Holmoe and Dykes. Not as good as Willsey (but it's close), White, Snyder, Mariucci and Tedford. About even with Theder. So pitting him against the other post Pappy coaches he's 5-4-1. Admittedly other opinions may vary depending on which metrics you use.

---

Was Wilcox better than Dykes?

Records-wise, yes.

But Dykes had to deal with the APR situation being in the toilet. That 1 win in 2013 will always haunt him. But that he was able to go to 8 wins just 2 seasons later was impressive. I know there were issues with Dykes, but he deserves a lot of credit for drastically improving the APR situation.

Speaking of which, Dykes' best 3-year stretch was 18-19 (his final 3 seasons, of course).

Wilcox's best 3-year stretch was slightly better: 20-18 (his first 3 seasons).

It's hard to compare because Wilcox coached in the NIL era.

But Dykes faced stiffer competition from our rivals.

For comparison purposes, I have added up Stanford, UCLA and USC's wins and losses from 2013-2016 for Dykes and from 2017-2019 and 2021-2023 for Wilcox. (These are the seasons when we faced all 3 of our rivals -- back when USC and UCLA were our rivals.)

Stanford went 40-13 (75%) from 2013-2016.
Stanford went 31-44 (41%) from 2017-2019 and from 2021-2023.

(Dykes went 0-4 vs. Stanford. Wilcox went 4-2 vs. Stanford during this stretch.)


UCLA went 32-19 (63%) from 2013-2016.
UCLA went 38-37 (51%) from 2017-2019 and from 2021-2023.

(Dykes went 1-3 vs. UCLA. Wilcox went 2-4 vs. UCLA during this stretch.)


USC went 37-17 (69%) from 2013-2016.
USC went 47-31 (60%) from 2017-2019 and from 2021-2023.

(Dykes went 0-4 vs. USC. Wilcox went 2-4 vs. USC during this stretch.)

CALiforniALUM said:

---

He is gone. So should the multitude of posts hashing and rehashing his history. Let's just move on.

---

I think it's important to get into the nitty gritty of what happened.

I see too many people on social media who think Wilcox overachieved with his hands tied behind his back. And that Ron Rivera, who didn't have a winning record in the NFL, shouldn't be deciding the fate of a good head coach.

These same kinds of people have for years been saying we shouldn't have fired Tedford. But when you get down to it, Tedford's firing was more than justified.

BearoutEast67 said:

---

You got your wish - he's fired, yet you still found a reason to ***** and moan

---

Need to offset all the folks going on about what a great man and fine coach he was.

calumnus said:

---

chazzed said:

---

...to hire an offensive coordinator who would succeed here. He hired one coordinator who did a good job for part of a season but did not stick around. Just under a year ago, he sealed his own fate when he hired a coordinator who drove off the vast majority of offensive playmakers.

---

It is when Spavital left/was forced out that was terrible. This was going to be Wilcox's 4 OC, his third in 3 years. Rather than doing a search and trying to get the hire right this time, Wilcox just promoted his OL coach, Bloesch to OC permanently and not just for the Bowl Game. Bloesch had only been a co-offensive coordinator a single year at North Texas before the staff was fired. Then the offense in the bowl game was absolutely terrible. However,.Wilcox did not change his decision for the coming year. Worse, he did not even bother to backfill for the OL position.

And it was a critical year for Cal. Our first in the ACC. Cal Legends had supplied Wilcox with 2 Top 20 Portal classes in a row. We returned Ott, who lead the Pac-12 in rushing, plus The Jet who looked even better. Mendoza emerged as a top college QB, eliminating the turnovers that was his biggest flaw as a redshirt freshman. We had young 4 star WRs. A great receiving TE. Cal boosters did a national billboard campaign. The Calgorithm got national attention and ESPN finally brought Game Day to Berkeley and the students KILLED it, we even had Miami on the ropes…. We choked away 4 games that we were winning…. Winning 6 when 10 was in reach,

Then yes, given yet another chance, hiring his 5th OC, his 4th in 4 years he hired Harsin, his buddy from Boise who had run off all the talent at Auburn, was reportedly investigated for claims of racism, and got fired for losing, plus he hired Rolovich, who was fired at his previous job, as an offensive assistant too, though it was not obvious how they would mesh their very different offenses. Wilcox let Harsin fire the young African American coaches that were Cal's best offensive recruiters and replaced them with his own guys with the same result as happened at Auburn: Every single player in the RB and WR room hit the Portal and he mostly replaced them with guys from the the MWC with 2 starters from FCS Idaho, and not even their best players. Mini turned out to be good, but he only had 5 catches at Idaho, so basically we got lucky. DeJesus was UNLV's second WR and kick return specialist. True freshman QB Sagapolutele turned out to be great, but we had little talent around him. The offense is #111 in yards per play, #136 (last) in rushing yards and yards per carry. Wilcox again won six games but again lost 4 very winnable games, including embarrassing losses to San Diego State, Stanford, Virginia Tech and Duke.

Just wasted opportunity after wasted opportunity.

---

The Spavital situation was baffling. Best offense we'd ever had under Wilcox and he leaves and we replace him with the OL coach? It was impossible to understand how the program was being managed.

There were unrevealed but serious reasons why Spavital had to go.

Wilcox handled it professionally.

What's missing from this thread is that Wilcox was forced to endure massive challenges that were arguably worse than those facing any other programs.

And notably, he had to try and overcome these with inept and unqualified administrative support from 2 athletic directors who were abysmal.

In his 9-year tenure at Cal, he only had this year, with Lyons and Rivera here, when there was any competent support from the University.

Cal may indeed hire a new HC who can win more games here, albeit with fewer obstacles and more support.

But it's highly unlikely that we get a man with so many stellar qualities: smart, humble, hard-working, tenacious, well-respected, and loyal.

Cal ground him down, just like it has to so many others over the years.

Wilcox will never likely get the deserved respect he warrants for doing as well as he did.

Virtually anyone who ever spent time with him and knows how horrid Cal has been agrees.

I don't disagree that Cal's administration sucked for his entire tenure, but why didn't anything improve in the year he had without that?

And if Spavital had to go for non-football reasons, why the lazy replacement strategy of just promoting the OL coach and having him do two jobs?

At some point the defenses of Wilcox just don't hold up to scrutiny. Maybe he was a super nice and honorable guy but that isn't the job.

sycasey said:

---

I don't disagree that Cal's administration sucked for his entire tenure, but why didn't anything improve in the year he had without that?

And if Spavital had to go for non-football reasons, why the lazy replacement strategy of just promoting the OL coach and having him do two jobs?

At some point the defenses of Wilcox just don't hold up to scrutiny. Maybe he was a super nice and honorable guy but that isn't the job.

---

I was told in a message that Wilcox fired Spavital for drinking too much. Note that the offense immediately began sucking when he left and Spavital has had good offenses at Baylor and has been retained since. If he drinks and smokes weed, but delivers a good offense, why do we care? If there is a victim involved, that is another issue, but then that is the issue, not the drinking.

Then Wilcox had a guy who was really a first time solo OC try to do two jobs while at same time having two DB coaches (not including himself). And made no corrections after that failed in the bowl game. Then the next (this) year he overcompensates and hires two OCs? Two OCs with completely different systems?

The biggest reason the Cal administration "sucked" was giving him multiple raises and extensions after losing seasons and giving him free rein to arrange his staff as he saw fit without any oversight. Sure, a competent AD would have provided better management oversight, but that does not excuse Wilcox's mismanagement.

califortunate said:

---

There were unrevealed but serious reasons why Spavital had to go.

Wilcox handled it professionally.

What's missing from this thread is that Wilcox was forced to endure massive challenges that were arguably worse than those facing any other programs.

And notably, he had to try and overcome these with inept and unqualified administrative support from 2 athletic directors who were abysmal.

In his 9-year tenure at Cal, he only had this year, with Lyons and Rivera here, when there was any competent support from the University.

Cal may indeed hire a new HC who can win more games here, albeit with fewer obstacles and more support.

But it's highly unlikely that we get a man with so many stellar qualities: smart, humble, hard-working, tenacious, well-respected, and loyal.

Cal ground him down, just like it has to so many others over the years.

Wilcox will never likely get the deserved respect he warrants for doing as well as he did.

Virtually anyone who ever spent time with him and knows how horrid Cal has been agrees.

---

Complete BS.

He's spot on pal. Particularly about Spavital. Old news.

In his 3rd year Dykes went 8-5 against the #13 schedule, but the next year he went 5-7 against the #6 schedule and got fired because he reportedly interviewed at Baylor.

In his 3rd year Wilcox went 8-5 against the #42 schedule, but the next full year went 5-7 against the #83 schedule and got a extended 6 years because he reportedly interviewed at Oregon.

okaydo said:

---

Finnish Oski said:

---

Quote:

---

Well he was moderately more successful than most of the coaches since Waldorf. It could be argued that his tenure saved us a couple of non-productive buyouts of other failed coaches.

---

He was better than Levy, Kapp, Gilbertson, Holmoe and Dykes. Not as good as Willsey (but it's close), White, Snyder, Mariucci and Tedford. About even with Theder. So pitting him against the other post Pappy coaches he's 5-4-1. Admittedly other opinions may vary depending on which metrics you use.

---

Was Wilcox better than Dykes?

Records-wise, yes.

But Dykes had to deal with the APR situation being in the toilet. That 1 win in 2013 will always haunt him. But that he was able to go to 8 wins just 2 seasons later was impressive. I know there were issues with Dykes, but he deserves a lot of credit for drastically improving the APR situation.

Speaking of which, Dykes' best 3-year stretch was 18-19 (his final 3 seasons, of course).

Wilcox's best 3-year stretch was slightly better: 20-18 (his first 3 seasons).

It's hard to compare because Wilcox coached in the NIL era.

But Dykes faced stiffer competition from our rivals.

For comparison purposes, I have added up Stanford, UCLA and USC's wins and losses from 2013-2016 for Dykes and from 2017-2019 and 2021-2023 for Wilcox. (These are the seasons when we faced all 3 of our rivals -- back when USC and UCLA were our rivals.)

Stanford went 40-13 (75%) from 2013-2016.
Stanford went 31-44 (41%) from 2017-2019 and from 2021-2023.

(Dykes went 0-4 vs. Stanford. Wilcox went 4-2 vs. Stanford during this stretch.)


UCLA went 32-19 (63%) from 2013-2016.
UCLA went 38-37 (51%) from 2017-2019 and from 2021-2023.

(Dykes went 1-3 vs. UCLA. Wilcox went 2-4 vs. UCLA during this stretch.)


USC went 37-17 (69%) from 2013-2016.
USC went 47-31 (60%) from 2017-2019 and from 2021-2023.

(Dykes went 0-4 vs. USC. Wilcox went 2-4 vs. USC during this stretch.)

You make some good points. Frankly, at least we moved the ball with Sonny. Many of the games were actually exciting.
Too many games in the Wilcox era were flat out boring.
This year would have been one big bore if not for JKS.
JKS saved us. Now we must do him the favor of hiring
a great coach and staff as well as recruit talented players
around him. Go Bears!

---

califortunate said:

---

There were unrevealed but serious reasons why Spavital had to go.

Wilcox handled it professionally.

What's missing from this thread is that Wilcox was forced to endure massive challenges that were arguably worse than those facing any other programs.

And notably, he had to try and overcome these with inept and unqualified administrative support from 2 athletic directors who were abysmal.

In his 9-year tenure at Cal, he only had this year, with Lyons and Rivera here, when there was any competent support from the University.

Cal may indeed hire a new HC who can win more games here, albeit with fewer obstacles and more support.

But it's highly unlikely that we get a man with so many stellar qualities: smart, humble, hard-working, tenacious, well-respected, and loyal.

Cal ground him down, just like it has to so many others over the years.

Wilcox will never likely get the deserved respect he warrants for doing as well as he did.

Virtually anyone who ever spent time with him and knows how horrid Cal has been agrees.

---

I have no doubt Wilcox is a great guy. He probably endured many challenges at Cal. I'm also sure he would have never been more than a vanilla head coach. He is just not head coaching material. If you are satisfied with a good guy leading us to mediocrity year after year, fine. I'm glad we are going in a new direction. I now have some hope. But we must make
a great hire. Easier said than done. But it can be done.

Fred Bear said:

---

califortunate said:

---

Wilcox will never likely get the deserved respect he warrants for doing as well as he did.

---

He deserves none. He's one of the worst football coaches Cal ever had and he did it against weaker competition than almost all of them had to contend with.

You like him so much, go root for him at whatever his next stop is. I'm sure he'll appreciate the support.

---

2021 Arizona, 2022 Colorado, 2024 Florida State, 2025 Virginia Tech, 2025 Big Game, all losses to awful teams that we had no business losing to, and it never stopped

calumnus said:

---

chazzed said:

---

...to hire an offensive coordinator who would succeed here. He hired one coordinator who did a good job for part of a season but did not stick around. Just under a year ago, he sealed his own fate when he hired a coordinator who drove off the vast majority of offensive playmakers.

---

It is when Spavital left/was forced out that was terrible. This was going to be Wilcox's 4 OC, his third in 3 years. Rather than doing a search and trying to get the hire right this time, Wilcox just promoted his OL coach, Bloesch to OC permanently and not just for the Bowl Game. Bloesch had only been a co-offensive coordinator a single year at North Texas before the staff was fired. Then the offense in the bowl game was absolutely terrible. However,.Wilcox did not change his decision for the coming year. Worse, he did not even bother to backfill for the OL position.

And it was a critical year for Cal. Our first in the ACC. Cal Legends had supplied Wilcox with 2 Top 20 Portal classes in a row. We returned Ott, who lead the Pac-12 in rushing, plus The Jet who looked even better. Mendoza emerged as a top college QB, eliminating the turnovers that was his biggest flaw as a redshirt freshman. We had young 4 star WRs. A great receiving TE. Cal boosters did a national billboard campaign. The Calgorithm got national attention and ESPN finally brought Game Day to Berkeley and the students KILLED it, we even had Miami on the ropes…. We choked away 4 games that we were winning…. Winning 6 when 10 was in reach,

Then yes, given yet another chance, hiring his 5th OC, his 4th in 4 years he hired Harsin, his buddy from Boise who had run off all the talent at Auburn, was reportedly investigated for claims of racism, and got fired for losing, plus he hired Rolovich, who was fired at his previous job, as an offensive assistant too, though it was not obvious how they would mesh their very different offenses. Wilcox let Harsin fire the young African American coaches that were Cal's best offensive recruiters and replaced them with his own guys with the same result as happened at Auburn: Every single player in the RB and WR room hit the Portal and he mostly replaced them with guys from the the MWC with 2 starters from FCS Idaho, and not even their best players. Mini turned out to be good, but he only had 5 catches at Idaho, so basically we got lucky. DeJesus was UNLV's second WR and kick return specialist. True freshman QB Sagapolutele turned out to be great, but we had little talent around him. The offense is #111 in yards per play, #136 (last) in rushing yards and yards per carry. Wilcox again won six games but again lost 4 very winnable games, including embarrassing losses to San Diego State, Stanford, Virginia Tech and Duke.

Just wasted opportunity after wasted opportunity.

---

Thanks Calumnus. a players father told me this before the players hit the portal and was attacked when i even hinted of the possibility of bad blood on the team. That said, this was a bad experience or ending to the Wilcox era who for all i know was a very good man. I do believe he cared and was trying at the end but things were too gone to save. He has millions of reasons not to feel too bad for too long.

Strykur said:

---

Fred Bear said:

---

califortunate said:

---

Wilcox will never likely get the deserved respect he warrants for doing as well as he did.

---

He deserves none. He's one of the worst football coaches Cal ever had and he did it against weaker competition than almost all of them had to contend with.

You like him so much, go root for him at whatever his next stop is. I'm sure he'll appreciate the support.

---

2021 Arizona, 2022 Colorado, 2024 Florida State, 2025 Virginia Tech, 2025 Big Game, all losses to awful teams that we had no business losing to, and it never stopped

---

It's amazing how these 5 games defined his tenure. Win those 5 games and Wilcox would be 53-50. (Or 54-50 or 53-51 depending on if Cal wins its 2021 bowl game.)

okaydo said:

---

Strykur said:

---

Fred Bear said:

---

califortunate said:

---

Wilcox will never likely get the deserved respect he warrants for doing as well as he did.

---

He deserves none. He's one of the worst football coaches Cal ever had and he did it against weaker competition than almost all of them had to contend with.

You like him so much, go root for him at whatever his next stop is. I'm sure he'll appreciate the support.

---

2021 Arizona, 2022 Colorado, 2024 Florida State, 2025 Virginia Tech, 2025 Big Game, all losses to awful teams that we had no business losing to, and it never stopped

---

It's amazing how these 5 games defined his tenure. Win those 5 games and Wilcox would be 53-50. (Or 54-50 or 53-51 depending on if Cal wins its 2021 bowl game.)

---

Beating Arizona in 2021 makes us bowl eligible, losing to Colorado in 2022 was just absurd, 2024 Florida State went 2-10 and we were their only FBS win, and beating Va Tech (who is currently 3-8) and the trees this year puts us at 8-3 and within reach of a decent bowl...

I have said this in one form or another on this board a number of times over the years.

The expectation at Cal from people who make these decisions is the Football Team needs to win between 5 and 8 games per year. The only other hard requirement is to beat Stanford.

If the Football team wins over 8 games Great. The powers that be are happy. If the Football team wins less than 5 games, and loses to Stanford, they open their top drawer and pull out a list of potential replacements.

If Wilcox beat Stanford last week he would still be the Head Coach at Cal. It was the way he lost the game this year that sealed his fate.

The reason Wilcox was the H.C. for 9 years is because he fulfilled the requirements listed above.

Everyone here who keeps dreaming of Rose Bowls or winning 10 and 11 games per seasons are wasting their time. Go find another hobby. What you're dreaming of is not going to happen.

The powers that be at Cal do not care about the Football team, or the Athletic Department in general. Remember they tried to eliminate the Baseball team for God Sake.

If it would not be a National Embarrassment Cal would have gotten rid of the Athletic Department years ago.

They care about the title of being "The #1 Public Institution in the Country", and being revolutionaries.

That's It!!!! It's not hard to understand it's been this way for over 65 years!!!!! How much evidence do you need???

Now, Back To Our Regular Scheduled Programming!!!!

SWarren958 said:

---

I have said this in one form or another on this board a number of times over the years.

The expectation at Cal from people who make these decisions is the Football Team needs to win between 5 and 8 games per year. The only other hard requirement is to beat Stanford.

If the Football team wins over 8 games Great. The powers that be are happy. If the Football team wins less than 5 games, and loses to Stanford, they open their top drawer and pull out a list of potential replacements.

If Wilcox beat Stanford last week he would still be the Head Coach at Cal. It was the way he lost the game this year that sealed his fate.

The reason Wilcox was the H.C. for 9 years is because he fulfilled the requirements listed above.

Everyone here who keeps dreaming of Rose Bowls or winning 10 and 11 games per seasons are wasting their time. Go find another hobby. What you're dreaming of is not going to happen.

The powers that be at Cal do not care about the Football team, or the Athletic Department in general. Remember they tried to eliminate the Baseball team for God Sake.

If it would not be a National Embarrassment Cal would have gotten rid of the Athletic Department years ago.

They care about the title of being "The #1 Public Institution in the Country", and being revolutionaries.

That's It!!!! It's not hard to understand it's been this way for over 65 years!!!!! How much evidence do you need???

Now, Back To Our Regular Scheduled Programming!!!!

---

1. It was a reasonable requirement in the Pac-12 when we played tough OOC schedules and where we all got equal shares no matter how much we brought in, but it is part of what made USC want to leave and it is what got us left behind when the Pac-12 imploded.

2. Wilcox went 4-8 (2-7) in 2022 with wins only over UC Davis, UNLV, Arizona and Stanford. Sure he beat a bad Stanford team, but he did not win 5. Once Wilcox got that 6 year extension after going 5-7 there was no standard.

3. We are now in the ACC with MUCH easier schedules. The standards of the past need to be adjusted. We also cannot go back to putting our heads in the sand thinking that college football will stay as is. We need to be a team of consequence with a full stadium and good TV ratings to prove our value for the next realignment or we may well not survive.

4. Ron Rivera is in charge and was not hired to continue past administration policies, even if he is not as aggressive as a lot of us would like. Otherwise we could have just kept Knowlton in charge.

calumnus said:

---

SWarren958 said:

---

I have said this in one form or another on this board a number of times over the years.

The expectation at Cal from people who make these decisions is the Football Team needs to win between 5 and 8 games per year. The only other hard requirement is to beat Stanford.

If the Football team wins over 8 games Great. The powers that be are happy. If the Football team wins less than 5 games, and loses to Stanford, they open their top drawer and pull out a list of potential replacements.

If Wilcox beat Stanford last week he would still be the Head Coach at Cal. It was the way he lost the game this year that sealed his fate.

The reason Wilcox was the H.C. for 9 years is because he fulfilled the requirements listed above.

Everyone here who keeps dreaming of Rose Bowls or winning 10 and 11 games per seasons are wasting their time. Go find another hobby. What you're dreaming of is not going to happen.

The powers that be at Cal do not care about the Football team, or the Athletic Department in general. Remember they tried to eliminate the Baseball team for God Sake.

If it would not be a National Embarrassment Cal would have gotten rid of the Athletic Department years ago.

They care about the title of being "The #1 Public Institution in the Country", and being revolutionaries.

That's It!!!! It's not hard to understand it's been this way for over 65 years!!!!! How much evidence do you need???

Now, Back To Our Regular Scheduled Programming!!!!

---

1. It was a reasonable requirement in the Pac-12 when we played tough OOC schedules and where we all got equal shares no matter how much we brought in, but it is part of what made USC want to leave and it is what got us left behind when the Pac-12 imploded.

2. Wilcox went 4-8 (2-7) in 2022 with wins only over UC Davis, UNLV, Arizona and Stanford. Sure he beat a bad Stanford team, but he did not win 5. Once Wilcox got that 6 year extension after going 5-7 there was no standard.

3. We are now in the ACC with MUCH easier schedules. The standards of the past need to be adjusted. We also cannot go back to putting our heads in the sand thinking that college football will stay as is. We need to be a team of consequence with a full stadium and good TV ratings to prove our value for the next realignment or we may well not survive.

4. Ron Rivera is in charge and was not hired to continue past administration policies, even if he is not as aggressive as a lot of us would like. Otherwise we could have just kept Knowlton in charge.

---

Wilcox was the perfect coach for Cal - at least that is how he would have been viewed by most of our chancellors over the past 50+ years:

• Run a scandal free program - check.
• Maintain a high graduation rate - check.
• Win 5-8 games per year - check.
• Go to a bowl game approximately every other year - check.
• Win 1 or 2 bowl games per year - check.

The problem is that our administration and academic senate were embarrased by athletic success and had dreams of being a west public sector Ivy League team (though there is no Ivy League out here) or a public equivalent to University of Chicago.

Strykur said:

---

okaydo said:

---

Strykur said:

---

Fred Bear said:

---

califortunate said:

---

Wilcox will never likely get the deserved respect he warrants for doing as well as he did.

---

He deserves none. He's one of the worst football coaches Cal ever had and he did it against weaker competition than almost all of them had to contend with.

You like him so much, go root for him at whatever his next stop is. I'm sure he'll appreciate the support.

---

2021 Arizona, 2022 Colorado, 2024 Florida State, 2025 Virginia Tech, 2025 Big Game, all losses to awful teams that we had no business losing to, and it never stopped

---

It's amazing how these 5 games defined his tenure. Win those 5 games and Wilcox would be 53-50. (Or 54-50 or 53-51 depending on if Cal wins its 2021 bowl game.)

---

Beating Arizona in 2021 makes us bowl eligible, losing to Colorado in 2022 was just absurd, 2024 Florida State went 2-10 and we were their only FBS win, and beating Va Tech (who is currently 3-8) and the trees this year puts us at 8-3 and within reach of a decent bowl...

---

I'm willing to give a mulligan for the Arizona game (half the team out with COVID), but the others were unforgivable.

SWarren958 said:

---

I have said this in one form or another on this board a number of times over the years.

The expectation at Cal from people who make these decisions is the Football Team needs to win between 5 and 8 games per year. The only other hard requirement is to beat Stanford.

If the Football team wins over 8 games Great. The powers that be are happy. If the Football team wins less than 5 games, and loses to Stanford, they open their top drawer and pull out a list of potential replacements.

If Wilcox beat Stanford last week he would still be the Head Coach at Cal. It was the way he lost the game this year that sealed his fate.

The reason Wilcox was the H.C. for 9 years is because he fulfilled the requirements listed above.

Everyone here who keeps dreaming of Rose Bowls or winning 10 and 11 games per seasons are wasting their time. Go find another hobby. What you're dreaming of is not going to happen.

The powers that be at Cal do not care about the Football team, or the Athletic Department in general. Remember they tried to eliminate the Baseball team for God Sake.

If it would not be a National Embarrassment Cal would have gotten rid of the Athletic Department years ago.

They care about the title of being "The #1 Public Institution in the Country", and being revolutionaries.

That's It!!!! It's not hard to understand it's been this way for over 65 years!!!!! How much evidence do you need???

Now, Back To Our Regular Scheduled Programming!!!!

---

Joe McCarthy couldn't have said it better.

CalBarn said:

---

I have no doubt Wilcox is a great guy. He probably endured many challenges at Cal. I'm also sure he would have never been more than a vanilla head coach. He is just not head coaching material. If you are satisfied with a good guy leading us to mediocrity year after year, fine. I'm glad we are going in a new direction. I now have some hope. But we must make
a great hire. Easier said than done. But it can be done.

---

You right on! Like you, I now have hope for the first time in at least 5 years. I'm optimistic Ron can make a great hire.

okaydo said:

---

Finnish Oski said:

---

Quote:

---

Well he was moderately more successful than most of the coaches since Waldorf. It could be argued that his tenure saved us a couple of non-productive buyouts of other failed coaches.

---

He was better than Levy, Kapp, Gilbertson, Holmoe and Dykes. Not as good as Willsey (but it's close), White, Snyder, Mariucci and Tedford. About even with Theder. So pitting him against the other post Pappy coaches he's 5-4-1. Admittedly other opinions may vary depending on which metrics you use.

---

Was Wilcox better than Dykes?

Records-wise, yes.

But Dykes had to deal with the APR situation being in the toilet. That 1 win in 2013 will always haunt him. But that he was able to go to 8 wins just 2 seasons later was impressive. I know there were issues with Dykes, but he deserves a lot of credit for drastically improving the APR situation.

Speaking of which, Dykes' best 3-year stretch was 18-19 (his final 3 seasons, of course).

Wilcox's best 3-year stretch was slightly better: 20-18 (his first 3 seasons).

It's hard to compare because Wilcox coached in the NIL era.

But Dykes faced stiffer competition from our rivals.

For comparison purposes, I have added up Stanford, UCLA and USC's wins and losses from 2013-2016 for Dykes and from 2017-2019 and 2021-2023 for Wilcox. (These are the seasons when we faced all 3 of our rivals -- back when USC and UCLA were our rivals.)

Stanford went 40-13 (75%) from 2013-2016.
Stanford went 31-44 (41%) from 2017-2019 and from 2021-2023.

(Dykes went 0-4 vs. Stanford. Wilcox went 4-2 vs. Stanford during this stretch.)


UCLA went 32-19 (63%) from 2013-2016.
UCLA went 38-37 (51%) from 2017-2019 and from 2021-2023.

(Dykes went 1-3 vs. UCLA. Wilcox went 2-4 vs. UCLA during this stretch.)


USC went 37-17 (69%) from 2013-2016.
USC went 47-31 (60%) from 2017-2019 and from 2021-2023.

(Dykes went 0-4 vs. USC. Wilcox went 2-4 vs. USC during this stretch.)

---

They are on the same tier for me. Dykes had better on-field performance, despite inheriting a worse situation and playing way better competition but that is negated by the sheer number of embarrassing and horrible off-the-field things that happened: Ted Agu's death, our starting safety knocking out some frat boy, the code red situation ending with a walk-on RB being hospitalized, Pierre Ingram being arrested in a prostitution bust, etc... This might just be Tuesday morning at Georgia but to happen in our program in just 4 years is unheard of.

I think this is too narrow and too easy. It is that the powers will not embrace all that is required to be a top 10 program _AND THAT EXTENDS TO THIS BOARD. A top 10 program has long go seized strawberry canyon and witter and built a football complex. We play rugby.

My attitude is, let's get to being a consistent top 20-40 program, and then see if that builds momentum towards Top 10 . . . maybe not every year, but some years. We're not jumping to Top 10 status overnight.

concernedparent said:

---

okaydo said:

---

Finnish Oski said:

---

Quote:

---

Well he was moderately more successful than most of the coaches since Waldorf. It could be argued that his tenure saved us a couple of non-productive buyouts of other failed coaches.

---

He was better than Levy, Kapp, Gilbertson, Holmoe and Dykes. Not as good as Willsey (but it's close), White, Snyder, Mariucci and Tedford. About even with Theder. So pitting him against the other post Pappy coaches he's 5-4-1. Admittedly other opinions may vary depending on which metrics you use.

---

Was Wilcox better than Dykes?

Records-wise, yes.

But Dykes had to deal with the APR situation being in the toilet. That 1 win in 2013 will always haunt him. But that he was able to go to 8 wins just 2 seasons later was impressive. I know there were issues with Dykes, but he deserves a lot of credit for drastically improving the APR situation.

Speaking of which, Dykes' best 3-year stretch was 18-19 (his final 3 seasons, of course).

Wilcox's best 3-year stretch was slightly better: 20-18 (his first 3 seasons).

It's hard to compare because Wilcox coached in the NIL era.

But Dykes faced stiffer competition from our rivals.

For comparison purposes, I have added up Stanford, UCLA and USC's wins and losses from 2013-2016 for Dykes and from 2017-2019 and 2021-2023 for Wilcox. (These are the seasons when we faced all 3 of our rivals -- back when USC and UCLA were our rivals.)

Stanford went 40-13 (75%) from 2013-2016.
Stanford went 31-44 (41%) from 2017-2019 and from 2021-2023.

(Dykes went 0-4 vs. Stanford. Wilcox went 4-2 vs. Stanford during this stretch.)


UCLA went 32-19 (63%) from 2013-2016.
UCLA went 38-37 (51%) from 2017-2019 and from 2021-2023.

(Dykes went 1-3 vs. UCLA. Wilcox went 2-4 vs. UCLA during this stretch.)


USC went 37-17 (69%) from 2013-2016.
USC went 47-31 (60%) from 2017-2019 and from 2021-2023.

(Dykes went 0-4 vs. USC. Wilcox went 2-4 vs. USC during this stretch.)

---

They are on the same tier for me. Dykes had better on-field performance, despite inheriting a worse situation and playing way better competition but that is negated by the sheer number of embarrassing and horrible off-the-field things that happened: Ted Agu's death, our starting safety knocking out some frat boy, the code red situation ending with a walk-on RB being hospitalized, Pierre Ingram being arrested in a prostitution bust, etc... This might just be Tuesday morning at Georgia but to happen in our program in just 4 years is unheard of.

---

Yeah, Wilcox seemed to be flip side of Dykes. Dykes struggled with defense. Wilcox struggled with offense.

They also made ill-conceived choices in leading the other side of the ball.

And since Wilcox was such a "good dude" and there was no drama in comparison to Dykes, he got a lot more leeway