After soundly defeating Michigan State they will likely rise in the top 10. And to think that last year they were worse than us. Coaching matters, and the ability to hire a good coach is imperative. Cal has really dropped the ball.
Post Reply
1 of 1
UCLA Is 7-0
2,156 Views |
25 Replies |
Last: 10 hrs ago by MrGPAC
Shocking, coaching does make a big difference!
And their 7 wins has resulted in the Rose Bowl being completely packed with seating.
Cal would rather hire a mongoloid as their head coach, right?
fucla would rather hire a head coach who is a proven winner with previous head coaching experience, right?
Guess which school is top 10 in the country and undefeated? Right?
fucla would rather hire a head coach who is a proven winner with previous head coaching experience, right?
Guess which school is top 10 in the country and undefeated? Right?
m2bear said:
Cal would rather hire a mongoloid as their head coach, right?
fucla would rather hire a head coach who is a proven winner with previous head coaching experience, right?
Guess which school is top 10 in the country and undefeated? Right?
... um ...
Golden One said:
After soundly defeating Michigan State they will likely rise in the top 10. And to think that last year they were worse than us. Coaching matters, and the ability to hire a good coach is imperative. Cal has really dropped the ball.
Talk about an understatement! But you are absolute right.
Now we have to suffer through this chaos for the next several years. I'm over 70 and am so tired of this. It's been said many times before, but next time go for someone who will be your offensive brains at the top.
A defensive line coach with enthusiasm does not make for exciting football. Tosh obviously does not know what he's doing. Nor do I have any faith he will develop into what we need to elevate our program. This is simply Wilcox 2.0 and isn't going to get any better. UCLA did it right. We blew it.
QB Josiah Boyd of Moreno Valley commits to UCLA for 2028.
ESPN's #5 Pocket Passer Class of '28
Oregon and Kentucky were in the running.
ESPN's #5 Pocket Passer Class of '28
Oregon and Kentucky were in the running.
CalBarn said:Golden One said:
After soundly defeating Michigan State they will likely rise in the top 10. And to think that last year they were worse than us. Coaching matters, and the ability to hire a good coach is imperative. Cal has really dropped the ball.
Talk about an understatement! But you are absolute right.
Now we have to suffer through this chaos for the next several years. I'm over 70 and am so tired of this. It's been said many times before, but next time go for someone who will be your offensive brains at the top.
A defensive line coach with enthusiasm does not make for exciting football. Tosh obviously does not know what he's doing. Nor do I have any faith he will develop into what we need to elevate our program. This is simply Wilcox 2.0 and isn't going to get any better. UCLA did it right. We blew it.
Conceivably, a defensive line coach or a top DC could provide super-exciting football, if they knew what they didn't know and hired an ace Offensive Coordinator.
Conceivably.
DiabloWags said:
QB Josiah Boyd of Moreno Valley commits to UCLA for 2028.
ESPN's #5 Pocket Passer Class of '28
Oregon and Kentucky were in the running.
UCLA appears to have gained a lot of recruiting momentum. Cal, sadly, seems headed in the opposite direction. It's depressing to think about what Cal's roster might look like next year.
we don't do pockets so would have been a bad fit here anywayDiabloWags said:
QB Josiah Boyd of Moreno Valley commits to UCLA for 2028.
ESPN's #5 Pocket Passer Class of '28
Oregon and Kentucky were in the running.
Big C said:CalBarn said:Golden One said:
After soundly defeating Michigan State they will likely rise in the top 10. And to think that last year they were worse than us. Coaching matters, and the ability to hire a good coach is imperative. Cal has really dropped the ball.
Talk about an understatement! But you are absolute right.
Now we have to suffer through this chaos for the next several years. I'm over 70 and am so tired of this. Obviously being a big money donor does not translate into knowing how to make a big time coaching decision. They have bungled this process so badly. It's been said many times before, but next time go for someone who will be your offensive brains at the top.
A defensive line coach with enthusiasm does not make for exciting football. Tosh obviously does not know what he's doing. Nor do I have any faith he will develop into what we need to elevate our program. This is simply Wilcox 2.0 and isn't going to get any better. UCLA did it right. We blew it.
Conceivably, a defensive line coach or a top DC could provide super-exciting football, if they knew what they didn't know and hired an ace Offensive Coordinator.
Conceivably.
A proven Ace Offensive Coordinator is generally getting HC offers or is getting OC jobs at the Top programs or the NFL. Better for place like Cal just to hire that guy as HC so he can get the HC money and hire a DC.
Unless the DC as HC is an alum (or just smart) and purposely takes a lower salary so there is more money to allocate to getting a proven top OC.
Otherwise the DC as HC who wants a chance at a top OC generally has to take a chance on unproven guys like Tosh did. Great if it works out.
Holmoe was a DC we promoted to HC that we kept for 5 years (and there were many on this board arguing he should have been given even more time like we did with Wilcox). In 5 years Holmoe had 3 OCs: Cosbie, Hagen and Borges. Our offenses ranked (Scoring):
1997 #50
1998 #102
1999 #104
2000 #81
2001 #104
Holmoe average: #88
Wilcox was a DC we made HC that we kept for 9 years (and there were people on this board arguing he should be given more time). In 9 years Wilcox had 5 OCs: Baldwin, Musgrave, Spavital, Bloesch and Harsin. Our offenses ranked (Scoring):
2017: #71
2018: #116
2019: #112
2020: #111
2021: #96
2022: #96
2023: #48
2024: #90
2025: #86
Wilcox Average: #92
Tosh Lupoi is a DC we made HC. He has had 2 OCs in less than a year: Somerville and McCann. Our offensive ranking (Scoring):
2026: 101
The sad part is UCLA still can't sell out the rose bowl... Their average attendance is second worst in the B1G at just under 33k fans per game. Their highest attended game was just over 36k vs Wisconsin.
Though we should note that with a caveat: UCLA reports butts in seats (tickets scanned). Cal (and most of the country) reports tickets sold. Because of that we can't really compare attendance figures...but it sure *looks* like Cal has a fanbase that WANTS to go to games...IF the team is good. The Cal vs UCLA game drew better than any UCLA game this year, despite UCLA being a top 10 team with a stadium far larger than ours.
UCLA IS good, but no one wants to go. Stanford WAS good, but no one wanted to go to those games... Cal being lumped in with these schools is bad for optics and bad for reallignment....because the assumption (until proven otherwise) will be that we are just like Stanford/UCLA and that even if we are good we won't draw a crowd (or viewers).
Though we should note that with a caveat: UCLA reports butts in seats (tickets scanned). Cal (and most of the country) reports tickets sold. Because of that we can't really compare attendance figures...but it sure *looks* like Cal has a fanbase that WANTS to go to games...IF the team is good. The Cal vs UCLA game drew better than any UCLA game this year, despite UCLA being a top 10 team with a stadium far larger than ours.
UCLA IS good, but no one wants to go. Stanford WAS good, but no one wanted to go to those games... Cal being lumped in with these schools is bad for optics and bad for reallignment....because the assumption (until proven otherwise) will be that we are just like Stanford/UCLA and that even if we are good we won't draw a crowd (or viewers).
MrGPAC said:
UCLA IS good, but no one wants to go. Stanford WAS good, but no one wanted to go to those games... Cal being lumped in with these schools is bad for optics and bad for reallignment....because the assumption (until proven otherwise) will be that we are just like Stanford/UCLA and that even if we are good we won't draw a crowd (or viewers).
This is all irrelevant to TV execs, if nobody is in Pasadena but a few million folks at home are watching they won't care
MrGPAC said:
The sad part is UCLA still can't sell out the rose bowl... Their average attendance is second worst in the B1G at just under 33k fans per game. Their highest attended game was just over 36k vs Wisconsin.
Though we should note that with a caveat: UCLA reports butts in seats (tickets scanned). Cal (and most of the country) reports tickets sold. Because of that we can't really compare attendance figures...but it sure *looks* like Cal has a fanbase that WANTS to go to games...IF the team is good. The Cal vs UCLA game drew better than any UCLA game this year, despite UCLA being a top 10 team with a stadium far larger than ours.
UCLA IS good, but no one wants to go. Stanford WAS good, but no one wanted to go to those games... Cal being lumped in with these schools is bad for optics and bad for reallignment....because the assumption (until proven otherwise) will be that we are just like Stanford/UCLA and that even if we are good we won't draw a crowd (or viewers).
This is what the season and fan base have become, rooting against the attendance figures of rivals?!
Sad state of affairs.
“My tastes are simple; I am easily satisfied with the best.” - Winston Churchill
BigDaddy said:MrGPAC said:
The sad part is UCLA still can't sell out the rose bowl... Their average attendance is second worst in the B1G at just under 33k fans per game. Their highest attended game was just over 36k vs Wisconsin.
Though we should note that with a caveat: UCLA reports butts in seats (tickets scanned). Cal (and most of the country) reports tickets sold. Because of that we can't really compare attendance figures...but it sure *looks* like Cal has a fanbase that WANTS to go to games...IF the team is good. The Cal vs UCLA game drew better than any UCLA game this year, despite UCLA being a top 10 team with a stadium far larger than ours.
UCLA IS good, but no one wants to go. Stanford WAS good, but no one wanted to go to those games... Cal being lumped in with these schools is bad for optics and bad for reallignment....because the assumption (until proven otherwise) will be that we are just like Stanford/UCLA and that even if we are good we won't draw a crowd (or viewers).
This is what the season and fan base have become, rooting against the attendance figures of rivals?!
Sad state of affairs.
A pox on ALL their fans.
BigDaddy said:MrGPAC said:
The sad part is UCLA still can't sell out the rose bowl... Their average attendance is second worst in the B1G at just under 33k fans per game. Their highest attended game was just over 36k vs Wisconsin.
Though we should note that with a caveat: UCLA reports butts in seats (tickets scanned). Cal (and most of the country) reports tickets sold. Because of that we can't really compare attendance figures...but it sure *looks* like Cal has a fanbase that WANTS to go to games...IF the team is good. The Cal vs UCLA game drew better than any UCLA game this year, despite UCLA being a top 10 team with a stadium far larger than ours.
UCLA IS good, but no one wants to go. Stanford WAS good, but no one wanted to go to those games... Cal being lumped in with these schools is bad for optics and bad for reallignment....because the assumption (until proven otherwise) will be that we are just like Stanford/UCLA and that even if we are good we won't draw a crowd (or viewers).
This is what the season and fan base have become, rooting against the attendance figures of rivals?!
Sad state of affairs.
Quite the opposite. I wish they both had good attendance. The fact neither has good attendance when they are good is bad for us.
And yes, tv ratings matter more than in game attendance to the tv execs...but one certainly leads to the other.
BigDaddy said:MrGPAC said:
The sad part is UCLA still can't sell out the rose bowl... Their average attendance is second worst in the B1G at just under 33k fans per game. Their highest attended game was just over 36k vs Wisconsin.
Though we should note that with a caveat: UCLA reports butts in seats (tickets scanned). Cal (and most of the country) reports tickets sold. Because of that we can't really compare attendance figures...but it sure *looks* like Cal has a fanbase that WANTS to go to games...IF the team is good. The Cal vs UCLA game drew better than any UCLA game this year, despite UCLA being a top 10 team with a stadium far larger than ours.
UCLA IS good, but no one wants to go. Stanford WAS good, but no one wanted to go to those games... Cal being lumped in with these schools is bad for optics and bad for reallignment....because the assumption (until proven otherwise) will be that we are just like Stanford/UCLA and that even if we are good we won't draw a crowd (or viewers).
This is what the season and fan base have become, rooting against the attendance figures of rivals?!
Sad state of affairs.
It was like this when UCLA followed USC to the B1G. Everyone was saying how UCLA was going to get destroyed by the Midwest winters. Does it even snow anymore before the regular season is over? Pure cope.
Strangely, either a combination of all those years of being terrible, the hot weather, or changing student interests - it appears UCLA can only get 30-45k for a game. And most of those in the game previous were Wisconsin fans. Shame too because going to the Rose Bowl for an afternoon or evening game is pretty awesome. If you're in direct sunlight at 12:30pm on the East side seats - not so much.
Strykur said:MrGPAC said:
UCLA IS good, but no one wants to go. Stanford WAS good, but no one wanted to go to those games... Cal being lumped in with these schools is bad for optics and bad for reallignment....because the assumption (until proven otherwise) will be that we are just like Stanford/UCLA and that even if we are good we won't draw a crowd (or viewers).
This is all irrelevant to TV execs, if nobody is in Pasadena but a few million folks at home are watching they won't care
Agreed, but while channel surfing, all things being equal, I am more inclined to stop and watch a game if it is a packed stadium than i am if it is an empty stadium.
Which is just one more reason why it makes sense to offer free game day general admission to anyone with a student ID, especially Cal students, with the only limit being stadium capacity.
Strykur said:MrGPAC said:
UCLA IS good, but no one wants to go. Stanford WAS good, but no one wanted to go to those games... Cal being lumped in with these schools is bad for optics and bad for reallignment....because the assumption (until proven otherwise) will be that we are just like Stanford/UCLA and that even if we are good we won't draw a crowd (or viewers).
This is all irrelevant to TV execs, if nobody is in Pasadena but a few million folks at home are watching they won't care
They had 2 million viewers for Wisconsin which is good
MrGPAC said:BigDaddy said:MrGPAC said:
The sad part is UCLA still can't sell out the rose bowl... Their average attendance is second worst in the B1G at just under 33k fans per game. Their highest attended game was just over 36k vs Wisconsin.
Though we should note that with a caveat: UCLA reports butts in seats (tickets scanned). Cal (and most of the country) reports tickets sold. Because of that we can't really compare attendance figures...but it sure *looks* like Cal has a fanbase that WANTS to go to games...IF the team is good. The Cal vs UCLA game drew better than any UCLA game this year, despite UCLA being a top 10 team with a stadium far larger than ours.
UCLA IS good, but no one wants to go. Stanford WAS good, but no one wanted to go to those games... Cal being lumped in with these schools is bad for optics and bad for reallignment....because the assumption (until proven otherwise) will be that we are just like Stanford/UCLA and that even if we are good we won't draw a crowd (or viewers).
This is what the season and fan base have become, rooting against the attendance figures of rivals?!
Sad state of affairs.
Quite the opposite. I wish they both had good attendance. The fact neither has good attendance when they are good is bad for us.
And yes, tv ratings matter more than in game attendance to the tv execs...but one certainly leads to the other.
I'll rather be cursed with poor attendance and a good product on the field than the potential of having strong attendance if performance was good. It's been 20 years since we were serious contenders, we squandered every opportunity to bring in fans with many terrible coaching regimes
DoubtfulBear said:MrGPAC said:BigDaddy said:MrGPAC said:
The sad part is UCLA still can't sell out the rose bowl... Their average attendance is second worst in the B1G at just under 33k fans per game. Their highest attended game was just over 36k vs Wisconsin.
Though we should note that with a caveat: UCLA reports butts in seats (tickets scanned). Cal (and most of the country) reports tickets sold. Because of that we can't really compare attendance figures...but it sure *looks* like Cal has a fanbase that WANTS to go to games...IF the team is good. The Cal vs UCLA game drew better than any UCLA game this year, despite UCLA being a top 10 team with a stadium far larger than ours.
UCLA IS good, but no one wants to go. Stanford WAS good, but no one wanted to go to those games... Cal being lumped in with these schools is bad for optics and bad for reallignment....because the assumption (until proven otherwise) will be that we are just like Stanford/UCLA and that even if we are good we won't draw a crowd (or viewers).
This is what the season and fan base have become, rooting against the attendance figures of rivals?!
Sad state of affairs.
Quite the opposite. I wish they both had good attendance. The fact neither has good attendance when they are good is bad for us.
And yes, tv ratings matter more than in game attendance to the tv execs...but one certainly leads to the other.
I'll rather be cursed with poor attendance and a good product on the field than the potential of having strong attendance if performance was good. It's been 20 years since we were serious contenders, we squandered every opportunity to bring in fans with many terrible coaching regimes
It takes awhile for attendance to catch up with the results on the field. Tedford's first game we had 27k. In 2003 season ticket sakes increased by 50% in 2004 we averaged 64,019 per game.
Stanford has a small student and local alumni population and is not a natural draw for unaffiliated fans. Still, that puts them in good company with schools like Wake and Duke of the ACC. Stanford reduced their stadium size just before the Harbaugh/Shaw years, but since 2014 has had to compete with Niners in nearby Santa Clara.
Other than geography, we are good fits for the ACC, and even our geography helps because it gives the ACC late TV time slot content.
UCLA and USC are similar for the B1G.
With our performance so far, I am resigned to our future in the ACC fir the forseeable future. At least our share of media revenues will increase over the next few years. Maybe UCLA can pay Calimony now?
calumnus said:Strykur said:MrGPAC said:
UCLA IS good, but no one wants to go. Stanford WAS good, but no one wanted to go to those games... Cal being lumped in with these schools is bad for optics and bad for reallignment....because the assumption (until proven otherwise) will be that we are just like Stanford/UCLA and that even if we are good we won't draw a crowd (or viewers).
This is all irrelevant to TV execs, if nobody is in Pasadena but a few million folks at home are watching they won't care
Agreed, but while channel surfing, all things being equal, I am more inclined to stop and watch a game if it is a packed stadium than i am if it is an empty stadium.
Which is just one more reason why it makes sense to offer free game day general admission to anyone with a student ID, especially Cal students, with the only limit being stadium capacity.
There were only 211k viewers for the Wake-Cal game. That's a dreadful number. And it was on ESPN2. Numbers for the CW for the Cal-SMU game aren't available. But SMU is winning and their stadium was empty. UCLA got 2 million viewers to an empty stadium. Well it wasn't empty but would have been without all the Wisconsin fans.
Seems like more and more fans are staying home. Ticket prices. Length of games. Its too much.
calumnus said:DoubtfulBear said:MrGPAC said:BigDaddy said:MrGPAC said:
The sad part is UCLA still can't sell out the rose bowl... Their average attendance is second worst in the B1G at just under 33k fans per game. Their highest attended game was just over 36k vs Wisconsin.
Though we should note that with a caveat: UCLA reports butts in seats (tickets scanned). Cal (and most of the country) reports tickets sold. Because of that we can't really compare attendance figures...but it sure *looks* like Cal has a fanbase that WANTS to go to games...IF the team is good. The Cal vs UCLA game drew better than any UCLA game this year, despite UCLA being a top 10 team with a stadium far larger than ours.
UCLA IS good, but no one wants to go. Stanford WAS good, but no one wanted to go to those games... Cal being lumped in with these schools is bad for optics and bad for reallignment....because the assumption (until proven otherwise) will be that we are just like Stanford/UCLA and that even if we are good we won't draw a crowd (or viewers).
This is what the season and fan base have become, rooting against the attendance figures of rivals?!
Sad state of affairs.
Quite the opposite. I wish they both had good attendance. The fact neither has good attendance when they are good is bad for us.
And yes, tv ratings matter more than in game attendance to the tv execs...but one certainly leads to the other.
I'll rather be cursed with poor attendance and a good product on the field than the potential of having strong attendance if performance was good. It's been 20 years since we were serious contenders, we squandered every opportunity to bring in fans with many terrible coaching regimes
It takes awhile for attendance to catch up with the results on the field. Tedford's first game we had 27k. In 2003 season ticket sakes increased by 50% in 2004 we averaged 64,019 per game.
We had >50K attendance both for the Miami College GameDay and for the UCLA opener. But we squandered both opportunities with late gate blowouts. If having 20K fans is the price to be 7-0 I would take that any day of the week
DoubtfulBear said:calumnus said:DoubtfulBear said:MrGPAC said:BigDaddy said:MrGPAC said:
The sad part is UCLA still can't sell out the rose bowl... Their average attendance is second worst in the B1G at just under 33k fans per game. Their highest attended game was just over 36k vs Wisconsin.
Though we should note that with a caveat: UCLA reports butts in seats (tickets scanned). Cal (and most of the country) reports tickets sold. Because of that we can't really compare attendance figures...but it sure *looks* like Cal has a fanbase that WANTS to go to games...IF the team is good. The Cal vs UCLA game drew better than any UCLA game this year, despite UCLA being a top 10 team with a stadium far larger than ours.
UCLA IS good, but no one wants to go. Stanford WAS good, but no one wanted to go to those games... Cal being lumped in with these schools is bad for optics and bad for reallignment....because the assumption (until proven otherwise) will be that we are just like Stanford/UCLA and that even if we are good we won't draw a crowd (or viewers).
This is what the season and fan base have become, rooting against the attendance figures of rivals?!
Sad state of affairs.
Quite the opposite. I wish they both had good attendance. The fact neither has good attendance when they are good is bad for us.
And yes, tv ratings matter more than in game attendance to the tv execs...but one certainly leads to the other.
I'll rather be cursed with poor attendance and a good product on the field than the potential of having strong attendance if performance was good. It's been 20 years since we were serious contenders, we squandered every opportunity to bring in fans with many terrible coaching regimes
It takes awhile for attendance to catch up with the results on the field. Tedford's first game we had 27k. In 2003 season ticket sakes increased by 50% in 2004 we averaged 64,019 per game.
We had >50K attendance both for the Miami College GameDay and for the UCLA opener. But we squandered both opportunities with late gate blowouts. If having 20K fans is the price to be 7-0 I would take that any day of the week
Agreed. However, as your examples show, for Cal at least, it is a false dichotomy. If we had good coaching producing a good team and winning big games, CMS would be filled. Same with Haas.
calumnus said:DoubtfulBear said:calumnus said:DoubtfulBear said:MrGPAC said:BigDaddy said:MrGPAC said:
The sad part is UCLA still can't sell out the rose bowl... Their average attendance is second worst in the B1G at just under 33k fans per game. Their highest attended game was just over 36k vs Wisconsin.
Though we should note that with a caveat: UCLA reports butts in seats (tickets scanned). Cal (and most of the country) reports tickets sold. Because of that we can't really compare attendance figures...but it sure *looks* like Cal has a fanbase that WANTS to go to games...IF the team is good. The Cal vs UCLA game drew better than any UCLA game this year, despite UCLA being a top 10 team with a stadium far larger than ours.
UCLA IS good, but no one wants to go. Stanford WAS good, but no one wanted to go to those games... Cal being lumped in with these schools is bad for optics and bad for reallignment....because the assumption (until proven otherwise) will be that we are just like Stanford/UCLA and that even if we are good we won't draw a crowd (or viewers).
This is what the season and fan base have become, rooting against the attendance figures of rivals?!
Sad state of affairs.
Quite the opposite. I wish they both had good attendance. The fact neither has good attendance when they are good is bad for us.
And yes, tv ratings matter more than in game attendance to the tv execs...but one certainly leads to the other.
I'll rather be cursed with poor attendance and a good product on the field than the potential of having strong attendance if performance was good. It's been 20 years since we were serious contenders, we squandered every opportunity to bring in fans with many terrible coaching regimes
It takes awhile for attendance to catch up with the results on the field. Tedford's first game we had 27k. In 2003 season ticket sakes increased by 50% in 2004 we averaged 64,019 per game.
We had >50K attendance both for the Miami College GameDay and for the UCLA opener. But we squandered both opportunities with late gate blowouts. If having 20K fans is the price to be 7-0 I would take that any day of the week
Agreed. However, as your examples show, for Cal at least, it is a false dichotomy. If we had good coaching producing a good team and winning big games, CMS would be filled. Same with Haas.
Well at this point I see nothing else to point to but a curse to be Cal. So many other teams went from irrelevant to top ranked in the same timespan that we continue to be mediocre under different coaches.
Wisconsin went from getting rid of their long term HC Chryst to rebuild under Fickell and now back as a ranked team. Vanderbilt went from SEC laughing stock to contender back to SEC laughing stock. Basketball blue bloods UCLA and Kentucky are now leading their respective P2 conferences.
Meanwhile Cal never changes. Still gets blown out by G6 schools, still can't achieve a winning conference record. Doesn't matter the coaching staff or the talent on the field.
DoubtfulBear said:calumnus said:DoubtfulBear said:calumnus said:DoubtfulBear said:MrGPAC said:BigDaddy said:MrGPAC said:
The sad part is UCLA still can't sell out the rose bowl... Their average attendance is second worst in the B1G at just under 33k fans per game. Their highest attended game was just over 36k vs Wisconsin.
Though we should note that with a caveat: UCLA reports butts in seats (tickets scanned). Cal (and most of the country) reports tickets sold. Because of that we can't really compare attendance figures...but it sure *looks* like Cal has a fanbase that WANTS to go to games...IF the team is good. The Cal vs UCLA game drew better than any UCLA game this year, despite UCLA being a top 10 team with a stadium far larger than ours.
UCLA IS good, but no one wants to go. Stanford WAS good, but no one wanted to go to those games... Cal being lumped in with these schools is bad for optics and bad for reallignment....because the assumption (until proven otherwise) will be that we are just like Stanford/UCLA and that even if we are good we won't draw a crowd (or viewers).
This is what the season and fan base have become, rooting against the attendance figures of rivals?!
Sad state of affairs.
Quite the opposite. I wish they both had good attendance. The fact neither has good attendance when they are good is bad for us.
And yes, tv ratings matter more than in game attendance to the tv execs...but one certainly leads to the other.
I'll rather be cursed with poor attendance and a good product on the field than the potential of having strong attendance if performance was good. It's been 20 years since we were serious contenders, we squandered every opportunity to bring in fans with many terrible coaching regimes
It takes awhile for attendance to catch up with the results on the field. Tedford's first game we had 27k. In 2003 season ticket sakes increased by 50% in 2004 we averaged 64,019 per game.
We had >50K attendance both for the Miami College GameDay and for the UCLA opener. But we squandered both opportunities with late gate blowouts. If having 20K fans is the price to be 7-0 I would take that any day of the week
Agreed. However, as your examples show, for Cal at least, it is a false dichotomy. If we had good coaching producing a good team and winning big games, CMS would be filled. Same with Haas.
Well at this point I see nothing else to point to but a curse to be Cal. So many other teams went from irrelevant to top ranked in the same timespan that we continue to be mediocre under different coaches.
Wisconsin went from getting rid of their long term HC Chryst to rebuild under Fickell and now back as a ranked team. Vanderbilt went from SEC laughing stock to contender back to SEC laughing stock. Basketball blue bloods UCLA and Kentucky are now leading their respective P2 conferences.
Meanwhile Cal never changes. Still gets blown out by G6 schools, still can't achieve a winning conference record. Doesn't matter the coaching staff or the talent on the field.
Cal's problem is we don't move on from an unsuccessful coach fast enough. Especially with the way things work these days...you don't need 4-5 years to build a program...players turn over faster and new coaches can bring in entire new rosters with them. No coach should last more than 2 years without competing for an ACC championship game at this point...and year 1 better show upward momentum / a clear plan.
Contracts of that nature mean you are either taking on an extreme risk, or you are overpaying for that first year. But frankly, I'd rather do that, then extend a proven quantity, than what we have been doing.
Featured Stories
See All
The Rodcast: Cal vs OSU Scrimmage
by Rod Benson
Ruiz Report: JKS Returned to Near-Normalcy in Loss to SMU
by Joaquin Ruiz
Bears Swamped in 2nd Half Flurry at SMU
by Jim McGill
Cal Falls To Oregon State In Exhibition Road Game
by Cal Athletics
Bear Insider Ultimate Insider Podcast E143: Cal TE Taimane Purcell
by Mike Pawlawski