RaphaelAglietti;430821 said:

---

In general make the process more interactive :rant

---

That's the area where the Big10(11-12) and SEC is beating us in spades.

Son-of-California;430772 said:

---

Correct...I played on those teams. Maybe I worded it poorly. The ultimate success of the 2-9 team and the R-n-S offense would have been significantly different had Gilbert not gone down with a blown knee. We were beating aTm quite handily...in the 1st half. That O was ahead of the time. After a 3-8 1980 season Theder needed to make several changes to save his job. He fired several asst. coaches and brought in Mouse Davis to change the O. It ultimately failed and the O was switched back mid-season. Theder was fired after we went 2-9 and lost the Big Game. JK had little or nothing to do with the quick turn around. It was the talent he inherited that stepped up. He bumbled his way in, got credit for The Play, bumbled and 'unzipped' himself on the way out...Ron was a friend and teammate of mine. I have nothing against him. My point being, a former player with little or no coaching experience (head or college) has no business stepping in at this level.

---

Did you also play on the 1982 team?

RaphaelAglietti;430821 said:

---

Any move or non-move for that matter is a risk.

Part of taking that risk is understanding that by not undertaking the risk of make a change you risk that a coach will lost his team and sink the team to medicore/bad levels thus forcing a change.

That's why it's silly to say well if we get rid of A then we wcould end-up with another Holmoe, Gilbertson, Theder, etc. The difference is that those hires were made under different leadership and with an entirely different empahsis. It is possible to make a bad hire, but I those prior hires were made under the guise that Cal wasn't serious about football (i.e no commitent to new facilities and certainly not paying a coach anywhere near market value)

Whether people like it or not Cal is now a school that takes football seriously, because they have to in order to keep the athletic department afloat and clearly as Cal is already losing sports the Athletic Department cannot afford to take a 10K hit in attendance in football.

Fans is the Bay Area are not very tolerant for losing teams (except for the Warriors) and they're even less tolerant for losing college teams which are already marginalized by the surround professional sports.

Cal can ill afford to lapse back to the Holmoe era in term of attendance (~30,000k)

Fan bases are as rabid as the tradition that follows the team. Cal football is the oldest team in the Bay Area. The team needs to build a tradition and part of that is winning a pac-10 title or a national championship.

The other part is creating a "religious" type experience at a Cal game. I think the lack of tailgating space has always hurt Cal.

Tedford tried to insitute tradition when he first came to Cal with the Cal walk etc, but like anything in life the people dictate the tradition. I think the Athetic Department needs to be way more active in promoting Cal football. There needs to be a call in show. There needs to be broadcasts from Cal hotspots. There needs to be giveaways. Charge more for a jersey day and give kids little bear hats (I assuming there's no NCAA violation here, but if so that scratch the idea). Have public pep rallies in the same place. Rallies for the general public to meet and listen to the players/coaches during the week.

In general make the process more interactive :rant

---

Good post. Especially that last line. I think one of the problems with Tedford trying to establish new traditions is that he didn't find out what the existing traditions were (the band and rally on Sproul for example) and figure out how to enhance and incorporate those traditions with new ones to achieve the results he wanted. The current gameday experience at CMS has pushed tradition aside. There is a need for advertisers, but rather than having advertisers support helmet races, why not have them support our traditions?

I realize there is no open position right now, but . . .

No one is mentioning the loyalty factor. If the next coach is successful, he will be targeted by other programs. Most coaches would be tempted to leave for more money, and we cannot afford to pay what some other programs can. Everyone was very nervous (rightfully so) that Tedford would leave. A coach who is an alumnus, on the other hand, would be more loyal and less likely to leave us over financial compensation issues.

I have met RR, and have played basketball with him, and he comes across as a very impressive guy. No hire is a sure thing, but I believe he would be a great fit at Cal.

Whether Joe Kapp was a good head coach has nothing to do with whether RR would be.

TorBear;430960 said:

---

Did you also play on the 1982 team?

---

Yes.

Son-of-California;430978 said:

---

Yes.

---

I was just wondering, because you seem pretty down on Joe Kapp. Is there anything personal involved in that, or do you just think he wasn't a good coach?

Yes.

SonOfBlueBallsBear;430969 said:

---

I realize there is no open position right now, but . . .

No one is mentioning the loyalty factor. If the next coach is successful, he will be targeted by other programs. Most coaches would be tempted to leave for more money, and we cannot afford to pay what some other programs can. Everyone was very nervous (rightfully so) that Tedford would leave. A coach who is an alumnus, on the other hand, would be more loyal and less likely to leave us over financial compensation issues.

I have met RR, and have played basketball with him, and he comes across as a very impressive guy. No hire is a sure thing, but I believe he would be a great fit at Cal.

Whether Joe Kapp was a good head coach has nothing to do with whether RR would be.

---

That's actually the first argument in his favor that I actually find somewhat convincing. It fits in well with my general feeling that in the long run, Cal can't compete in the FB arms race, because we don't have the alumni interest/resources. One way to try to ameliorate that is to look for anybody left in college FB that's not solely motivated by $$$. Rivera may be one, I don't know, since the NFL revolves almost entirely around $$$ (see Mariucci, Steve). If he's willing to stay at Cal for somewhat less money over time, because it's Cal, that would be a reason to consider him, given everyone's assumption that he's got some coaching skills.

son-of-california;431353 said:

---

yes.

---

lol!

What precipitous decline in Chicago's defense? When Urlacher was hurt the defense suffered (plus there were other key injuries). With Urlacher back and having a great year and with the addition of sack master Julian Peppers the Chicago bears have one of the three best defenses in the NFL.
I like Ron Rivera a lot as a future head coach but his departure has not devastated Chicago's D.

Jeff82;431423 said:

---

That's actually the first argument in his favor that I actually find somewhat convincing. It fits in well with my general feeling that in the long run, Cal can't compete in the FB arms race, because we don't have the alumni interest/resources. One way to try to ameliorate that is to look for anybody left in college FB that's not solely motivated by $$$. Rivera may be one, I don't know, since the NFL revolves almost entirely around $$$ (see Mariucci, Steve). If he's willing to stay at Cal for somewhat less money over time, because it's Cal, that would be a reason to consider him, given everyone's assumption that he's got some coaching skills.

---

Exactly, it is cost benefit analysis. If you are going to take a risk on a new coach you want to make sure that if you bet right and he turns out to be really good, you get to continue to enjoy the fruits of that decision. Other coaches with some Cal loyalties:
1. Herm Edwards
2. Ron English

drunkoski;431425 said:

---

you are arguing we can't compete in teh arms race when we are paying our football coach $2.5 mil a year, plus bonus, with no buyout?

---

If we have to buy him out (as you want) it only diminishes our ability to pay the next guy (at least initially).

not if X amount of big donors come up with the money to buy him out.

drunkoski;431425 said:

---

you are arguing we can't compete in teh arms race when we are paying our football coach $2.5 mil a year, plus bonus, with no buyout?

---

Other posters have commented elsewhere their understanding that our assistant salaries are substandard relative to others in the conference and other programs nationally. I also understand that even with the completion of the SAHPC, our program square-footage per athlete is still less than much of the competition. Finally, if you refer to Sandy's new FAQ regarding the sports cutbacks, she references the fact that support staffing, such as trainers, is low compared to the rest of the conference.

Furthermore, the definition of an arms race is that it's a race essentially without a finish line. For example, Montgomery has commented that to be fully competitive in facilities, we really need a dedicated basketball practice facility. That's certainly not going to happen anytime soon.

In my view, paying a football coach $2.5 million a year was the bare minimum needed to get the program out of the complete doldrums in which it was languishing. That just got us to the poker table, it did nothing to guarantee any staying power. I believe the real support for the athletic program in general and football in particular is a mile wide and an inch deep, when it comes to getting people to dig in their pockets, and that's mostly what having a competitive program comes down to. That's why my goal is literally one Rose Bowl before I cack (sp?).

drunkoski;431858 said:

---

according to USA today in a report widely discussed here we're 16th in the country in spending for football programs. i think you are living in 1985. things have changed.

---

Also, as an aside, it's interesting to me that as vociferous as the complaints about Marshall have been on the board, if the Colorado rumor is correct, he's certainly not having any trouble moving to another Division I program, which again raises to what extent the problems are on the players vs. the coaches. It's obviously some of each. I tend to think the greater weight is on the players. Mack was a good lineman, Tepper was not.

1. Herm Edwards

could be a good choice as well.

Bump

drunkoski;431858 said:

---

according to USA today in a report widely discussed here we're 16th in the country in spending for football programs. i think you are living in 1985. things have changed.

---

Well 2010 16TH BUT IN 2013 & 14 & 15 where did Cal rank

Jeff82;430078 said:

---

He's a defensive guy, not an offensive guy, and he's never recruited a player in his life. I don't see it, other than the fact that he's a Cal guy, and he's not Tedford. I don't want to replace the current infighting between the coach and the OC with a new conflict between a new coach and the DC. But I'm willing to be pursuaded.

---

Are you getting it now?

being a nfler is the best coaching pitch .

A lot of people are eating some crow on this thread.

Not I

going4roses;842638433 said:

---

Not I

---

Actually, I forgot that I had a pretty good post on this thread! I'm proud of him as someone I have known, and such a great representative of our university.
I do stand by the fact that he would do great in college, because I have seen how he talks to people, and what an impression he makes on others. That isn't lost in the NFL completely, and a number of articles have been written about his relationship with the players. But its too bad he is unlikely ever going to have to prove himself as a recruiter-he would kick butt! But I will settle for him kicking a little Bronco tail!!
Go Bears, and Go Panthers!!

Sorry, nm.

FCBear;842638417 said:

---

Are you getting it now?

---

:headbang
Cal, (almost) always a couple of steps too late.

Jeff82;430078 said:

---

He's a defensive guy, not an offensive guy, and he's never recruited a player in his life. I don't see it, other than the fact that he's a Cal guy, and he's not Tedford. I don't want to replace the current infighting between the coach and the OC with a new conflict between a new coach and the DC. But I'm willing to be pursuaded.

---

You just wrote a whole paragraph and I don't know what the hell you're talking about. Ron's not coming back to Cal. He will be a HC in the NFL somewhere for at least 10 years especially if he wins the SB. Former NFL HC that have gone back to college football don't seem to have a problem recruiting.

Cal84;430088 said:

---

Can he work for minimum wage? Cuz that's what we'll be paying ...

---

Here is another fact lol

DrDanger;842638432 said:

---

A lot of people are eating some crow on this thread.

---

This thread was so old, I had to spend some time with Google to figure out what the hell my comment on this thread meant.

I'm not sure what the point of bringing this back, except for some weird, childish "I-told-you-so" Internet smack.
Rivera has turned out to be a very successful pro coach. Maybe he never wanted the Cal job. Maybe he did and is quietly thanking his lucky stars for the rejection.
Maybe he'll end up on the Cal sideline at some point in the future.
At any rate, this is all stupid. Nobody here had any hand in his not being hired at Cal.

He's happy for Cal; we're happy for him; everything is way it's supposed to be.

Go Bears!

Uthaithani;842638628 said:

---

I'm not sure what the point of bringing this back, except for some weird, childish "I-told-you-so" Internet smack.
Rivera has turned out to be a very successful pro coach. Maybe he never wanted the Cal job. Maybe he did and is quietly thanking his lucky stars for the rejection.
Maybe he'll end up on the Cal sideline at some point in the future.
At any rate, this is all stupid. Nobody here had any hand in his not being hired at Cal.

He's happy for Cal; we're happy for him; everything is way it's supposed to be.

Go Bears!

---

I think the point is that those of us who know him some have been saying he would be a great head coach for Cal for years and were told that the only reason we think so is he is "a Cal guy" and it is a "sign of being an inferior program" so yeah, there is a bit of "I told you so" but also for future reference, Cal guys can be great hires.

He is a leader of men which is a must to be HC

Jeff82;430078 said:

---

He's a defensive guy, not an offensive guy, and he's never recruited a player in his life.

---

Not true. He recruited many guys as a student at Cal hosting players on recruiting weekends. He is truly passionate about Cal

bar20;842638592 said:

---

... Former NFL HC that have gone back to college football don't seem to have a problem recruiting.

---

RIP Bill Walsh, whose furd phase II FAILED (post 49ers) but he made a few bucks pushing Volvos to the furd faithful.

Uthaithani;842638628 said:

---

I'm not sure what the point of bringing this back, except for some weird, childish "I-told-you-so" Internet smack.
Rivera has turned out to be a very successful pro coach. Maybe he never wanted the Cal job. Maybe he did and is quietly thanking his lucky stars for the rejection.
Maybe he'll end up on the Cal sideline at some point in the future.
At any rate, this is all stupid. Nobody here had any hand in his not being hired at Cal.

He's happy for Cal; we're happy for him; everything is way it's supposed to be.

Go Bears!

---

Be it me or anyone else: you post a strong opinion, you open yourself up to be called on it. It means nothing in the big scheme of things, hell, or even in the little scheme of things. But every now and then there is at least some small amount of accountability. It happens here, and happens in real life when you make a sports bet with a buddy...its hardly malicious. You win some, you lose some.
Rivera's timing on wanting the head job was at a point where his resume wasn't good enough for the powers that be; projecting what he might be wasn't going to happen. He nonetheless remains a loyal and supportive Old Blue. And you are right-you never know the circumstances that could bring him to the Cal sidelines.

Right. The strong opinions are often people who remember the Joe Kapp fiasco.
I'd like to think our AD and admin has learned a thing or two since then about evaluating coaching talent (and it appears from what we're seeing they have - Tedford and Dykes have both turned out to be quality hires)
There has always been an odd contingency in the Cal fan base that gravitates toward anyone whose had a connection to the program, regardless of merit. That's not a particularly helpful mindset when you're trying to rebuild a broken program. But then again, Cal alumni can be a valuable source of talent. As long as the emphasis is on their talent and not their Cal pedigree. I think the powers that be have figured out the difference now, but I can understand people's wariness re Rivera in 2010. It was a completely different situation back then.