Including a former Texas commit.

The question you have to ask is whether Tosh and Sark are stashing the money for the players on the boat. I don't think you can prosecute someone if they're doing it in international waters.

LessMilesMoreTedford;841904927 said:

---

Including a former Texas commit.

The question you have to ask is whether Tosh and Sark are stashing the money for the players on the boat. I don't think you can prosecute someone if they're doing it in international waters.

---

How about the simple answer that their new coaches are better at recruiting than our current coaches are at this point? It used to be that we would beat them at least in recruiting. At a certain point, we have to be result oriented (obviously wins are the most important, but if we were at least doing well in recruiting after Tosh-gate (something to show me that recruiting top athletes didn't hinge on one coach), we could reasonably hope for a better future or if we were graduating a high percentage of players, we could at least take an elitist attitude). As much as I hate writing this, Tedford has to be at the edge of the plank with no more excuses, no more minor tweeks or band-aids, and no more promises. No more "It's still early" when many of the top recruits are ruling us out or have us far behind their top schools. Tedford just has to deliver this year before we fall too far behind (as far as our image among recruits and interest among alumni) other schools who are racing ahead of us while we are fumbling to find our footing. I am truly having a hard time finding one important thing that this coaching staff is doing really well at this point or one excuse I can make for this coaching staff that doesn't seem disingenuous even to me.

LessMilesMoreTedford;841904927 said:

---

Including a former Texas commit.

The question you have to ask is whether Tosh and Sark are stashing the money for the players on the boat. I don't think you can prosecute someone if they're doing it in international waters.

---

Signing takes place in February.

Exactly. Those are verbal commitments, they can't [U]sign[/U] until the date in February.

goldenokiebear;841904968 said:

---

Exactly. Those are verbal commitments, they can't [U]sign[/U] until the date in February.

---

So, nothing that happens before then really matters. All of these recruits who have ruled us out are just pranking these other schools and us because they are planning on signing with us. Heck, why even get excited about Goff or Hudson. Their commitments obviously don't mean anything, and we are in no better position with them than Boise State is.

Five 3-stars and a 4-star based on Rivals? Talk to me if it had been 7 4-stars, some 5-stars or anything like that.

StillNoStanfurdium;841904973 said:

---

Five 3-stars and a 4-star based on Rivals? Talk to me if it had been 7 4-stars, some 5-stars or anything like that.

---

I am not even comparing us to USC. That would just be too depressing. It is sad, however, that schools like Washington and UCLA seem to be out charming and possibly out working and out selling us for recruits now that Tosh is gone.

DrDanger;841904945 said:

---

Signing takes place in February.

---

Thank goodness! When I saw the headline, I assume that the NCAA had allowed UW to sign players 7 months ahead of everyone else!

StillNoStanfurdium;841904973 said:

---

Five 3-stars and a 4-star based on Rivals? Talk to me if it had been 7 4-stars, some 5-stars or anything like that.

---

How about the fact that they are taking solid prospects right out of our backyard. Should we be panicking? No, not yet. Is it worrisome? Hell yes.

Some fans just aren't the type to worry early, or at all. But I agree with you, I find it troubling UW is gaining recruiting momentum off of our traitor...I was hoping otherwise. UW may pull in the second best class this year after SC.

calbear93;841904972 said:

---

So, nothing that happens before then really matters. All of these recruits who have ruled us out are just pranking these other schools and us because they are planning on signing with us. Heck, why even get excited about Goff or Hudson. Their commitments obviously don't mean anything, and we are in no better position with them than Boise State is.

---

I didn't say that. I believe it DOES mean something. And, it isn't binding, a few change their minds every year and switch when it comes to signing. But that doesn't mean verbal commitments aren't important, just pointing out it really isn't signing as the OP stated. Geez, have a nice sarcastic day.

Do you have any idea about the quality of the verbals? Where they our targets? Tosh obviously asked them to announce at the same time to create some buzz. Good tatic but I think we will be able to find 5 more 3 stars that want to come to Cal by February,

AZGoldenBear;841904981 said:

---

How about the fact that they are taking solid prospects right out of our backyard. Should we be panicking? No, not yet. Is it worrisome? Hell yes.

---

not this again... here's a few facts:

- UW has 14 commits now (7 from today)
- Cal has only offered 5 out of the 14 UW commits

- 8 of those 14 UW commits are from Cali
- only 2 of those 8 are from "our backyard": Qualls and Daniels
- we offered Qualls for FB, he's going to UW to play DL

why do we need to worry? worry is when kids like Vander, Hudson, Mundt, and Newby, Moore, Johnson, Byrd go to UW.

goldenokiebear;841904984 said:

---

I didn't say that. I believe it DOES mean something. And, it isn't binding, a few change their minds every year and switch when it comes to signing. But that doesn't mean verbal commitments aren't important, just pointing out it really isn't signing as the OP stated. Geez, have a nice sarcastic day.

---

So, you can't dismiss us falling behind the schools we used to beat in recruiting by stating that it is only June. It does matter, and it does concern me greatly that it appears that we lost almost all of the recruiting mojo we had previously. I am sure the coaches are well aware of it, and I am not really implying that they don't care or that they are not working hard. However, the results so far seem to imply that what they are doing isn't really working, and I just don't see signs that they know how to fix it (if you do, let me know...so that I can stop being annoyed that Lupoi is besting our coaches...that probably annoys me more than anything).

AZGoldenBear;841904981 said:

---

How about the fact that they are taking solid prospects right out of our backyard. Should we be panicking? No, not yet. Is it worrisome? Hell yes.

---

If I had a choice between ten 3-star kids from the bay vs. five 4-star kids from a mix of all around the country I'm not beholden to the local prospects.

UW better win this year.

Sarkisian is in his fourth year. He is a .500 coach. His overall record is 19-19 (5-7, 7-6, 7-6). I expect more Huskie mediocrity in 2012. I expect to see the coaching staff let go before any of these verbal commitments are ready to play.

You might argue that Sarkisian is rebuilding. Tedford also took over a 1-10 team, and the Bears had winning records in JT's first seven years. Coaches don't get more than four years to show results.

StillNoStanfurdium;841904991 said:

---

If I had a choice between ten 3-star kids from the bay vs. five 4-star kids from a mix of all around the country I'm not beholden to the local prospects.

---

True...but we wouldn't be having this discussion if we had five 4-star kids from a mix of all around the country. Therefore, since we don't have that and we have some of the local recruits choosing other schools, what do we have? It doesn't seem like we are necessarily choosing between the two.

beeasyed;841904987 said:

---

not this again... here's a few facts:

- UW has 14 commits now (7 from today)
- Cal has only offered 5 out of the 14 UW commits

- 8 of those 14 UW commits are from Cali
- only 2 of those 8 are from "our backyard": Qualls and Daniels
- we offered Qualls for FB, he's going to UW to play DL

why do we need to worry? worry is when kids like Vander, Hudson, Mundt, and Newby, Moore, Johnson, Byrd go to UW.

---

First off, "only Qualls and Daniels"...bwhaha Daniels is considered the best WR on the west coast. Qualls is a tremendous athlete who had offers from Michigan, Nebraska, USC, etc.."only"?! You can rationalize it all you want but these are big time players from our backyard and wanted around the country. They just got 7 commits today!!! How can you not be a little worried??

FingeroftheBear;841904999 said:

---

Woody Allen called, he wants his neurosis back!

Seriously, verbals on 3 stars...BFD.

---

LOL. This is like an unemployed person mockingly dismissing a middle-management white collar worker for not being a CEO.

beeasyed;841904987 said:

---

not this again... here's a few facts:

- UW has 14 commits now (7 from today)
- Cal has only offered 5 out of the 14 UW commits

- 8 of those 14 UW commits are from Cali
- only 2 of those 8 are from "our backyard": Qualls and Daniels
- we offered Qualls for FB, he's going to UW to play DL

why do we need to worry? worry is when kids like Vander, Hudson, Mundt, and Newby, Moore, Johnson, Byrd go to UW.

---

I think the discomfort is based on Cal not being the top school for these CA kids anymore, even the 3 stars. Cal fans like to think we're the top destination for CA prospects after SC, but now signs are pointing UW, and possibly fucla being the more desirable programs over Cal.

SnoozerBear;841905006 said:

---

I think the discomfort is based on Cal not being the top school for these CA kids anymore, even the 3 stars. Cal fans like to think we're the top destination for CA prospects after SC, but now signs are pointing UW, and possibly fucla being the more desirable programs over Cal.

---

i don't get the UW appeal, personally. but To$h is good at hyping things up, maybe it will work out for them, maybe not. UCLA is getting great hype from the new coaching staff. Klemm is very good, and Mora seems to be more savvy than people thought he would be.

i do know one thing....programs on their own can only be attractive to a certain point. but if you don't start winning, all that shine will disappear. that can be said for UW, UCLA, or anywhere else. our recent mediocrity is starting to show. and if Sark and Mora don't show up on the field this year, they too will tank recruiting-wise. we know this.

SnoozerBear;841905006 said:

---

I think the discomfort is based on Cal not being the top school for these CA kids anymore, even the 3 stars. Cal fans like to think we're the top destination for CA prospects after SC, but now signs are pointing UW, and possibly fucla being the more desirable programs over Cal.

---

I think that worrying is premature considering we're not even a full recruiting cycle removed from Toshgate. Obviously we were great before Tosh left. Even after he left our remaining class was more than respectable in my opinion.

Now, at the end of June, we're ready to proclaim that we're no longer a top destination for CA prospects? If we only have 2-4 4-stars on signing day with the rest being 3s and 2s then I'd say start worrying.

SnoozerBear;841905006 said:

---

I think the discomfort is based on Cal not being the top school for these CA kids anymore, even the 3 stars. Cal fans like to think we're the top destination for CA prospects after SC, but now signs are pointing UW, and possibly fucla being the more desirable programs over Cal.

---

hmmm weird!!! :sarc: Could it have anything to do with the fact that UW has to$h and we don't? hmm..

beeasyed;841905009 said:

---

programs on their own can only be attractive to a certain point. but if you don't start winning, all that shine will disappear.

---

Exactly, Tedford just needs to win. We have more star power in the NFL, and that give credibility to the program as well. I do wish Cal better utilize our NFL players in recruiting, maybe have an all-pro visit during jr day or something...but all within ncaa guidelines.

DrDanger;841904945 said:

---

Signing takes place in February.

---

Thanks DrDanger, you beat me to the punch.

An oral commitment is not worth the paper it is(n't) written on.
[I thought we learned that lesson last year.]

StillNoStanfurdium;841905011 said:

---

Now, at the end of June, we're ready to proclaim that we're no longer a top destination for CA prospects?

---

Well, at the minimum you have to admit the competition is a bit stronger than previous years. fucla has always been an attractive program, UW with Tosh is making some noise, and then there is SC, Oregon and furd.

AZGoldenBear;841905000 said:

---

First off, "only Qualls and Daniels"...bwhaha Daniels is considered the best WR on the west coast. Qualls is a tremendous athlete who had offers from Michigan, Nebraska, USC, etc.."only"?! You can rationalize it all you want but these are big time players from our backyard and wanted around the country. They just got 7 commits today!!! How can you not be a little worried??

---

If Daniels is the best west coast wr, why did USC pass on him? Qualls reported the offers, can you confirm that those schools were firm on him?

Last year, we didn't have many commits in June either with Lupaid. Schools like USC, Stanford, and Oregon, even UW were racking up commits in June. Were you worried back then? Apart from the Texas DB they got and stringfellow, I wouldn't lose sleep over the other players. Qualls could be a dominant FB but its still only a FB. Daniels is way overrated, passed on by Oregon and USC.

68great;841905015 said:

---

Thanks DrDanger, you beat me to the punch.

An oral commitment is not worth the paper it is(n't) written on.
[I thought we learned that lesson last year.]

---

What we learned last year was that those verbals were worth it all, that is till tosh left. Now they have him, so unless he bolts, they'll land most of them. Currently at #15 on rivals.

FingeroftheBear;841904999 said:

---

Seriously, verbals on 3 stars...BFD./QUOTE]

Not to pick on you personally, FOTB, but I perceive a huge double-standard on this board when it comes to spinning the rankings of kids that verbal to our school versus kids that verbal to other schools.

Take three-star players, for example. A lot of times when a three-star player commits to our school, I see people posting about how once the player hits the camp circuit more heavily and plays through his senior year, his ranking will likely go up. Like we found a real gem that others may not be onto. Well why can't that be the case with three-star players who commit to a rival? No, when UW gets five three-star verbals or whatever the case is, people scoff like it's no big deal. Would we not be excited if it was Cal pulling off a one-day haul like that?

I also see people repeatedly referring to the fact that two-star prospects like Mack and Mohamed turned out to be so much better than they were projected. Isn't that even more likely to be the case with three-star players? I doubt there's a huge fundamental difference between most three-star players (especially the high-end three stars, i.e. the 5.7 rating on Rivals) and most four-star players. (A small sample of some three-stars we have that are currently being highly touted by coaches and observers: Richard Rogers, Maurice Harris, Daniel Lasco, Kam Jackson, Michael Coley, Brian Schwenke.)

Lastly, when a highly-rated commit we covet (say, a four-star local receiver that people are/were high on) goes somewhere else, a good number of people start to make the excuse that he's overrated or hasn't shown that well in camps, etc. Dollars to doughnuts many of the same people would be thrilled if that same player were to commit to Cal.

I'm not actually that "worried" about UW's recruiting - I think when it's all said and done we should be on par with them or better (unless the wheels really fall off this season). Nor do I think their weekend haul is the biggest deal - it is a buzz generator, to be sure, but it's also quite early in the recruiting cycle. But, other than blind homerism, I don't get why people are so hypocritical when it comes to which school a given player commits to.

/rant

:gobears:

Cal Bears Great;841905025 said:

---

FingeroftheBear;841904999 said:

---

Seriously, verbals on 3 stars...BFD./QUOTE]

Not to pick on you personally, FOTB, but I perceive a huge double-standard on this board when it comes to spinning the rankings of kids that verbal to our school versus kids that verbal to other schools.

Take three-star players, for example. A lot of times when a three-star player commits to our school, I see people posting about how once the player hits the camp circuit more heavily and plays through his senior year, his ranking will likely go up. Like we found a real gem that others may not be onto. Well why can't that be the case with three-star players who commit to a rival? No, when UW gets five three-star verbals or whatever the case is, people scoff like it's no big deal. Would we not be excited if it was Cal pulling off a one-day haul like that?

I also see people repeatedly referring to the fact that two-star prospects like Mack and Mohamed turned out to be so much better than they were projected. Isn't that even more likely to be the case with three-star players? I doubt there's a huge fundamental difference between most three-star players (especially the high-end three stars, i.e. the 5.7 rating on Rivals) and most four-star players. (A small sample of some three-stars we have that are currently being highly touted by coaches and observers: Richard Rogers, Maurice Harris, Daniel Lasco, Kam Jackson, Michael Coley, Brian Schwenke.)

Lastly, when a highly-rated commit we covet (say, a four-star local receiver that people are/were high on) goes somewhere else, a good number of people start to make the excuse that he's overrated or hasn't shown that well in camps, etc. Dollars to doughnuts many of the same people would be thrilled if that same player were to commit to Cal.

I'm not actually that "worried" about UW's recruiting - I think when it's all said and done we should be on par with them or better (unless the wheels really fall off this season). Nor do I think their weekend haul is the biggest deal - it is a buzz generator, to be sure, but it's also quite early in the recruiting cycle. But, other than blind homerism, I don't get why people are so hypocritical when it comes to which school a given player commits to.

/rant

:gobears:

---

coping mechanism.

At this point we can all agree on one thing, winning solves all. But we have to win big.

SnoozerBear;841905006 said:

---

I think the discomfort is based on Cal not being the top school for these CA kids anymore, even the 3 stars. Cal fans like to think we're the top destination for CA prospects after SC, but now signs are pointing UW, and possibly fucla being the more desirable programs over Cal.

---

UW will have at best the 5th ranked class in the Pac and right now they are beating JT like a drum. USC, UCLA, UO and Stanford will all have better classes than UW. UW still has enough pull to beat Cal for Norcal kids that both schools want. Something is rotten in Denmark.

I'm always amused when folks get bent out of shape about recruiting..... in [SIZE="4"]JULY !!!![/SIZE] Even in the years we recruited well there were several posters who were all doom and gloom at this point of the year... I'd suggest to those folks who can't handle the pressure to stop following it. I'm not saying things are all hunky dory here but except for the 2 tree sitter years, mainly one year, we've always ended up with decent classes..

I'd just prepare for the fact that we are recruiting differently now and won't be in the running for guys we would have been before since Tosh was able to pull these guys in. Isn't gonna happen that way anymore until we start winning... Nobody here except for maybe a few people know what is happening behind the scenes....Some of you need to chill out or find another hobby.

Of the seven I think qualls was the only one who CAL offered. Relax everybody we be ok.

Quite a haul for them... While I hate to see our ex-coach do well, we all knew he could recruit and cause a buzz. We just wondered if he'd be able to change his approach and sale, and looks like he has so far.

I don't know whats going on with all these early committments this year though, and I don't just mean today. These guys haven't even been on their OVs yet and schools are still offering. Pretty sure we'll see a record number of decommittments this year just because of all these early ones. Hell, the former Furd commit LB Savaiinaea just decommitted today... Not sure how long he was committed for but we're still 7 months away from signing day.

While I'm not particularly happy about where we are with the verbals yet, I'm not quite ready to panic either. I'm hoping we have a certain lineman in the wings and a few other national guys.

Cal_Fan2;841905046 said:

---

I'm always amused when folks get bent out of shape about recruiting..... in [SIZE="4"]JULY !!!![/SIZE] Even in the years we recruited well there were several posters who were all doom and gloom at this point of the year... I'd suggest to those folks who can't handle the pressure to stop following it. I'm not saying things are all hunky dory here but except for the 2 tree sitter years, mainly one year, we've always ended up with decent classes..

I'd just prepare for the fact that we are recruiting differently now and won't be in the running for guys we would have been before since Tosh was able to pull these guys in. Isn't gonna happen that way anymore until we start winning... Nobody here except for maybe a few people know what is happening behind the scenes....Some of you need to chill out or find another hobby.

---

This is one of those arguments that isn't actually about that thing being argued. Being out recruited is just another reminder of the overall trajectory of this Tedford led program. And if this pace continues, you'll be seeing a lot more of these posts. So similarly, "I'd suggest to those folks who can't handle" that this new reality upsets a lot of people and will continue to upset them every time they are reminded of it, to stop reading those threads.