Just watched film on a kid we've made an offer to and is on the Recruiting Offers list. Totally dominates the plays I watched - big, strong, fast, aggressive, and from a city that you'd think has strong competition. Rating not yet posted, but only 3 offers, including ours, and the other two are second tier. I'm not sure I should even mention his name, but it has been posted. What am I missing?
What am I missing?
8,762 Views |
42 Replies |
Last: 7 yr ago by Bear19
If Cal offered there are no academic issues and probably no character issues. There may be parent who is difficult or is insisting on certain things schools find troubling (like an eduction), a possible injury history, not willing to play at a position that most colleges want him to play, etc. . Also, if some kids don't go to camps and get coverage, they may go under the radar. Lot of factors.Rushinbear said:
Just watched film on a kid we've made an offer to and is on the Recruiting Offers list. Totally dominates the plays I watched - big, strong, fast, aggressive, and from a city that you'd think has strong competition. Rating not yet posted, but only 3 offers, including ours, and the other two are second tier. I'm not sure I should even mention his name, but it has been posted. What am I missing?
Rushinbear, I know you know football pretty well, but I don't know how experienced you are at judging prep talent by watching film. One thing I have learned is to NOT NECESSARILY trust my own instincts based on watching film, especially if it is a "highlights tape". There are many reasons for this, but the main one is that the level of competition is usually unknown and there is some WEAK competition out there. Lack of athletic ability, poor coaching... then grades come out in the middle of the season and some teams lose 1/4 of their players (or more). Lots of players can put together a few dozen plays that make them look dominating.
That said, in this case, who knows? I also know there are plenty of diamonds in the rough. Now that we have offered him, maybe other schools take a closer look at him this summer and in the fall. Lots of time until December.
That said, in this case, who knows? I also know there are plenty of diamonds in the rough. Now that we have offered him, maybe other schools take a closer look at him this summer and in the fall. Lots of time until December.
You have to pay for an answer to a recruiting question.
Since most (i.e., everyone except people who post at this site) consider Cal a "second tier" school when it comes to football, I'm curious about your definition of second tier...Rushinbear said:
Just watched film on a kid we've made an offer to and is on the Recruiting Offers list. Totally dominates the plays I watched - big, strong, fast, aggressive, and from a city that you'd think has strong competition. Rating not yet posted, but only 3 offers, including ours, and the other two are second tier. I'm not sure I should even mention his name, but it has been posted. What am I missing?
71Bear, Cal is not a second tier football school under Coach Wilcox and the kids they have identified and recruited are not second tier recruits.
I share the other posters questions about the ratings of many of the Cal kids and expect some ratings to improve by their senior year and more importantly expect many of our kids to outplay the rating.
I share the other posters questions about the ratings of many of the Cal kids and expect some ratings to improve by their senior year and more importantly expect many of our kids to outplay the rating.
It depends on your standard for Tier One...NVBear78 said:
71Bear, Cal is not a second tier football school under Coach Wilcox and the kids they have identified and recruited are not second tier recruits.
I share the other posters questions about the ratings of many of the Cal kids and expect some ratings to improve by their senior year and more importantly expect many of our kids to outplay the rating.
Here is mine:
Alabama
Clemson
Florida State
LSU
Notre Dame
Oklahoma
USC
Ohio State
Texas
Penn State
Michigan
Georgia
If you think Cal belongs in that group, well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Cal is in the vast middle class of college football....
the rest of the nation disagrees with you. i wonder why?NVBear78 said:
71Bear, Cal is not a second tier football school under Coach Wilcox and the kids they have identified and recruited are not second tier recruits.
I share the other posters questions about the ratings of many of the Cal kids and expect some ratings to improve by their senior year and more importantly expect many of our kids to outplay the rating.
what first tier program has had losing seasons 5 out of 6 years? what first tier program is hoping to get to 7 wins this year? do most our commits/signees have offers from first tier programs or do most of our recruits have offers from the bottom half on the pac12 and mwc programs? how many head to head recruiting battles have won versus ucla, furd, michigan? how many recruiting battles have we won versus bama, clemson, oregon or udub?
our recruiting classes have not exceeded expectations, exceeding expectations would be programs like mich. st, oklahoma state.
we are viewed nationally as an underachiever, in fact, didn't one of the sites just list us as the most underachieving program in the country?
Those advocating MWC membership certainly don't consider Cal a second tier program.
71 Bear you prove over & again that your a crusty, mean spirited , tight wad. Do you like to hook people?
I don't care if we're tier 1 or tier 99.....I like what I think the future holds, and think that we'll be considered a tier 1 school (universally) in a few years if we aren't now.
I love Cal football, I love football Saturdays in Strawberry Canyon, and if that's not tier 1 to some people, that's their problem. It's tier 1 to me.
I love Cal football, I love football Saturdays in Strawberry Canyon, and if that's not tier 1 to some people, that's their problem. It's tier 1 to me.
??? I guess I missed your point. The OP referenced Cal and a couple second tier programs. I was curious regarding his definition of a second tier program given that it is my opinion that Cal is not a first tier program (see the group of programs I consider first tier).DCW67MSW said:
71 Bear you prove over & again that your a crusty, mean spirited , tight wad. Do you like to hook people?
Stewart Mandel of The Athletic, one of one the most preeminent college football writers in the country has Cal listed as a Knight (group three) in his most recent listing (2017) of Kings, Barons, Knights and Peasants. Heck, I like to think of Cal as a second level program. So much for being an optimist.
https://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/college-football-program-pecking-order-3-0-dividing-all-66-bcs-teams-into-four-tier-hierarchy-052517
It may not seem like it, but I know a fair amount about recruiting and tape. In fact, I did quite a bit of it when they still allowed alums to do such things. I was in hs's watching whole films, talking to kids, coaches, admins, parents, going to games, and all and honchoed the shipping of films (16mm in those days) back to Cal. Even went to fb camps back when Offense/Defense was ruling the market. (And, I got a full dose of the under belly, even at that).Big C said:
Rushinbear, I know you know football pretty well, but I don't know how experienced you are at judging prep talent by watching film. One thing I have learned is to NOT NECESSARILY trust my own instincts based on watching film, especially if it is a "highlights tape". There are many reasons for this, but the main one is that the level of competition is usually unknown and there is some WEAK competition out there. Lack of athletic ability, poor coaching... then grades come out in the middle of the season and some teams lose 1/4 of their players (or more). Lots of players can put together a few dozen plays that make them look dominating.
That said, in this case, who knows? I also know there are plenty of diamonds in the rough. Now that we have offered him, maybe other schools take a closer look at him this summer and in the fall. Lots of time until December.
Back then, the toughest thing was getting the coach to send the best films to Cal. Frequently, there was only one or two of each game and they always wanted to keep one copy on hand for visiting coaches. It was a political battle, with a small "p," The coaches had their favorite schools - usually the ones that would give them the biggest cred in their town (job security trumped even their univ) - and on the East Coast, that was seldom Cal, if ever. In fact, few even knew that Cal was not SC or (cough) UCLA. How to overcome the disappointment in a kid when I said I'm from the Univ of California and they said SC? Then, I said no, California...Berkeley. And, they said, oh, UCLA. Then, to go over it with the parents, et al. Even some coaches had no clue. But, I digress.
The reason for my query was, after seeing the highlights and then his offer list, there seemed to be a mismatch. If this is an under the radar kid, I didn't want to blow the strategy by calling too much attention to him. On the other hand, what I saw was total domination in a pretty good league and either I'm seeing things that I can't believe others can't see or there is more to the story. So, I tried the side door.
71Bear is none of those things. He is a great Cal fan though.DCW67MSW said:
71 Bear you prove over & again that your a crusty, mean spirited , tight wad. Do you like to hook people?
71Bear your a bright guy & know tha Cal plays one of The toughest schedules in the country year after year. Despite that many of the top tier programs play a couple patsies & get an automatic couple wins. We get one at the most- this year Idaho State.The program is immensely improved ; recruiting is going well & the best may yet to come with several 4 stars indicating we're in their final school choices. Wait, I almost forgot you don't belong to the Bear Insider Board.
A couple thoughts...DCW67MSW said:
71Bear your a bright guy & know tha Cal plays one of The toughest schedules in the country year after year. Despite that many of the top tier programs play a couple patsies & get an automatic couple wins. We get one at the most- this year Idaho State.The program is immensely improved ; recruiting is going well & the best may yet to come with several 4 stars indicating we're in their final school choices. Wait, I almost forgot you don't belong to the Bear Insider Board.
There is a reason that Top Tier programs are top tier and it has nothing to do with the schedules. It has to do with a long tradition of excellence demonstrated by those programs.
Anyone who has read my posts knows that I am a huge Wilcox backer. I can't comment on recruiting because the best recruits are not close to making a decision. That will happen later this year. If Cal has a good year, they will get their share of good recruits. Regarding the Insider board, you are correct, I am not a member. I covered this in an earlier post. In a nutshell, I do not believe it is worth the cost. One thing I learned about recruiting during the years I covered it for BI, is that what people hear/read is 90% rumor and conjecture and 10% fact.
No problem. It's all good.
Rushinbear, thanks for asking that question.
I have the same question (assume it's the same player), but I have zero experience in film evaluation.
I hope he's not going to pop up on some radars now and reopen his recruiting. I'll be watching to see if you get some real answers.
I have the same question (assume it's the same player), but I have zero experience in film evaluation.
I hope he's not going to pop up on some radars now and reopen his recruiting. I'll be watching to see if you get some real answers.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you weren't experienced at watching tape. i just didn't know if you were or not. It's pretty easy to get fooled.Rushinbear said:It may not seem like it, but I know a fair amount about recruiting and tape. In fact, I did quite a bit of it when they still allowed alums to do such things. I was in hs's watching whole films, talking to kids, coaches, admins, parents, going to games, and all and honchoed the shipping of films (16mm in those days) back to Cal. Even went to fb camps back when Offense/Defense was ruling the market. (And, I got a full dose of the under belly, even at that).Big C said:
Rushinbear, I know you know football pretty well, but I don't know how experienced you are at judging prep talent by watching film. One thing I have learned is to NOT NECESSARILY trust my own instincts based on watching film, especially if it is a "highlights tape". There are many reasons for this, but the main one is that the level of competition is usually unknown and there is some WEAK competition out there. Lack of athletic ability, poor coaching... then grades come out in the middle of the season and some teams lose 1/4 of their players (or more). Lots of players can put together a few dozen plays that make them look dominating.
That said, in this case, who knows? I also know there are plenty of diamonds in the rough. Now that we have offered him, maybe other schools take a closer look at him this summer and in the fall. Lots of time until December.
Back then, the toughest thing was getting the coach to send the best films to Cal. Frequently, there was only one or two of each game and they always wanted to keep one copy on hand for visiting coaches. It was a political battle, with a small "p," The coaches had their favorite schools - usually the ones that would give them the biggest cred in their town (job security trumped even their univ) - and on the East Coast, that was seldom Cal, if ever. In fact, few even knew that Cal was not SC or (cough) UCLA. How to overcome the disappointment in a kid when I said I'm from the Univ of California and they said SC? Then, I said no, California...Berkeley. And, they said, oh, UCLA. Then, to go over it with the parents, et al. Even some coaches had no clue. But, I digress.
The reason for my query was, after seeing the highlights and then his offer list, there seemed to be a mismatch. If this is an under the radar kid, I didn't want to blow the strategy by calling too much attention to him. On the other hand, what I saw was total domination in a pretty good league and either I'm seeing things that I can't believe others can't see or there is more to the story. So, I tried the side door.
Colorado State, Indiana (altho IU has been improved somewhat, lately).71Bear said:Since most (i.e., everyone except people who post at this site) consider Cal a "second tier" school when it comes to football, I'm curious about your definition of second tier...Rushinbear said:
Just watched film on a kid we've made an offer to and is on the Recruiting Offers list. Totally dominates the plays I watched - big, strong, fast, aggressive, and from a city that you'd think has strong competition. Rating not yet posted, but only 3 offers, including ours, and the other two are second tier. I'm not sure I should even mention his name, but it has been posted. What am I missing?
As I read the disagreements of where Cal fits in the college football tier structure it brings to mind one interesting irony, and that is we always seem to wind up with a schedule in the top 10 or 15 in CFB. So we make every attempt to play the perceived best to become the best even though we are not. To abandon that suggests that we do not seek Tier 1, so we continue and hope for the best, playing the best. Just wondering when our time will come. Been hanging on since Pappy's Days.
OK, so he's crusty, mean spirited and a tight wad. Is he wrong?DCW67MSW said:
71 Bear you prove over & again that your a crusty, mean spirited , tight wad. Do you like to hook people?
What first tier program had losing seasons 5 out of 6 years? Try Washington between 2004-2009 for 6 losing seasons, including a no win season with Ty. Thereafter, from 10-15 they went 7-6 four of the next six seasons. Sark started the turn around and Peterson escalated it. The Huskies are currently considered a top tier football school since they made it to the final four and won the Pac12.flounder said:the rest of the nation disagrees with you. i wonder why?NVBear78 said:
71Bear, Cal is not a second tier football school under Coach Wilcox and the kids they have identified and recruited are not second tier recruits.
I share the other posters questions about the ratings of many of the Cal kids and expect some ratings to improve by their senior year and more importantly expect many of our kids to outplay the rating.
what first tier program has had losing seasons 5 out of 6 years? what first tier program is hoping to get to 7 wins this year? do most our commits/signees have offers from first tier programs or do most of our recruits have offers from the bottom half on the pac12 and mwc programs? how many head to head recruiting battles have won versus ucla, furd, michigan? how many recruiting battles have we won versus bama, clemson, oregon or udub?
our recruiting classes have not exceeded expectations, exceeding expectations would be programs like mich. st, oklahoma state.
we are viewed nationally as an underachiever, in fact, didn't one of the sites just list us as the most underachieving program in the country?
We have a history of getting some very good recruits from the State of Washington, right from under their very nose. Wasn't it Chris ? who played safety that we took from the Bruins and Viramontes was wanted so badly by Harbaugh at Michigan that he and Vic's father got into a very loud argument.
There are ebbs and flows to football greatness. We had a taste of it with Tedford. Wilcox seems to represent a flow after JT's last teams faltered and Sonny didn't have a defense. The tide is in.
Are you talking about Chris Conte who flipped from UCLA and played CB and later Safety for us? He was from LA.Bear8 said:What first tier program had losing seasons 5 out of 6 years? Try Washington between 2004-2009 for 6 losing seasons, including a no win season with Ty. Thereafter, from 10-15 they went 7-6 four of the next six seasons. Sark started the turn around and Peterson escalated it. The Huskies are currently considered a top tier football school since they made it to the final four and won the Pac12.flounder said:the rest of the nation disagrees with you. i wonder why?NVBear78 said:
71Bear, Cal is not a second tier football school under Coach Wilcox and the kids they have identified and recruited are not second tier recruits.
I share the other posters questions about the ratings of many of the Cal kids and expect some ratings to improve by their senior year and more importantly expect many of our kids to outplay the rating.
what first tier program has had losing seasons 5 out of 6 years? what first tier program is hoping to get to 7 wins this year? do most our commits/signees have offers from first tier programs or do most of our recruits have offers from the bottom half on the pac12 and mwc programs? how many head to head recruiting battles have won versus ucla, furd, michigan? how many recruiting battles have we won versus bama, clemson, oregon or udub?
our recruiting classes have not exceeded expectations, exceeding expectations would be programs like mich. st, oklahoma state.
we are viewed nationally as an underachiever, in fact, didn't one of the sites just list us as the most underachieving program in the country?
We have a history of getting some very good recruits from the State of Washington, right from under their very nose. Wasn't it Chris ? who played safety that we took from the Bruins and Viramontes was wanted so badly by Harbaugh at Michigan that he and Vic's father got into a very loud argument.
There are ebbs and flows to football greatness. We had a taste of it with Tedford. Wilcox seems to represent a flow after JT's last teams faltered and Sonny didn't have a defense. The tide is in.
No. We probably rated a year ago as a "C" for scheduling purposes. May be a C plus now. During the early JT years we were probably a B plus or A minus. Cal has been in rebuild mode for a while. Doesn't mean it can't go back to being an A minus, which is borderline top program. If Furd can do it, Cal can.Northside91 said:OK, so he's crusty, mean spirited and a tight wad. Is he wrong?DCW67MSW said:
71 Bear you prove over & again that your a crusty, mean spirited , tight wad. Do you like to hook people?
I'm not to sure how crusty or mean '71 is, but he is really, really, really old
I didn't make myself clear enough, I guess. The recruiting/offered list shows that most of the kids with whom we are in contention show other offers from two or more top 20 schools. The list shows that we are in competition for those kids. Then, I looked at the list of offers that the kid in question had and compared it to other recruits with whom we are said to be in the mix.wifeisafurd said:No. We probably rated a year ago as a "C" for scheduling purposes. May be a C plus now. During the early JT years we were probably a B plus or A minus. Cal has been in rebuild mode for a while. Doesn't mean it can't go back to being an A minus, which is borderline top program. If Furd can do it, Cal can.Northside91 said:OK, so he's crusty, mean spirited and a tight wad. Is he wrong?DCW67MSW said:
71 Bear you prove over & again that your a crusty, mean spirited , tight wad. Do you like to hook people?
I'm not to sure how crusty or mean '71 is, but he is really, really, really old
Now, in past years, I watched as the vast majority of the aforementioned kids rejected us, to the point that maybe the list is for show and that we never had a realistic chance for all but a few. When the smoke cleared, we always have had a group of good players with a smattering of top kids. Almost all high character, high intellect kids that we were proud to have represent us. Kids that benefited from good coaching when we had it, as it appears we do now.
So, I think that we are a top tier school and those other two schools, not so much. My feeling is that you want to be the best. And, being the best means doing all you can to be the best at everything you undertake (hate that word, especially at my age). The joy of Cal is how to be the best at football when being the best at everything else might give a good many kids hesitation. It's a unique challenge and the reason I got so wrapped up in giving it my all back then. It's different today, except the challenge - that hasn't changed.
yes, that makes sense. Cal gets on radar because of its academics, location, facilities and the experience of this staff. Not to say Cal doesn't have disadvantages and Cal presently is not an elite program in terms of winning or losing. But it could be.Rushinbear said:I didn't make myself clear enough, I guess. The recruiting/offered list shows that most of the kids with whom we are in contention show other offers from two or more top 20 schools. The list shows that we are in competition for those kids. Then, I looked at the list of offers that the kid in question had and compared it to other recruits with whom we are said to be in the mix.wifeisafurd said:No. We probably rated a year ago as a "C" for scheduling purposes. May be a C plus now. During the early JT years we were probably a B plus or A minus. Cal has been in rebuild mode for a while. Doesn't mean it can't go back to being an A minus, which is borderline top program. If Furd can do it, Cal can.Northside91 said:OK, so he's crusty, mean spirited and a tight wad. Is he wrong?DCW67MSW said:
71 Bear you prove over & again that your a crusty, mean spirited , tight wad. Do you like to hook people?
I'm not to sure how crusty or mean '71 is, but he is really, really, really old
Now, in past years, I watched as the vast majority of the aforementioned kids rejected us, to the point that maybe the list is for show and that we never had a realistic chance for all but a few. When the smoke cleared, we always have had a group of good players with a smattering of top kids. Almost all high character, high intellect kids that we were proud to have represent us. Kids that benefited from good coaching when we had it, as it appears we do now.
So, I think that we are a top tier school and those other two schools, not so much. My feeling is that you want to be the best. And, being the best means doing all you can to be the best at everything you undertake (hate that word, especially at my age). The joy of Cal is how to be the best at football when being the best at everything else might give a good many kids hesitation. It's a unique challenge and the reason I got so wrapped up in giving it my all back then. It's different today, except the challenge - that hasn't changed.
But not as old as I am gonna be...........wifeisafurd said:No. We probably rated a year ago as a "C" for scheduling purposes. May be a C plus now. During the early JT years we were probably a B plus or A minus. Cal has been in rebuild mode for a while. Doesn't mean it can't go back to being an A minus, which is borderline top program. If Furd can do it, Cal can.Northside91 said:OK, so he's crusty, mean spirited and a tight wad. Is he wrong?DCW67MSW said:
71 Bear you prove over & again that your a crusty, mean spirited , tight wad. Do you like to hook people?
I'm not to sure how crusty or mean '71 is, but he is really, really, really old
Speaking of getting old: what am I gonna see first, everyone off my lawn or a flipping Cal Rose Bowl?71Bear said:But not as old as I am gonna be...........wifeisafurd said:No. We probably rated a year ago as a "C" for scheduling purposes. May be a C plus now. During the early JT years we were probably a B plus or A minus. Cal has been in rebuild mode for a while. Doesn't mean it can't go back to being an A minus, which is borderline top program. If Furd can do it, Cal can.Northside91 said:OK, so he's crusty, mean spirited and a tight wad. Is he wrong?DCW67MSW said:
71 Bear you prove over & again that your a crusty, mean spirited , tight wad. Do you like to hook people?
I'm not to sure how crusty or mean '71 is, but he is really, really, really old
wifeisafurd said:Speaking of getting old: what am I gonna see first, everyone off my lawn or a flipping Cal Rose Bowl?71Bear said:But not as old as I am gonna be...........wifeisafurd said:No. We probably rated a year ago as a "C" for scheduling purposes. May be a C plus now. During the early JT years we were probably a B plus or A minus. Cal has been in rebuild mode for a while. Doesn't mean it can't go back to being an A minus, which is borderline top program. If Furd can do it, Cal can.Northside91 said:OK, so he's crusty, mean spirited and a tight wad. Is he wrong?DCW67MSW said:
71 Bear you prove over & again that your a crusty, mean spirited , tight wad. Do you like to hook people?
I'm not to sure how crusty or mean '71 is, but he is really, really, really old
Yelling at the kids comes first.
There's a couple big differences between us and Udub in modern history (since the 70's). They have been a much stronger program: winning conference championships, rose bowls, financial support, donor support, being king of their state, and student body support. They did not take being a loser as well as we did, they went out and fixed it. We hired Dykes and wouldn't pay for assistants, they took Sark from USC/Tosh/Wilcox and then got CP. Our stadium doesn't even fill up for the big time opponents and our student body is apathetic.Bear8 said:What first tier program had losing seasons 5 out of 6 years? Try Washington between 2004-2009 for 6 losing seasons, including a no win season with Ty. Thereafter, from 10-15 they went 7-6 four of the next six seasons. Sark started the turn around and Peterson escalated it. The Huskies are currently considered a top tier football school since they made it to the final four and won the Pac12.flounder said:the rest of the nation disagrees with you. i wonder why?NVBear78 said:
71Bear, Cal is not a second tier football school under Coach Wilcox and the kids they have identified and recruited are not second tier recruits.
I share the other posters questions about the ratings of many of the Cal kids and expect some ratings to improve by their senior year and more importantly expect many of our kids to outplay the rating.
what first tier program has had losing seasons 5 out of 6 years? what first tier program is hoping to get to 7 wins this year? do most our commits/signees have offers from first tier programs or do most of our recruits have offers from the bottom half on the pac12 and mwc programs? how many head to head recruiting battles have won versus ucla, furd, michigan? how many recruiting battles have we won versus bama, clemson, oregon or udub?
our recruiting classes have not exceeded expectations, exceeding expectations would be programs like mich. st, oklahoma state.
we are viewed nationally as an underachiever, in fact, didn't one of the sites just list us as the most underachieving program in the country?
We have a history of getting some very good recruits from the State of Washington, right from under their very nose. Wasn't it Chris ? who played safety that we took from the Bruins and Viramontes was wanted so badly by Harbaugh at Michigan that he and Vic's father got into a very loud argument.
There are ebbs and flows to football greatness. We had a taste of it with Tedford. Wilcox seems to represent a flow after JT's last teams faltered and Sonny didn't have a defense. The tide is in.
Sure, we beat out UCLA for Chris Conte in 2007, whats the head to head recruiting record since 2010? 2014?
We had a taste under Tedford for like 5 years and otherwise have been a loser, UDub has had it for the majority of the last 30 years besides 2004-2009.
I look forward to Wilcox elevating the program to something close to the good Tedford years.
I don't consider 7-6 a top tier program when that is the record for 4 out of 6 years. Before that they had six seasons with a losing record. In effect, it took Washington about ten years to actually get back on top. While they had success during the 90's, it didn't help them and they faltered just like any other school when coaching changes occurred. They also don't play SC and UCLA every year as we do. It may account for that extra victory during the 7-6 run which pushed them over the .500 mark.
Last night, the Pac12 Network replayed the Big Game of 2009. The team had some remarkable players, many of whom made it to the NFL - Vereen, Tepper, Bishop, Syd Quan, Conte to name a few. Maybe our ten year hiatus is over just like the Huskies.
Last night, the Pac12 Network replayed the Big Game of 2009. The team had some remarkable players, many of whom made it to the NFL - Vereen, Tepper, Bishop, Syd Quan, Conte to name a few. Maybe our ten year hiatus is over just like the Huskies.
I agree. UW is not a top tier program. Given the absence of a tradition of long term excellence, it would take a long run of unqualified success to be even considered. Heck, they accomplished something that even Cal has not done - a season with no wins or ties (under Willingham). Schools in the top tier avoid that kind of misery......Bear8 said:
I don't consider 7-6 a top tier program when that is the record for 4 out of 6 years. Before that they had six seasons with a losing record. In effect, it took Washington about ten years to actually get back on top. While they had success during the 90's, it didn't help them and they faltered just like any other school when coaching changes occurred. They also don't play SC and UCLA every year as we do. It may account for that extra victory during the 7-6 run which pushed them over the .500 mark.
Last night, the Pac12 Network replayed the Big Game of 2009. The team had some remarkable players, many of whom made it to the NFL - Vereen, Tepper, Bishop, Syd Quan, Conte to name a few. Maybe our ten year hiatus is over just like the Huskies.
if UW is a tier 2 program, then are we tier 3?71Bear said:I agree. UW is not a top tier program. Given the absence of a tradition of long term excellence, it would take a long run of unqualified success to be even considered. Heck, they accomplished something that even Cal has not done - a season with no wins or ties (under Willingham). Schools in the top tier avoid that kind of misery......Bear8 said:
I don't consider 7-6 a top tier program when that is the record for 4 out of 6 years. Before that they had six seasons with a losing record. In effect, it took Washington about ten years to actually get back on top. While they had success during the 90's, it didn't help them and they faltered just like any other school when coaching changes occurred. They also don't play SC and UCLA every year as we do. It may account for that extra victory during the 7-6 run which pushed them over the .500 mark.
Last night, the Pac12 Network replayed the Big Game of 2009. The team had some remarkable players, many of whom made it to the NFL - Vereen, Tepper, Bishop, Syd Quan, Conte to name a few. Maybe our ten year hiatus is over just like the Huskies.
I would say no. I believe in a very large middle class in which members fluctuate regularly. Cal and UW are among that group. At this time, UW is higher in the middle class pecking order. In the Tedford era, Cal was higher.flounder said:if UW is a tier 2 program, then are we tier 3?71Bear said:I agree. UW is not a top tier program. Given the absence of a tradition of long term excellence, it would take a long run of unqualified success to be even considered. Heck, they accomplished something that even Cal has not done - a season with no wins or ties (under Willingham). Schools in the top tier avoid that kind of misery......Bear8 said:
I don't consider 7-6 a top tier program when that is the record for 4 out of 6 years. Before that they had six seasons with a losing record. In effect, it took Washington about ten years to actually get back on top. While they had success during the 90's, it didn't help them and they faltered just like any other school when coaching changes occurred. They also don't play SC and UCLA every year as we do. It may account for that extra victory during the 7-6 run which pushed them over the .500 mark.
Last night, the Pac12 Network replayed the Big Game of 2009. The team had some remarkable players, many of whom made it to the NFL - Vereen, Tepper, Bishop, Syd Quan, Conte to name a few. Maybe our ten year hiatus is over just like the Huskies.
Cal could regain superiority over UW within the MC depending on whether Wilcox substantially grows the program...
Many on this site would also consider Cal a "second tier" football school. Based on historical performance, it's hard to argue Cal isn't deserving of that title.71Bear said:Since most (i.e., everyone except people who post at this site) consider Cal a "second tier" school when it comes to football, I'm curious about your definition of second tier...Rushinbear said:
Just watched film on a kid we've made an offer to and is on the Recruiting Offers list. Totally dominates the plays I watched - big, strong, fast, aggressive, and from a city that you'd think has strong competition. Rating not yet posted, but only 3 offers, including ours, and the other two are second tier. I'm not sure I should even mention his name, but it has been posted. What am I missing?
Featured Stories
See All
From Physicality to Bagels: Meet Cal's inside linebacker room
by Joaquin Ruiz
Cal Football Spring Game Set For April 18
by Cal Athletics
4 Star Sierra Canyon Safety Myles Baker Commits to Cal
by Jim McGill
The Benson Blog - Postseason Awards
by Rod Benson