Starsdomatter hit it on the head - we are offering players but they don't want to come. Why is that so hard to understand? Recruit better? Spend more money? The coaches just aren't doing their job? There's no law that says that if Cal recruits "better" then these top stars are going to sign. Every recruit has a reason for signing or not signing; Cal has removed the obstacle of poor facilities that was used as an excuse and guess what - they still don't come. I've been coming to Cal games for over 50 years and during that time only during the (short) period of Tedford's success has Cal been considered a top destination for elite players, and even then USC always had way more. I want to see Cal do well, and, at age 67, I'd like to go to the Rose Bowl in my remaining lifetime. Whether that happens or not I will still support Cal and renew my season tickets. Is this offering excuses? Probably, maybe, doesn't matter.

calbear80 said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

Yes.

Yes they do.

http://footballscoop.com/news/stars-matter-recruiting-data-says/

Suppose to say "stars" in headline.

---

Yes, recruiting star ratings do matter. Yes, they do.

I spent four years during Dykes' tenure analyzing the weakness of Dykes' recruiting as compared to other PAC-12 schools.

I was repeatedly chastised by folks on this board for that. I was told Dykes and his assistants are so smart and so good in evaluting talent that their 2 Star recruits are every bit as good as other PAC-12 4 Star recruits. Not so my friends.

Now, on the Men Basketball Forum, when I analyze the miserable 2-17 PAC-12 win-loss record of The Guy Mike Willians Hired As MBB "coach", I get chastised for pointing out there is an elephant in the room.

Go Bears!

---

Actually, you get chastised because you're a broken record. Did off topic not want to hear about the guy Mike Williams hired?

Taken off a Bear Insider article on recruiting. (Emphasis markings are mine):

It's all about getting "our type of guys" ratings are not looked at save in hindsight.

Evaluations of skill are made as much on projecting the player physically and mentally 2-4 years in the future as it is to how they compare to their peers today

Cal wants players who love PLAYING football, not simply being football players. Senior year production and film are looked at closely

Beyond skill, it's a lot about academics, character and do they like Berkeley

For players that check all the boxes, they prioritize and look to close

If Stars matter, they must not matter in the NFL or there wouldn't be so Cal Bears on rosters. Does any other college have 2 starting QB's in the NFL......

OaktownBear said:

---

Coincidentally, I was listening to Damon Bruce this afternoon and someone on the text line said he should talk college football (which he likes). To summarize, he said "I wonder what would happen around her if Cal got things really going in football. I know what happens at Stanford. They go to a Rose Bowl and no one cares. But I'd like to see what would happen at Cal. But as it stands - no. I'm not going to talk about college football because I'll lose my audience. Not exactly an equation to get recruits excited.

---

If we became a powerhouse in football, it would be a big deal around the Bay Area. As in Damon Bruce's audience would want him to talk college football again.

It was a big deal locally to some extent in the early JT years. I'm sure it would have been more so if we had kept it going and/or reached the Rose Bowl. Our near-Rose Bowl season in 2004 was a great story.

If we have the same kind of run again or go even further, it'd be a much bigger deal than when furd is successful, because nobody outside of furd's smaller and snobbier exclusive club (and not even everyone in it) cares. Cal has more alumni and more people around the Bay who care about Cal even if they're not alums, because they have family/friends who are Cal people or for other reasons. It's a much bigger circle and while it doesn't pack the stands if we're not winning, we'd find out just how many friends we have if we get back on top.

It's just too bad that our lackluster support now makes it harder for Cal football to get back on top. It's a catch-22.

The only way Cal recruits better is if this team wins a lot of football games with average players. There is no reason - like, zilch - for a top-end recruit to come here barring some personal connection to the school/coaching staff.

If the only thing you care about is football, the SEC/USCs/etc are a much better fit. Stands are full, academic standards are low, you're the coolest person on campus. People just like, care more. This isn't to knock our student body at all, just to point out that most 18-year-old guys would rather play in front of 90,000 people living and dying on the outcome of the game, rather than 45,000 who might leave at halftime to go study.

And if you want the academic experience, it's an uphill battle beating Stanford head-to-head for recruits. (Have we beaten them out, at all, for a recruit, post-Tedford?) Their program has been better for the past like, decade. The facilities are nicer. The players get more academic support. The school rolls in dough. I mean, it's Stanford. Our guys are, generally, guys they overlooked or didn't want.

If Cal starts pulling off 10 win seasons, none of this matters. Everyone wants to play for a winner. But right now, like, just ask yourself: if you were 18 and could play anywhere in the country, why would you choose Cal? The team hasn't been good, you've gotta show up for class, and you're playing for a bunch of nerds who don't really care.

If we start winning, say, 8-9 games for a couple of years -- and the offense doesn't look so damned inept -- shouldn't that improve recruiting? Or is it all or nothing?

Big C said:

---

If we start winning, say, 8-9 games for a couple of years -- and the offense doesn't look so damned inept -- shouldn't that improve recruiting? Or is it all or nothing?

---

Oh, my point was just that a *losing* Cal program is not an attractive destination for athletes who don't care about academics. And those that do care will almost always choose a winning Stanford program, if given the option. We've lost a lot, and Stanford's won a lot. Our classes aren't going to get better unless one of those two things change.

Wilcox has us going in the right direction, though. If he keeps it up, too 20 classes will follow.