Story Poster
Photo by Al Sermeno / KLC Fotos
Cal Football

Wilcox Signs Contract Extension

January 20, 2022
17,744

Head Football Coach Justin Wilcox has signed a contract extension that will keep him with the Cal program through the 2027 season and increases the salary pool for assistant coaches, the school announced Thursday .

"Justin Wilcox is a football coach who shares our values and vision, and we want to ensure that he is the leader of our program for the long term," Cal Director of Athletics Jim Knowlton said. "He is a great fit for Cal Athletics and our university, with a philosophy that places an emphasis on developing young men on the field, in the classroom and as people. I am confident our fans and alumni share my enthusiasm for the direction of our program, and the level of success we have seen to date has set a foundation for sustained excellence in the future."

Wilcox has compiled a long list of accomplishments and recorded several signature wins in his first five campaigns at Cal, including leading the program to back-to-back winning seasons and bowl games in 2018 and 2019 for the first time in a decade. Cal finished the 2019 campaign with an 8-5 record that included a victory in the Big Game at Stanford and a Redbox Bowl win over Illinois to close the year. The Bears captured the Axe again in 2021 with a 41-11 victory at Stanford in November and completed the season with a 24-14 win over USC as part of a 4-2 record in the second half of the campaign.

"I appreciate the opportunity to be the head football coach at Cal and am excited about the future of our program," Wilcox said. "I have thoroughly enjoyed every minute I have spent with the extraordinary young men who have been in our program. We are in a great position and strongly aligned with our university thanks to the leadership of Chancellor Carol Christ and Jim Knowlton. I thank both of them for their continued trust and confidence in me to lead a football program that will make the entire Cal community proud. We have very high expectations. I think we've earned the right to expect more, and that's exactly what we're going to do."

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic limiting the 2020 campaign to four games, the Bears increased their numbers of wins over each of Wilcox's first three seasons, including a perfect 9-0 record in regular-season non-conference games, with four of the victories against Power 5 schools. During those three years, Cal defeated a Top-15 team each season and won games at USC, Washington, UCLA and Stanford.

The Bears earned a spot in the Cheez-It Bowl in 2018 and followed that with a 35-20 victory over Illinois in the 2019 Redbox Bowl.

"Since the beginning of his tenure, I have been impressed by Justin Wilcox's leadership, and his commitment to enabling our student-athletes to take full advantage of the academic and athletic opportunities we offer," Christ said. "He is, in my opinion, the quintessential Berkeley coach who understands the university's values, as well as the value his program brings to the campus as a rallying point for Cal's global community. College football is a highly competitive environment, and the investment represented in Justin's new contract is commensurate with all that I know he will contribute to our university in the years ahead."

Under Wilcox's leadership, the Cal football program has achieved notable levels of success not only on the field, but also in the classroom and the community.

In the classroom, the program announced its highest Graduation Success Rate ever at 84 percent, according to data released by the NCAA in December. During Wilcox's tenure, Cal has also recorded its top score in the NCAA's Academic Progress Rate and highest team grade-point average. In addition, 29 Golden Bears were named to the 2020 Pac-12 Academic Honor Roll last fall, the highest number for a season in program history.

Fan support for the Bears has also increased since Wilcox took over his leading role. Student attendance nearly doubled from 2017 to 2018, and student ticket purchases were higher in 2021 than they had been in the past 10 years. In addition, Cal fans had a 95% season-ticket renewal rate for 2020 as compared to the 2019 campaign.

Other stories:

'23 OLB Target Carson Mott Talks about Cal Visit

Brandt Impressed With Visit to Cal

Discussion from...

Wilcox Signs Contract Extension

16,969 Views | 180 Replies | Last: 5 mo ago by Dgoldnbaer
boredom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:



Personally I trust the HC selection smarts of UO and UW much more than i trust the Cal's HC selection smarts or those of any other person on this board who have no financial incentive or resources to come up with the right choice.

First of all, there's been no indication that UW offered Wilcox.

Secondly, the Oregon offer thing reeks of 1. an internal Oregon issue (they allegedly had a vocal contingent of prominent football alumni who wanted an Oregon guy who would stay long term and that made Wilcox the only real option) and 2. an elitist attitude. UW, whose coaching selections you laud, did the same stuff a decade ago when they hired Gilbertson. He was a UW guy who could've only failed at Cal because Cal. How'd that work out?

Lastly, and most importantly, we have to think for ourselves. We have 5 years of seeing Wilcox up close. Who cares how well he interviews or what Oregon thinks of him? If you had an employee who was subpar and suddenly he got an offer for a lateral move to a more prestigious company, would you suddenly go from "we should probably replace that guy" to "we must keep him at all costs! Google wants him so he must be amazing!"? If you were dating a girl and it wasn't really working out and then you saw someone out of her league hit on her, would you suddenly propose to her? After all, that guy likes her so clearly she's a keeper. Or would you say "ok, go ahead" because you know the employee doesn't deliver or the girl isn't right for you because you can think independently of what one other person thought?

The argument over whether Oregon offered him the job or not is irrelevant. Cal should care about if Wilcox is the right guy for Cal. Whether Oregon's AD wants him is irrelevant to that decision.

Maybe I'm wrong. Think of all the time and other resources our football and basketball programs could save if they stopped looking for talented players who would succeed here to recruit and just blindly offered whoever it's reported that Oregon offered or UW offered. They've had better players than us the last several years so we should just offer whoever they want, clearly we should just trust their judgement instead of wasting time on film and talking to the players and etc.

I approach this as a two step process. 1. What do we want to accomplish and in what time frame (e.g. conference championship in the next 3-5 years) 2. Can the current guy accomplish it (e.g. lol). If the answer to 2 is probably not then find someone else who at least has a shot. The coach, given financial and other constraints, should be the person who maximizes the chance of #1 happening. What Oregon thinks is completely irrelevant.
Oski87
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boredom said:

GivemTheAxe said:



Personally I trust the HC selection smarts of UO and UW much more than i trust the Cal's HC selection smarts or those of any other person on this board who have no financial incentive or resources to come up with the right choice.

First of all, there's been no indication that UW offered Wilcox.

Secondly, the Oregon offer thing reeks of 1. an internal Oregon issue (they allegedly had a vocal contingent of prominent football alumni who wanted an Oregon guy who would stay long term and that made Wilcox the only real option) and 2. an elitist attitude. UW, whose coaching selections you laud, did the same stuff a decade ago when they hired Gilbertson. He was a UW guy who could've only failed at Cal because Cal. How'd that work out?

Lastly, and most importantly, we have to think for ourselves. We have 5 years of seeing Wilcox up close. Who cares how well he interviews or what Oregon thinks of him? If you had an employee who was subpar and suddenly he got an offer for a lateral move to a more prestigious company, would you suddenly go from "we should probably replace that guy" to "we must keep him at all costs! Google wants him so he must be amazing!"? If you were dating a girl and it wasn't really working out and then you saw someone out of her league hit on her, would you suddenly propose to her? After all, that guy likes her so clearly she's a keeper. Or would you say "ok, go ahead" because you know the employee doesn't deliver or the girl isn't right for you because you can think independently of what one other person thought?

The argument over whether Oregon offered him the job or not is irrelevant. Cal should care about if Wilcox is the right guy for Cal. Whether Oregon's AD wants him is irrelevant to that decision.

Maybe I'm wrong. Think of all the time and other resources our football and basketball programs could save if they stopped looking for talented players who would succeed here to recruit and just blindly offered whoever it's reported that Oregon offered or UW offered. They've had better players than us the last several years so we should just offer whoever they want, clearly we should just trust their judgement instead of wasting time on film and talking to the players and etc.

I approach this as a two step process. 1. What do we want to accomplish and in what time frame (e.g. conference championship in the next 3-5 years) 2. Can the current guy accomplish it (e.g. lol). If the answer to 2 is probably not then find someone else who at least has a shot. The coach, given financial and other constraints, should be the person who maximizes the chance of #1 happening. What Oregon thinks is completely irrelevant.
Fine. Cal did this. They thought Wilcox was the best guy. The issue around him rejecting the UW offer and the Oregon offer is really irrelevant as you say - even though true. The fact is that Cal kept Wilcox because they wanted him. They wanted him for the same reasons that Oregon wanted him - he runs a good program, and he has a plan for a much better program. He now has management who agrees with him and is trying to make it work, as well as a donor base which is on board with that.

Separate from all of that, there is an issue about a mediocre at best record. I have no actual knowledge as to what the administration and the AD was thinking but in my mind, the fact that Cal was in almost every game until the end over the last five seasons, has beaten each team in the conference except for Utah under Wilcox, including Oregon, UCS (Twice), Stanford (Twice), UW (twice), UCLA, etc, is a good indicator that we are not far away, even if the record itself is not great. That we have a good defense which keeps us in games even with poor offense, and that the offense can be fixed is I am sure part of the reason as well.

If you are in the camp that the record speaks for itself and there is no further discussion, fine. Others think differently. They could be wrong and you right. In any event, it is clear the AD and administration are in the prior camp.
drizzlybears brother
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boredom said:

GivemTheAxe said:



Personally I trust the HC selection smarts of UO and UW much more than i trust the Cal's HC selection smarts or those of any other person on this board who have no financial incentive or resources to come up with the right choice.

First of all, there's been no indication that UW offered Wilcox.

Secondly, the Oregon offer thing reeks of 1. an internal Oregon issue (they allegedly had a vocal contingent of prominent football alumni who wanted an Oregon guy who would stay long term and that made Wilcox the only real option) and 2. an elitist attitude. UW, whose coaching selections you laud, did the same stuff a decade ago when they hired Gilbertson. He was a UW guy who could've only failed at Cal because Cal. How'd that work out?

Lastly, and most importantly, we have to think for ourselves. We have 5 years of seeing Wilcox up close. Who cares how well he interviews or what Oregon thinks of him? If you had an employee who was subpar and suddenly he got an offer for a lateral move to a more prestigious company, would you suddenly go from "we should probably replace that guy" to "we must keep him at all costs! Google wants him so he must be amazing!"? If you were dating a girl and it wasn't really working out and then you saw someone out of her league hit on her, would you suddenly propose to her? After all, that guy likes her so clearly she's a keeper. Or would you say "ok, go ahead" because you know the employee doesn't deliver or the girl isn't right for you because you can think independently of what one other person thought?

The argument over whether Oregon offered him the job or not is irrelevant. Cal should care about if Wilcox is the right guy for Cal. Whether Oregon's AD wants him is irrelevant to that decision.

Maybe I'm wrong. Think of all the time and other resources our football and basketball programs could save if they stopped looking for talented players who would succeed here to recruit and just blindly offered whoever it's reported that Oregon offered or UW offered. They've had better players than us the last several years so we should just offer whoever they want, clearly we should just trust their judgement instead of wasting time on film and talking to the players and etc.

I approach this as a two step process. 1. What do we want to accomplish and in what time frame (e.g. conference championship in the next 3-5 years) 2. Can the current guy accomplish it (e.g. lol). If the answer to 2 is probably not then find someone else who at least has a shot. The coach, given financial and other constraints, should be the person who maximizes the chance of #1 happening. What Oregon thinks is completely irrelevant.
UW was interested and inquired, but did not offer Wilcox as he didn't reciprocate. But it's also true that Wilcox was not UW's first choice (that was Aranda for whom they were willing to pay a lot) I don't believe any of this info was ever reported publicly.

Oregon or any other suiter is relevant to the extent Cal wants to retain their coach, which they obviously do.

Cal is not interested in your opinion or my opinion, nor should they be. The rest is just fan **** of the nominally informed, (although your insight that they should want to win a conference championship within the next 3-5 years is helpful).
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

Big C said:

Cal Strong! said:

drizzlybears brother said:


You just make up what you want to believe? Discard the inconvenient? Do you have better information that we should know about?
The information I have is that this was just a report by an Oregon reporter who is wrong more often than he is right, which was based on anonymous sources, that was never confirmed by any of the parties involved.

According to this report, Wilcox twice turned down his alma mater and one would assume far more money in his home state in order to keep a job in which he has a losing record at a program that (according to many people on this board) does not offer him sufficient support.

If this doesn't raise your suspicions, I don't know what would.

Cal Strong no drinking Kool Aid today!

I have two good friends who are in the big donor category and are clued in to the behind the scenes activities
Both have confirmed that the TWO offers from UO were real. Maybe some will say that they were fooled along with everyone else but the greater the number of confirmations makes the naysayers look foolish.

I have heard enough corroboration from multiple respected sources to the point where I believe it is highly likely that the Oregon offers actually happened. In fact, 94.7% chance that they did. (Made up %, but still ... )


My problem (and it is, admittedly a slight problem, because this is not all that important a thing... we're just fans chatting about California football) is with the following people's ideas:

- Folks who believe it is 100% for sure that Wilcox got those Duck offers. Unless you were in the room, you only know the public version, which may well be the actual version, but maybe not. They are the foolish ones, IMO. (big difference between 94.7% and 100%)

- People whose opinions of Wilcox went way up as a result of hearing that he turned down Oregon. I mean, here we have this .500 coach (give or take) and it seemed as though some people here were weeping with joy and gratitude because he chose to stay here and continue to collect his 3.5 million dollar paycheck. It was like when your girlfriend doesn't seem as hot as she used to and you're thinking of leaving her and then some other guys who are richer and better looking than you express interest in her... and all of a sudden she's starting to seem super-hot again.


On balance though, given what are options appeared to be, we are probably doing the right thing. Certainly I am rooting for Wilcox to succeed, without question. Just a fun discussion about the way things work in the world!
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boredom said:

GivemTheAxe said:



Personally I trust the HC selection smarts of UO and UW much more than i trust the Cal's HC selection smarts or those of any other person on this board who have no financial incentive or resources to come up with the right choice.

First of all, there's been no indication that UW offered Wilcox.

Secondly, the Oregon offer thing reeks of 1. an internal Oregon issue (they allegedly had a vocal contingent of prominent football alumni who wanted an Oregon guy who would stay long term and that made Wilcox the only real option) and 2. an elitist attitude. UW, whose coaching selections you laud, did the same stuff a decade ago when they hired Gilbertson. He was a UW guy who could've only failed at Cal because Cal. How'd that work out?

Lastly, and most importantly, we have to think for ourselves. We have 5 years of seeing Wilcox up close. Who cares how well he interviews or what Oregon thinks of him? If you had an employee who was subpar and suddenly he got an offer for a lateral move to a more prestigious company, would you suddenly go from "we should probably replace that guy" to "we must keep him at all costs! Google wants him so he must be amazing!"? If you were dating a girl and it wasn't really working out and then you saw someone out of her league hit on her, would you suddenly propose to her? After all, that guy likes her so clearly she's a keeper. Or would you say "ok, go ahead" because you know the employee doesn't deliver or the girl isn't right for you because you can think independently of what one other person thought?

The argument over whether Oregon offered him the job or not is irrelevant. Cal should care about if Wilcox is the right guy for Cal. Whether Oregon's AD wants him is irrelevant to that decision.

Maybe I'm wrong. Think of all the time and other resources our football and basketball programs could save if they stopped looking for talented players who would succeed here to recruit and just blindly offered whoever it's reported that Oregon offered or UW offered. They've had better players than us the last several years so we should just offer whoever they want, clearly we should just trust their judgement instead of wasting time on film and talking to the players and etc.

I approach this as a two step process. 1. What do we want to accomplish and in what time frame (e.g. conference championship in the next 3-5 years) 2. Can the current guy accomplish it (e.g. lol). If the answer to 2 is probably not then find someone else who at least has a shot. The coach, given financial and other constraints, should be the person who maximizes the chance of #1 happening. What Oregon thinks is completely irrelevant.


Exactly, well said.
boredom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
drizzlybears brother said:

boredom said:

GivemTheAxe said:



Personally I trust the HC selection smarts of UO and UW much more than i trust the Cal's HC selection smarts or those of any other person on this board who have no financial incentive or resources to come up with the right choice.

First of all, there's been no indication that UW offered Wilcox.

Secondly, the Oregon offer thing reeks of 1. an internal Oregon issue (they allegedly had a vocal contingent of prominent football alumni who wanted an Oregon guy who would stay long term and that made Wilcox the only real option) and 2. an elitist attitude. UW, whose coaching selections you laud, did the same stuff a decade ago when they hired Gilbertson. He was a UW guy who could've only failed at Cal because Cal. How'd that work out?

Lastly, and most importantly, we have to think for ourselves. We have 5 years of seeing Wilcox up close. Who cares how well he interviews or what Oregon thinks of him? If you had an employee who was subpar and suddenly he got an offer for a lateral move to a more prestigious company, would you suddenly go from "we should probably replace that guy" to "we must keep him at all costs! Google wants him so he must be amazing!"? If you were dating a girl and it wasn't really working out and then you saw someone out of her league hit on her, would you suddenly propose to her? After all, that guy likes her so clearly she's a keeper. Or would you say "ok, go ahead" because you know the employee doesn't deliver or the girl isn't right for you because you can think independently of what one other person thought?

The argument over whether Oregon offered him the job or not is irrelevant. Cal should care about if Wilcox is the right guy for Cal. Whether Oregon's AD wants him is irrelevant to that decision.

Maybe I'm wrong. Think of all the time and other resources our football and basketball programs could save if they stopped looking for talented players who would succeed here to recruit and just blindly offered whoever it's reported that Oregon offered or UW offered. They've had better players than us the last several years so we should just offer whoever they want, clearly we should just trust their judgement instead of wasting time on film and talking to the players and etc.

I approach this as a two step process. 1. What do we want to accomplish and in what time frame (e.g. conference championship in the next 3-5 years) 2. Can the current guy accomplish it (e.g. lol). If the answer to 2 is probably not then find someone else who at least has a shot. The coach, given financial and other constraints, should be the person who maximizes the chance of #1 happening. What Oregon thinks is completely irrelevant.
UW was interested and inquired, but did not offer Wilcox as he didn't reciprocate. But it's also true that Wilcox was not UW's first choice (that was Aranda for whom they were willing to pay a lot) I don't believe any of this info was ever reported publicly.

Oregon or any other suiter is relevant to the extent Cal wants to retain their coach, which they obviously do.

Cal is not interested in your opinion or my opinion, nor should they be. The rest is just fan **** of the nominally informed, (although your insight that they should want to win a conference championship within the next 3-5 years is helpful).


There are multiple references in this thread to a UW offer. Glad you agree that no offer was made. Whether UW did or not should be irrelevant but for whatever reason people keep citing an event which didn't occur as evidence of Wilcox being a good coach so it seems like something that should get corrected.

I agree that other suitors are relevant for Cal to the extent that Cal wants to retain the coach. What I disagree with and was responding to is that people cite an Oregon offer (and a made up UW offer) as evidence that Cal should want to retain the coach. That part is, to me, nonsense.

It seems like we agree on your first two paragraphs. I disagree with the third though. Cal should be interested in the opinion of season ticket holders, donors, and passionate fans (especially those who are all 3). Not on a one by one basis (other than large donors or other very influential Cal football community members) but in aggregate. If donations slow or go down, if ticket sales slow or go down, if traffic to online Cal fan communities declines those are all bad signs for the health of the Cal football product.
drizzlybears brother
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boredom said:

drizzlybears brother said:

boredom said:

GivemTheAxe said:



Personally I trust the HC selection smarts of UO and UW much more than i trust the Cal's HC selection smarts or those of any other person on this board who have no financial incentive or resources to come up with the right choice.

First of all, there's been no indication that UW offered Wilcox.

Secondly, the Oregon offer thing reeks of 1. an internal Oregon issue (they allegedly had a vocal contingent of prominent football alumni who wanted an Oregon guy who would stay long term and that made Wilcox the only real option) and 2. an elitist attitude. UW, whose coaching selections you laud, did the same stuff a decade ago when they hired Gilbertson. He was a UW guy who could've only failed at Cal because Cal. How'd that work out?

Lastly, and most importantly, we have to think for ourselves. We have 5 years of seeing Wilcox up close. Who cares how well he interviews or what Oregon thinks of him? If you had an employee who was subpar and suddenly he got an offer for a lateral move to a more prestigious company, would you suddenly go from "we should probably replace that guy" to "we must keep him at all costs! Google wants him so he must be amazing!"? If you were dating a girl and it wasn't really working out and then you saw someone out of her league hit on her, would you suddenly propose to her? After all, that guy likes her so clearly she's a keeper. Or would you say "ok, go ahead" because you know the employee doesn't deliver or the girl isn't right for you because you can think independently of what one other person thought?

The argument over whether Oregon offered him the job or not is irrelevant. Cal should care about if Wilcox is the right guy for Cal. Whether Oregon's AD wants him is irrelevant to that decision.

Maybe I'm wrong. Think of all the time and other resources our football and basketball programs could save if they stopped looking for talented players who would succeed here to recruit and just blindly offered whoever it's reported that Oregon offered or UW offered. They've had better players than us the last several years so we should just offer whoever they want, clearly we should just trust their judgement instead of wasting time on film and talking to the players and etc.

I approach this as a two step process. 1. What do we want to accomplish and in what time frame (e.g. conference championship in the next 3-5 years) 2. Can the current guy accomplish it (e.g. lol). If the answer to 2 is probably not then find someone else who at least has a shot. The coach, given financial and other constraints, should be the person who maximizes the chance of #1 happening. What Oregon thinks is completely irrelevant.
UW was interested and inquired, but did not offer Wilcox as he didn't reciprocate. But it's also true that Wilcox was not UW's first choice (that was Aranda for whom they were willing to pay a lot) I don't believe any of this info was ever reported publicly.

Oregon or any other suiter is relevant to the extent Cal wants to retain their coach, which they obviously do.

Cal is not interested in your opinion or my opinion, nor should they be. The rest is just fan **** of the nominally informed, (although your insight that they should want to win a conference championship within the next 3-5 years is helpful).


There are multiple references in this thread to a UW offer. Glad you agree that no offer was made. Whether UW did or not should be irrelevant but for whatever reason people keep citing an event which didn't occur as evidence of Wilcox being a good coach so it seems like something that should get corrected.

I agree that other suitors are relevant for Cal to the extent that Cal wants to retain the coach. What I disagree with and was responding to is that people cite an Oregon offer (and a made up UW offer) as evidence that Cal should want to retain the coach. That part is, to me, nonsense.

It seems like we agree on your first two paragraphs. I disagree with the third though. Cal should be interested in the opinion of season ticket holders, donors, and passionate fans (especially those who are all 3). Not on a one by one basis (other than large donors or other very influential Cal football community members) but in aggregate. If donations slow or go down, if ticket sales slow or go down, if traffic to online Cal fan communities declines those are all bad signs for the health of the Cal football product.
To clarify, UW was definitely interested in Wilcox, it just never got to the point of an offer. It's not clear how open Wilcox was to the overture - not sure why they didn't go further. As for the third point, I'd agree that Cal would be interested in its community opinion at large, but not with any of our individual opinions with few exceptions.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
drizzlybears brother said:

boredom said:

drizzlybears brother said:

boredom said:

GivemTheAxe said:



Personally I trust the HC selection smarts of UO and UW much more than i trust the Cal's HC selection smarts or those of any other person on this board who have no financial incentive or resources to come up with the right choice.

First of all, there's been no indication that UW offered Wilcox.

Secondly, the Oregon offer thing reeks of 1. an internal Oregon issue (they allegedly had a vocal contingent of prominent football alumni who wanted an Oregon guy who would stay long term and that made Wilcox the only real option) and 2. an elitist attitude. UW, whose coaching selections you laud, did the same stuff a decade ago when they hired Gilbertson. He was a UW guy who could've only failed at Cal because Cal. How'd that work out?

Lastly, and most importantly, we have to think for ourselves. We have 5 years of seeing Wilcox up close. Who cares how well he interviews or what Oregon thinks of him? If you had an employee who was subpar and suddenly he got an offer for a lateral move to a more prestigious company, would you suddenly go from "we should probably replace that guy" to "we must keep him at all costs! Google wants him so he must be amazing!"? If you were dating a girl and it wasn't really working out and then you saw someone out of her league hit on her, would you suddenly propose to her? After all, that guy likes her so clearly she's a keeper. Or would you say "ok, go ahead" because you know the employee doesn't deliver or the girl isn't right for you because you can think independently of what one other person thought?

The argument over whether Oregon offered him the job or not is irrelevant. Cal should care about if Wilcox is the right guy for Cal. Whether Oregon's AD wants him is irrelevant to that decision.

Maybe I'm wrong. Think of all the time and other resources our football and basketball programs could save if they stopped looking for talented players who would succeed here to recruit and just blindly offered whoever it's reported that Oregon offered or UW offered. They've had better players than us the last several years so we should just offer whoever they want, clearly we should just trust their judgement instead of wasting time on film and talking to the players and etc.

I approach this as a two step process. 1. What do we want to accomplish and in what time frame (e.g. conference championship in the next 3-5 years) 2. Can the current guy accomplish it (e.g. lol). If the answer to 2 is probably not then find someone else who at least has a shot. The coach, given financial and other constraints, should be the person who maximizes the chance of #1 happening. What Oregon thinks is completely irrelevant.
UW was interested and inquired, but did not offer Wilcox as he didn't reciprocate. But it's also true that Wilcox was not UW's first choice (that was Aranda for whom they were willing to pay a lot) I don't believe any of this info was ever reported publicly.

Oregon or any other suiter is relevant to the extent Cal wants to retain their coach, which they obviously do.

Cal is not interested in your opinion or my opinion, nor should they be. The rest is just fan **** of the nominally informed, (although your insight that they should want to win a conference championship within the next 3-5 years is helpful).


There are multiple references in this thread to a UW offer. Glad you agree that no offer was made. Whether UW did or not should be irrelevant but for whatever reason people keep citing an event which didn't occur as evidence of Wilcox being a good coach so it seems like something that should get corrected.

I agree that other suitors are relevant for Cal to the extent that Cal wants to retain the coach. What I disagree with and was responding to is that people cite an Oregon offer (and a made up UW offer) as evidence that Cal should want to retain the coach. That part is, to me, nonsense.

It seems like we agree on your first two paragraphs. I disagree with the third though. Cal should be interested in the opinion of season ticket holders, donors, and passionate fans (especially those who are all 3). Not on a one by one basis (other than large donors or other very influential Cal football community members) but in aggregate. If donations slow or go down, if ticket sales slow or go down, if traffic to online Cal fan communities declines those are all bad signs for the health of the Cal football product.
To clarify, UW was definitely interested in Wilcox, it just never got to the point of an offer. It's not clear how open Wilcox was to the overture - not sure why they didn't go further. As for the third point, I'd agree that Cal would be interested in its community opinion at large, but not with any of our individual opinions with few exceptions.


Moreover, this is a Cal fan discussion board, for Cal fans to discuss Cal athletics. Whether the AD is interested in our opinions or not is an interesting topic of discussion but it is not a pre-requisite for expressing an opinion here. In the end, he is the one getting paid $millions over a long term contract to make the decisions that could mean life or death for our beloved Cal Bear programs over the coming decade.
Cal Strong!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Just to clarify: UW was all in on DeBoer. Wilcox is not nearly as good as DeBoer. DeBoer had the full endorsement of Petersen and Tedford. Cal Strong really wanted UW to hire Wilcox so we could hire DeBoer. Cal Strong even set up a thread on the Husky board advocating for how "strong" Wilcox is to try to convince them. But it was never going to happen. UW's AD not a weak dummy.

It didn't seem like Oregon had a preferred candidate. They talked to a lot of people.

But it isn't like the entire Pac-12 north is clamoring for our sub-.500 coach. If you ask other fanbases or AD's if they want to go 26-28 with a Cheez-It Bowl loss and Redbox Bowl win over the next five years, they would say "no thanks, that doesn't sound like a strong hire."
drizzlybears brother
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal Strong! said:

Just to clarify: UW was all in on DeBoer. Wilcox is not nearly as good as DeBoer. DeBoer had the full endorsement of Petersen and Tedford. Cal Strong really wanted UW to hire Wilcox so we could hire DeBoer. Cal Strong even set up a thread on the Husky board advocating for how "strong" Wilcox is to try to convince them. But it was never going to happen. UW's AD not a weak dummy.

It didn't seem like Oregon had a preferred candidate. They talked to a lot of people.

But it isn't like the entire Pac-12 north is clamoring for our sub-.500 coach. If you ask other fanbases or AD's if they want to go 26-28 with a Cheez-It Bowl loss and Redbox Bowl win over the next five years, they would say "no thanks, that doesn't sound like a strong hire."
Just to clarify, DeBoer was not their first choice. He made their final 3 along with Aranda (Baylor), and Clawson (Wake Forest), but that was only after feeling out Wilcox's interest (I don't know if Wilcox would have made their top 3 in the end, I just know they reached out and it didn't get very far with Wilcox). Aranda was their runaway favorite and they were willing to go big on his comp.

It's true that Petersen and Tedford recommended DeBoer (and I thought it interesting to learn that Tedford had actually reached out to UW for the job as well.)

I can assure you that Wilcox is held in very high regard by the UW donor class.

Curious where you get your info and how much of it you just guess at or make up?
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boredom said:

GivemTheAxe said:



Personally I trust the HC selection smarts of UO and UW much more than i trust the Cal's HC selection smarts or those of any other person on this board who have no financial incentive or resources to come up with the right choice.

First of all, there's been no indication that UW offered Wilcox.

Secondly, the Oregon offer thing reeks of 1. an internal Oregon issue (they allegedly had a vocal contingent of prominent football alumni who wanted an Oregon guy who would stay long term and that made Wilcox the only real option) and 2. an elitist attitude. UW, whose coaching selections you laud, did the same stuff a decade ago when they hired Gilbertson. He was a UW guy who could've only failed at Cal because Cal. How'd that work out?

Lastly, and most importantly, we have to think for ourselves. We have 5 years of seeing Wilcox up close. Who cares how well he interviews or what Oregon thinks of him? If you had an employee who was subpar and suddenly he got an offer for a lateral move to a more prestigious company, would you suddenly go from "we should probably replace that guy" to "we must keep him at all costs! Google wants him so he must be amazing!"? If you were dating a girl and it wasn't really working out and then you saw someone out of her league hit on her, would you suddenly propose to her? After all, that guy likes her so clearly she's a keeper. Or would you say "ok, go ahead" because you know the employee doesn't deliver or the girl isn't right for you because you can think independently of what one other person thought?

The argument over whether Oregon offered him the job or not is irrelevant. Cal should care about if Wilcox is the right guy for Cal. Whether Oregon's AD wants him is irrelevant to that decision.

Maybe I'm wrong. Think of all the time and other resources our football and basketball programs could save if they stopped looking for talented players who would succeed here to recruit and just blindly offered whoever it's reported that Oregon offered or UW offered. They've had better players than us the last several years so we should just offer whoever they want, clearly we should just trust their judgement instead of wasting time on film and talking to the players and etc.

I approach this as a two step process. 1. What do we want to accomplish and in what time frame (e.g. conference championship in the next 3-5 years) 2. Can the current guy accomplish it (e.g. lol). If the answer to 2 is probably not then find someone else who at least has a shot. The coach, given financial and other constraints, should be the person who maximizes the chance of #1 happening. What Oregon thinks is completely irrelevant.
i disagree with your statement that "What Oregon thinks is completely irrelevant."
What Oregon thinks is relevant. Cal football is basically a business where we compete with other colleges for talent at the player level, and at the coaching level. Each of us is competing for a pool that is ever changing with new coaching candidates enter at all times and leave at all times. So we must be aware of what is happening in the coaching market and the potential coaching candidates.

The same thing happens in most business areas business where bright and ambitious young men and women are constantly entering the various fields of business and businesses look to hire the best up-and-coming candidates as they mature and move from company to company. it also happens in academia where there is competition for the best up-and-coming faculty.
members.

Multiple criteria are used to determine who is among the best up-and-coming. One important criterion used by many businesses is what is a certain potential candidate's reputation in the market and among your top competitors. A leader of a business would be a fool to ignore that reputation and rely only on his or her own analysis.

UO is Cal's competitor. UO has had much greater success in choosing top coaching talent than Cal has had.
Yet now I hear that UO's analysis and opinion about JW should be irrelevant for Cal. Cal should make its own decision on its own and ignore what UO thinks. Yes Cal must make its own decision re what criteria are important for Cal but when considering JW's possible prospects as a head coach in football, UO's opinion is relevant. It might not be dispositive. But it certainly is relevant.
.

.
Cal Strong!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
drizzlybears brother said:


To clarify, UW was definitely interested in Wilcox, it just never got to the point of an offer. It's not clear how open Wilcox was to the overture - not sure why they didn't go further. As for the third point, I'd agree that Cal would be interested in its community opinion at large, but not with any of our individual opinions with few exceptions.
To clarify, the reason why they didn't offer Wilcox is that they judged DeBoer to be a superior candidate.

And if you look at DeBoer's track record as a head coach (79-9 including 12-6 in D-1) and as a coordinator (successful everywhere he has been), it not a mystery why.
Goobear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal Strong! said:

drizzlybears brother said:


To clarify, UW was definitely interested in Wilcox, it just never got to the point of an offer. It's not clear how open Wilcox was to the overture - not sure why they didn't go further. As for the third point, I'd agree that Cal would be interested in its community opinion at large, but not with any of our individual opinions with few exceptions.
To clarify, the reason why they didn't offer Wilcox is that they judged DeBoer to be a superior candidate.

And if you look at DeBoer's track record as a head coach (79-9 including 12-6 in D-1) and as a coordinator (successful everywhere he has been), it not a mystery why.
Well Strong you weren't in the room why they didn't offer Wilcox so unless it is confirmed from inside sources I don't buy that reason.
drizzlybears brother
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal Strong! said:

drizzlybears brother said:


To clarify, UW was definitely interested in Wilcox, it just never got to the point of an offer. It's not clear how open Wilcox was to the overture - not sure why they didn't go further. As for the third point, I'd agree that Cal would be interested in its community opinion at large, but not with any of our individual opinions with few exceptions.
To clarify, the reason why they didn't offer Wilcox is that they judged DeBoer to be a superior candidate.

And if you look at DeBoer's track record as a head coach (79-9 including 12-6 in D-1) and as a coordinator (successful everywhere he has been), it not a mystery why.
You really are full of it. The info you require to believe Wilcox's offer at UO vs what you require about DeBoer are complete opposites. You have no idea the order in which UW approached candidates and no idea how the conversation with Wilcox went down. You just make up what you need to justify your preferred biases. I actually have close ties to some in the UW donor community. You are talking out your backside.
Bobodeluxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal Strong!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
drizzlybears brother said:

Cal Strong! said:

drizzlybears brother said:


To clarify, UW was definitely interested in Wilcox, it just never got to the point of an offer. It's not clear how open Wilcox was to the overture - not sure why they didn't go further. As for the third point, I'd agree that Cal would be interested in its community opinion at large, but not with any of our individual opinions with few exceptions.
To clarify, the reason why they didn't offer Wilcox is that they judged DeBoer to be a superior candidate.

And if you look at DeBoer's track record as a head coach (79-9 including 12-6 in D-1) and as a coordinator (successful everywhere he has been), it not a mystery why.
You really are full of it. The info you require to believe Wilcox's offer at UO vs what you require about DeBoer are complete opposites. You have no idea the order in which UW approached candidates and no idea how the conversation with Wilcox went down. You just make up what you need to justify your preferred biases. I actually have close ties to some in the UW donor community. You are talking out your backside.
drizzlybears brother posting WEAK today. The standard the same:

On the record sources that UW went after Wilcox: none.
On the record sources that Oregon went after Wilcox: none.
On the record sources that UW went after DeBoer: the UW AD, Tedford, Petersen, DeBoer, oh . . . and a contract.

DeBoer record as head coach: 79-9.
Wilcox record as head coach: 26-28.

DeBoer has never been fired as a coordinator.
Wilcox has been fired as a coordinator.

These are all strong facts. And unlike drizzlebears brother, strong facts are STRONG!
drizzlybears brother
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal Strong! said:

drizzlybears brother said:

Cal Strong! said:

drizzlybears brother said:


To clarify, UW was definitely interested in Wilcox, it just never got to the point of an offer. It's not clear how open Wilcox was to the overture - not sure why they didn't go further. As for the third point, I'd agree that Cal would be interested in its community opinion at large, but not with any of our individual opinions with few exceptions.
To clarify, the reason why they didn't offer Wilcox is that they judged DeBoer to be a superior candidate.

And if you look at DeBoer's track record as a head coach (79-9 including 12-6 in D-1) and as a coordinator (successful everywhere he has been), it not a mystery why.
You really are full of it. The info you require to believe Wilcox's offer at UO vs what you require about DeBoer are complete opposites. You have no idea the order in which UW approached candidates and no idea how the conversation with Wilcox went down. You just make up what you need to justify your preferred biases. I actually have close ties to some in the UW donor community. You are talking out your backside.
drizzlybears brother posting WEAK today. The standard the same:

On the record sources that UW went after Wilcox: none.
On the record sources that Oregon went after Wilcox: none.
On the record sources that UW went after DeBoer: the UW AD, Tedford, Petersen, DeBoer, oh . . . and a contract.

DeBoer record as head coach: 79-9.
Wilcox record as head coach: 26-28.

DeBoer has never been fired as a coordinator.
Wilcox has been fired as a coordinator.

These are all strong facts. And unlike drizzlebears brother, strong facts are STRONG!
You're comparing reporting of a job offer that was accepted vs one that wasn't and think you've proven something.
Cal Strong!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
drizzlybears brother said:

Cal Strong! said:

drizzlybears brother said:

Cal Strong! said:

drizzlybears brother said:


To clarify, UW was definitely interested in Wilcox, it just never got to the point of an offer. It's not clear how open Wilcox was to the overture - not sure why they didn't go further. As for the third point, I'd agree that Cal would be interested in its community opinion at large, but not with any of our individual opinions with few exceptions.
To clarify, the reason why they didn't offer Wilcox is that they judged DeBoer to be a superior candidate.

And if you look at DeBoer's track record as a head coach (79-9 including 12-6 in D-1) and as a coordinator (successful everywhere he has been), it not a mystery why.
You really are full of it. The info you require to believe Wilcox's offer at UO vs what you require about DeBoer are complete opposites. You have no idea the order in which UW approached candidates and no idea how the conversation with Wilcox went down. You just make up what you need to justify your preferred biases. I actually have close ties to some in the UW donor community. You are talking out your backside.
drizzlybears brother posting WEAK today. The standard the same:

On the record sources that UW went after Wilcox: none.
On the record sources that Oregon went after Wilcox: none.
On the record sources that UW went after DeBoer: the UW AD, Tedford, Petersen, DeBoer, oh . . . and a contract.

DeBoer record as head coach: 79-9.
Wilcox record as head coach: 26-28.

DeBoer has never been fired as a coordinator.
Wilcox has been fired as a coordinator.

These are all strong facts. And unlike drizzlebears brother, strong facts are STRONG!
You're comparing reporting of a job offer that was accepted vs one that wasn't and think you've proven something.
You said my standards were contradictory. I just proved to you that they are the same standard -- two confirmed on-the-record sources.

This is basic journalism 101. It isn't controversial. It really isn't even up for debate. There is a qualitative difference in trustworthiness between confirmed on-the-record sources and internet rumors started by the same guy who, if I remember correctly, broke the "news story" that Tosh gave someone money in a coffee cup (which proved to be a lie). The former is Boston Globe. The latter is Boston Market.

If you want to consider things apart from actual confirmed on-the-record sources, then we can have that discussion based on their respective records as head coaches and as coordinators. But do not pretend that you have any factual clue as to what happened with Oregon.
Dgoldnbaer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CalStrong - I back you 100%. Your perception of it all is identical to mine.
Cal Strong!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dgoldnbaer said:

CalStrong - I back you 100%. Your perception of it all is identical to mine.
Dgoldnbaer posting STRONG today!

Strong like . . . hmmm . . . STRONG LIKE CAL!!!!!!!!!!
drizzlybears brother
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal Strong! said:

drizzlybears brother said:

Cal Strong! said:

drizzlybears brother said:

Cal Strong! said:

drizzlybears brother said:


To clarify, UW was definitely interested in Wilcox, it just never got to the point of an offer. It's not clear how open Wilcox was to the overture - not sure why they didn't go further. As for the third point, I'd agree that Cal would be interested in its community opinion at large, but not with any of our individual opinions with few exceptions.
To clarify, the reason why they didn't offer Wilcox is that they judged DeBoer to be a superior candidate.

And if you look at DeBoer's track record as a head coach (79-9 including 12-6 in D-1) and as a coordinator (successful everywhere he has been), it not a mystery why.
You really are full of it. The info you require to believe Wilcox's offer at UO vs what you require about DeBoer are complete opposites. You have no idea the order in which UW approached candidates and no idea how the conversation with Wilcox went down. You just make up what you need to justify your preferred biases. I actually have close ties to some in the UW donor community. You are talking out your backside.
drizzlybears brother posting WEAK today. The standard the same:

On the record sources that UW went after Wilcox: none.
On the record sources that Oregon went after Wilcox: none.
On the record sources that UW went after DeBoer: the UW AD, Tedford, Petersen, DeBoer, oh . . . and a contract.

DeBoer record as head coach: 79-9.
Wilcox record as head coach: 26-28.

DeBoer has never been fired as a coordinator.
Wilcox has been fired as a coordinator.

These are all strong facts. And unlike drizzlebears brother, strong facts are STRONG!
You're comparing reporting of a job offer that was accepted vs one that wasn't and think you've proven something.
You said my standards were contradictory. I just proved to you that they are the same standard -- two confirmed on-the-record sources.

This is basic journalism 101. It isn't controversial. It really isn't even up for debate. There is a qualitative difference in trustworthiness between confirmed on-the-record sources and internet rumors started by the same guy who, if I remember correctly, broke the "news story" that Tosh gave someone money in a coffee cup (which proved to be a lie). The former is Boston Globe. The latter is Boston Market.

If you want to consider things apart from actual confirmed on-the-record sources, then we can have that discussion based on their respective records as head coaches and as coordinators. But do not pretend that you have any factual clue as to what happened with Oregon.

Your standards are contradictory. You're making arguments about the process, but have no sources about the process, only about the result. You can't tell me whether DeBoer was their first choice or their 10th. You can't defend a single thing you've claimed about the process other than the final result.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
59bear said:

DiabloWags said:



We have Championship intercollegiate teams in Rugby, Swimming, and Water Polo.
They consistently compete for titles.
Why?

Because they have coaches that know how to recruit and compete.
Sadly, I think that you're selling CAL short as just an academic institution and am accepting of the "bar" being low.
Competing on the playing field and in the classroom are not mutually exclusive.


They (rugby and water polo anyway) are sports which are not widely contested at the college level. It's easier to excel if there isn't a lot of competition.

Sorry, but I totally disagree.
Water Polo is extremely competitive at all levels.
If you've been around the MPSF Conference and attended matches over the years, you'd be aware of this.

From recruiting to coaching to alumni support. Just because the sport isnt big on a National Level, doesnt mean that we arent involved in recruiting wars against some of our same rivals.... from USC, UCLA, Stanford, etc. - - - The same can be said of Swimming and perhaps even more so. Competition in the recruiting game is just as intense as in football and basketball. Just because there isnt some kind of 64 team "March Madness" tournament doesnt make recruiting and coaching talent any less competitive.

I think that we can all agree that one of the KEY METRICS to a winning football program are 4 and 5 star recruits. It all starts with the talent that you can put on the field. Team Speed cannot be taught. It's a certain talent level. You're either able to recruit it, or you cant. The same is true when it comes to Water Polo or Swimming.
boredom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

boredom said:

GivemTheAxe said:



Personally I trust the HC selection smarts of UO and UW much more than i trust the Cal's HC selection smarts or those of any other person on this board who have no financial incentive or resources to come up with the right choice.

First of all, there's been no indication that UW offered Wilcox.

Secondly, the Oregon offer thing reeks of 1. an internal Oregon issue (they allegedly had a vocal contingent of prominent football alumni who wanted an Oregon guy who would stay long term and that made Wilcox the only real option) and 2. an elitist attitude. UW, whose coaching selections you laud, did the same stuff a decade ago when they hired Gilbertson. He was a UW guy who could've only failed at Cal because Cal. How'd that work out?

Lastly, and most importantly, we have to think for ourselves. We have 5 years of seeing Wilcox up close. Who cares how well he interviews or what Oregon thinks of him? If you had an employee who was subpar and suddenly he got an offer for a lateral move to a more prestigious company, would you suddenly go from "we should probably replace that guy" to "we must keep him at all costs! Google wants him so he must be amazing!"? If you were dating a girl and it wasn't really working out and then you saw someone out of her league hit on her, would you suddenly propose to her? After all, that guy likes her so clearly she's a keeper. Or would you say "ok, go ahead" because you know the employee doesn't deliver or the girl isn't right for you because you can think independently of what one other person thought?

The argument over whether Oregon offered him the job or not is irrelevant. Cal should care about if Wilcox is the right guy for Cal. Whether Oregon's AD wants him is irrelevant to that decision.

Maybe I'm wrong. Think of all the time and other resources our football and basketball programs could save if they stopped looking for talented players who would succeed here to recruit and just blindly offered whoever it's reported that Oregon offered or UW offered. They've had better players than us the last several years so we should just offer whoever they want, clearly we should just trust their judgement instead of wasting time on film and talking to the players and etc.

I approach this as a two step process. 1. What do we want to accomplish and in what time frame (e.g. conference championship in the next 3-5 years) 2. Can the current guy accomplish it (e.g. lol). If the answer to 2 is probably not then find someone else who at least has a shot. The coach, given financial and other constraints, should be the person who maximizes the chance of #1 happening. What Oregon thinks is completely irrelevant.
i disagree with your statement that "What Oregon thinks is completely irrelevant."
What Oregon thinks is relevant. Cal football is basically a business where we compete with other colleges for talent at the player level, and at the coaching level. Each of us is competing for a pool that is ever changing with new coaching candidates enter at all times and leave at all times. So we must be aware of what is happening in the coaching market and the potential coaching candidates.

The same thing happens in most business areas business where bright and ambitious young men and women are constantly entering the various fields of business and businesses look to hire the best up-and-coming candidates as they mature and move from company to company. it also happens in academia where there is competition for the best up-and-coming faculty.
members.

Multiple criteria are used to determine who is among the best up-and-coming. One important criterion used by many businesses is what is a certain potential candidate's reputation in the market and among your top competitors. A leader of a business would be a fool to ignore that reputation and rely only on his or her own analysis.

UO is Cal's competitor. UO has had much greater success in choosing top coaching talent than Cal has had.
Yet now I hear that UO's analysis and opinion about JW should be irrelevant for Cal. Cal should make its own decision on its own and ignore what UO thinks. Yes Cal must make its own decision re what criteria are important for Cal but when considering JW's possible prospects as a head coach in football, UO's opinion is relevant. It might not be dispositive. But it certainly is relevant.
.

.

If the Cal coaches spent a bunch of time doing their due diligence on a recruit and decided to not offer and then the next day they heard a rumor that Oregon was offering, should that change what Cal is doing?

There is certainly competition in private sector and academia and other places for the best talent. And that's relevant in a case like early Tedford where you need to double down on someone showing themselves to be a top talent so you don't lose them.

However, this is a different situation. This is about talent evaluation rather than talent retention. You don't change your opinion of talent that you've worked with for 5 years based on whether they get an offer from somewhere else. If you're the CEO and you have a head of sales who has a good reputation in the broader sales community and 5 years in they consistently miss quotas every year and your company falls further and further behind its competition due to bad sales performance do you double down on that person just because a bigger competitor is rumored to have offered them a job? Or do you say "maybe the competitor has its reasons but this person isn't getting it done here so good luck to them over there"?

If Cal spends years looking into a recruit and decides not to offer and then Oregon or UW or USC or etc come along and are rumored to make an offer, should that change Cal's mind about whether to offer? If you don't trust yourself on talent evaluation then you shouldn't be in a position that requires it.

Heck, even in this specific case, the rumored offer was supposedly due to influential Oregon alums wanting an Oregon guy who would bring back their old way of doing things and not be a flight risk. I'm not super familiar with Oregon's alumni in coaching but this seems to have basically left Wilcox as the only candidate who would placate these alums. And regardless of whether that's good or bad criteria for an Oregon coaching decision, that's terrible criteria for a Cal coaching decision.

And not that it matters, but the current Oregon AD has a mixed (at best) football coach hiring history. He took over when Kelly was already the coach so he hired Helfrich (fired after 4 years, fired as an OC a couple years later, entirely out of coaching now), Taggart (left after 1 mediocre year, fired in the middle of his 2nd year at his next stop), and Cristobal (built them back to elite and then left). His prior gig was as the assistant AD at Kentucky where there was 1 coach hired during his tenure and that coach won 29% of his SEC games (no idea how much influence Mullens had on the hire). Cristobal was a good hire. But the 2nd best hire was probably Helfrich because it took him a couple years to dismantle what Bellotti and Kelly had built? I'm not sure that Mullens is a hiring sage whose wisdom we should use in place of what we've watched for 5 years.
Cal Strong!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
drizzlybears brother said:


Your standards are contradictory. You're making arguments about the process, but have no sources about the process, only about the result. You can't tell me whether DeBoer was their first choice or their 10th. You can't defend a single thing you've claimed about the process other than the final result.
So, to be clear -- you are now limiting your criticism to my claims about the DeBoer process?

You are no longer challenging that there is no evidence whatsoever about the alleged Wilcox-UW interview or the alleged Wilcox-UO multiple offers?

Is this correct?
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boredom said:

GivemTheAxe said:

boredom said:

GivemTheAxe said:



Personally I trust the HC selection smarts of UO and UW much more than i trust the Cal's HC selection smarts or those of any other person on this board who have no financial incentive or resources to come up with the right choice.

First of all, there's been no indication that UW offered Wilcox.

Secondly, the Oregon offer thing reeks of 1. an internal Oregon issue (they allegedly had a vocal contingent of prominent football alumni who wanted an Oregon guy who would stay long term and that made Wilcox the only real option) and 2. an elitist attitude. UW, whose coaching selections you laud, did the same stuff a decade ago when they hired Gilbertson. He was a UW guy who could've only failed at Cal because Cal. How'd that work out?

Lastly, and most importantly, we have to think for ourselves. We have 5 years of seeing Wilcox up close. Who cares how well he interviews or what Oregon thinks of him? If you had an employee who was subpar and suddenly he got an offer for a lateral move to a more prestigious company, would you suddenly go from "we should probably replace that guy" to "we must keep him at all costs! Google wants him so he must be amazing!"? If you were dating a girl and it wasn't really working out and then you saw someone out of her league hit on her, would you suddenly propose to her? After all, that guy likes her so clearly she's a keeper. Or would you say "ok, go ahead" because you know the employee doesn't deliver or the girl isn't right for you because you can think independently of what one other person thought?

The argument over whether Oregon offered him the job or not is irrelevant. Cal should care about if Wilcox is the right guy for Cal. Whether Oregon's AD wants him is irrelevant to that decision.

Maybe I'm wrong. Think of all the time and other resources our football and basketball programs could save if they stopped looking for talented players who would succeed here to recruit and just blindly offered whoever it's reported that Oregon offered or UW offered. They've had better players than us the last several years so we should just offer whoever they want, clearly we should just trust their judgement instead of wasting time on film and talking to the players and etc.

I approach this as a two step process. 1. What do we want to accomplish and in what time frame (e.g. conference championship in the next 3-5 years) 2. Can the current guy accomplish it (e.g. lol). If the answer to 2 is probably not then find someone else who at least has a shot. The coach, given financial and other constraints, should be the person who maximizes the chance of #1 happening. What Oregon thinks is completely irrelevant.
i disagree with your statement that "What Oregon thinks is completely irrelevant."
What Oregon thinks is relevant. Cal football is basically a business where we compete with other colleges for talent at the player level, and at the coaching level. Each of us is competing for a pool that is ever changing with new coaching candidates enter at all times and leave at all times. So we must be aware of what is happening in the coaching market and the potential coaching candidates.

The same thing happens in most business areas business where bright and ambitious young men and women are constantly entering the various fields of business and businesses look to hire the best up-and-coming candidates as they mature and move from company to company. it also happens in academia where there is competition for the best up-and-coming faculty.
members.

Multiple criteria are used to determine who is among the best up-and-coming. One important criterion used by many businesses is what is a certain potential candidate's reputation in the market and among your top competitors. A leader of a business would be a fool to ignore that reputation and rely only on his or her own analysis.

UO is Cal's competitor. UO has had much greater success in choosing top coaching talent than Cal has had.
Yet now I hear that UO's analysis and opinion about JW should be irrelevant for Cal. Cal should make its own decision on its own and ignore what UO thinks. Yes Cal must make its own decision re what criteria are important for Cal but when considering JW's possible prospects as a head coach in football, UO's opinion is relevant. It might not be dispositive. But it certainly is relevant.
.

.

If the Cal coaches spent a bunch of time doing their due diligence on a recruit and decided to not offer and then the next day they heard a rumor that Oregon was offering, should that change what Cal is doing?

There is certainly competition in private sector and academia and other places for the best talent. And that's relevant in a case like early Tedford where you need to double down on someone showing themselves to be a top talent so you don't lose them.

However, this is a different situation. This is about talent evaluation rather than talent retention. You don't change your opinion of talent that you've worked with for 5 years based on whether they get an offer from somewhere else. If you're the CEO and you have a head of sales who has a good reputation in the broader sales community and 5 years in they consistently miss quotas every year and your company falls further and further behind its competition due to bad sales performance do you double down on that person just because a bigger competitor is rumored to have offered them a job? Or do you say "maybe the competitor has its reasons but this person isn't getting it done here so good luck to them over there"?

If Cal spends years looking into a recruit and decides not to offer and then Oregon or UW or USC or etc come along and are rumored to make an offer, should that change Cal's mind about whether to offer? If you don't trust yourself on talent evaluation then you shouldn't be in a position that requires it.

Heck, even in this specific case, the rumored offer was supposedly due to influential Oregon alums wanting an Oregon guy who would bring back their old way of doing things and not be a flight risk. I'm not super familiar with Oregon's alumni in coaching but this seems to have basically left Wilcox as the only candidate who would placate these alums. And regardless of whether that's good or bad criteria for an Oregon coaching decision, that's terrible criteria for a Cal coaching decision.

And not that it matters, but the current Oregon AD has a mixed (at best) football coach hiring history. He took over when Kelly was already the coach so he hired Helfrich (fired after 4 years, fired as an OC a couple years later, entirely out of coaching now), Taggart (left after 1 mediocre year, fired in the middle of his 2nd year at his next stop), and Cristobal (built them back to elite and then left). His prior gig was as the assistant AD at Kentucky where there was 1 coach hired during his tenure and that coach won 29% of his SEC games (no idea how much influence Mullens had on the hire). Cristobal was a good hire. But the 2nd best hire was probably Helfrich because it took him a couple years to dismantle what Bellotti and Kelly had built? I'm not sure that Mullens is a hiring sage whose wisdom we should use in place of what we've watched for 5 years.

First of all you said what Oregon thought about JW was not relevant. I posited that it was relevant but NOT dispositive. Cal can come to it's own conclusion regardless of what Oregon thinks. But what Oregon thinks is still relevant.

Second your hypo deals with the selection of a recruit. I trust our coaches under JW to make a correct selection. I believe they will take into account all relevant information on that recruit (including what other schools think about that recruit) . And they will come up with their decision.

The information would be both relevant and dispositive if for example the recruit were reported to have been convicted of sex trafficking or running guns for some Columbia's drug cartel
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The view of Oregon fans is Mullens needed to placate certain Oregon football alums by interviewing Wilcox.

You saw the same thing in Hawaii with fan pressure to bring back June Jones. The AD made a lousy offer (2 years with the AD having a hand in picking assistants). Jones turned it down.

The difference is Jones then revealed on Twitter why he turned down the offer. In Wilcox's case, it is not in his interest to explicitly say if he was offered or why he turned down the offer if he was. He got an extension from Cal. It is not in Mullen's interest to say if he offered or why Wilcox turned him down either. The story, Mullens offered and Wilcox declined works for both parties. We will probably never know the exact truth of the matter. Was there an offer and if so what was the offer?

As Okaydo posted, it was reported BYU wanted alum Tom Holmoe as LaVell Edwards' replacement. BYU has a history of picking great coaches. Cal gave Holmoe a raise and an extension despite a losing record. In hindsight we should have let him go to BYU.

Whether extending Wilcox turns out to be a good decision will depend entirely on how Wilcox does over the next few years. I don't see how Wilcox turning down Oregon or not turning down Oregon scores a single point or wins a single game for Cal next year or five years from now that we would have lost otherwise.
boredom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

The view of Oregon fans is Mullens needed to placate certain Oregon football alums by interviewing Wilcox.

You saw the same thing in Hawaii with fan pressure to bring back June Jones. The AD made a lousy offer (2 years with the AD having a hand in picking assistants). Jones turned it down.

The difference is Jones then revealed on Twitter why he turned down the offer. In Wilcox's case, it is not in his interest to explicitly say if he was offered or why he turned down the offer if he was. He got an extension from Cal. It is not in Mullen's interest to say if he offered or why Wilcox turned him down either. The story, Mullens offered and Wilcox declined works for both parties. We will probably never know the exact truth of the matter. Was there an offer and if so what was the offer?

As Okaydo posted, it was reported BYU wanted alum Tom Holmoe as LaVell Edwards' replacement. BYU has a history of picking great coaches. Cal gave Holmoe a raise and an extension despite a losing record. In hindsight we should have let him go to BYU.

Whether extending Wilcox turns out to be a good decision will depend entirely on how Wilcox does over the next few years. I don't see how Wilcox turning down Oregon or not turning down Oregon scores a single point or wins a single game for Cal next year or five years from now that we would have lost otherwise.
it'll impact the scoreboard if it impacted our commitment, financial and otherwise, to Wilcox. If it played out as rumored then Mullens got to hire the guy he wanted to, Oregon football alums shifted their blame to Wilcox and are happier with the school, Wilcox got more of what he wanted contractually, and Cal... well, if you can't spot the patsy you probably are the patsy.
drizzlybears brother
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal Strong! said:

drizzlybears brother said:


Your standards are contradictory. You're making arguments about the process, but have no sources about the process, only about the result. You can't tell me whether DeBoer was their first choice or their 10th. You can't defend a single thing you've claimed about the process other than the final result.
So, to be clear -- you are now limiting your criticism to my claims about the DeBoer process?

You are no longer challenging that there is no evidence whatsoever about the alleged Wilcox-UW interview or the alleged Wilcox-UO multiple offers?

Is this correct?
No. I took issue with your choice to not believe the reporting on Oregon's offers to Wilcox. Which led to you sharing total fabrications about the UW process as it pertained to Wilcox and DeBoer. What I hadn't realized at the time was that you hate Wilcox and love DeBoer. You believe what you do because you choose to, but not because there's any more merit.

Per your standard, what evidence do you have that UW preferred DeBoer over Wilcox?

Cal Strong!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
drizzlybears brother said:

Cal Strong! said:

drizzlybears brother said:


Your standards are contradictory. You're making arguments about the process, but have no sources about the process, only about the result. You can't tell me whether DeBoer was their first choice or their 10th. You can't defend a single thing you've claimed about the process other than the final result.
So, to be clear -- you are now limiting your criticism to my claims about the DeBoer process?

You are no longer challenging that there is no evidence whatsoever about the alleged Wilcox-UW interview or the alleged Wilcox-UO multiple offers?

Is this correct?
No. I took issue with your choice to not believe the reporting on Oregon's offers to Wilcox. Which led to you sharing total fabrications about the UW process as it pertained to Wilcox and DeBoer. What I hadn't realized at the time was that you hate Wilcox and love DeBoer. You believe what you do because you choose to, but not because there's any more merit.

Per your standard, what evidence do you have that UW preferred DeBoer over Wilcox?


Cal Strong no hate Wilcox. Cal Strong just no think he a good football coach who can take us to a Rose Bowl.

Cal Strong would love to believe Oregon twice offered Wilcox, but he turned them down to stay at Cal -- a superior program with better support. But there not a single on-the-record source that supports this. And Canzano is a weak moron.

The evidence Cal Strong has to support the claim that UW preferred DeBoer over Wilcox is that UW hired DeBoer and not Wilcox. There is not even a single report (confirmed or otherwise) that they offered Wilcox. So why on earth would anyone believe this?

Cal Strong wishes they had. But they didn't.
drizzlybears brother
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal Strong! said:

drizzlybears brother said:

Cal Strong! said:

drizzlybears brother said:


Your standards are contradictory. You're making arguments about the process, but have no sources about the process, only about the result. You can't tell me whether DeBoer was their first choice or their 10th. You can't defend a single thing you've claimed about the process other than the final result.
So, to be clear -- you are now limiting your criticism to my claims about the DeBoer process?

You are no longer challenging that there is no evidence whatsoever about the alleged Wilcox-UW interview or the alleged Wilcox-UO multiple offers?

Is this correct?
No. I took issue with your choice to not believe the reporting on Oregon's offers to Wilcox. Which led to you sharing total fabrications about the UW process as it pertained to Wilcox and DeBoer. What I hadn't realized at the time was that you hate Wilcox and love DeBoer. You believe what you do because you choose to, but not because there's any more merit.

Per your standard, what evidence do you have that UW preferred DeBoer over Wilcox?


Cal Strong no hate Wilcox. Cal Strong just no think he a good football coach who can take us to a Rose Bowl.

Cal Strong would love to believe Oregon twice offered Wilcox, but he turned them down to stay at Cal -- a superior program with better support. But there not a single on-the-record source that supports this. And Canzano is a weak moron.

The evidence Cal Strong has to support the claim that UW preferred DeBoer over Wilcox is that UW hired DeBoer and not Wilcox. There is not even a single report (confirmed or otherwise) that they offered Wilcox. So why on earth would anyone believe this?

Cal Strong wishes they had. But they didn't.
That's what I thought. The only thing you know is how it ended, but have no idea how they got there. Yet you claim otherwise in the DeBoer case despite no reporting, and believe the opposite in the UO case despite reporting. There is nothing principled about your argument, it's 100% your biased preference.
Cal Strong!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
drizzlybears brother said:

Cal Strong! said:

drizzlybears brother said:

Cal Strong! said:

drizzlybears brother said:


Your standards are contradictory. You're making arguments about the process, but have no sources about the process, only about the result. You can't tell me whether DeBoer was their first choice or their 10th. You can't defend a single thing you've claimed about the process other than the final result.
So, to be clear -- you are now limiting your criticism to my claims about the DeBoer process?

You are no longer challenging that there is no evidence whatsoever about the alleged Wilcox-UW interview or the alleged Wilcox-UO multiple offers?

Is this correct?
No. I took issue with your choice to not believe the reporting on Oregon's offers to Wilcox. Which led to you sharing total fabrications about the UW process as it pertained to Wilcox and DeBoer. What I hadn't realized at the time was that you hate Wilcox and love DeBoer. You believe what you do because you choose to, but not because there's any more merit.

Per your standard, what evidence do you have that UW preferred DeBoer over Wilcox?


Cal Strong no hate Wilcox. Cal Strong just no think he a good football coach who can take us to a Rose Bowl.

Cal Strong would love to believe Oregon twice offered Wilcox, but he turned them down to stay at Cal -- a superior program with better support. But there not a single on-the-record source that supports this. And Canzano is a weak moron.

The evidence Cal Strong has to support the claim that UW preferred DeBoer over Wilcox is that UW hired DeBoer and not Wilcox. There is not even a single report (confirmed or otherwise) that they offered Wilcox. So why on earth would anyone believe this?

Cal Strong wishes they had. But they didn't.
That's what I thought. The only thing you know is how it ended, but have no idea how they got there. Yet you claim otherwise in the DeBoer case despite no reporting, and believe the opposite in the UO case despite reporting. There is nothing principled about your argument, it's 100% your biased preference.
Cal Strong consistent and strong in his standards and reasoning. Unless a rumor is verified with on-the-record sources, Cal Strong no believe it happened. There no on-the-record sources that indicate Justin Wilcox ever received an interview from UW, much less an offer. There no on-the-record and reliable sources that indicate he ever received an offer to be the Oregon HC.

If you produce such verification, Cal Strong will believe it. But you no do that -- because you weak. You just believe whatever rumor you find on the internet.

Cal Strong was mistaken about Matt Campbell. But that not inconsistent with the principle of verification from reliable sources. It just a matter of Cal Strong no following UW particularly closely.
drizzlybears brother
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal Strong! said:

drizzlybears brother said:

Cal Strong! said:

drizzlybears brother said:

Cal Strong! said:

drizzlybears brother said:


Your standards are contradictory. You're making arguments about the process, but have no sources about the process, only about the result. You can't tell me whether DeBoer was their first choice or their 10th. You can't defend a single thing you've claimed about the process other than the final result.
So, to be clear -- you are now limiting your criticism to my claims about the DeBoer process?

You are no longer challenging that there is no evidence whatsoever about the alleged Wilcox-UW interview or the alleged Wilcox-UO multiple offers?

Is this correct?
No. I took issue with your choice to not believe the reporting on Oregon's offers to Wilcox. Which led to you sharing total fabrications about the UW process as it pertained to Wilcox and DeBoer. What I hadn't realized at the time was that you hate Wilcox and love DeBoer. You believe what you do because you choose to, but not because there's any more merit.

Per your standard, what evidence do you have that UW preferred DeBoer over Wilcox?


Cal Strong no hate Wilcox. Cal Strong just no think he a good football coach who can take us to a Rose Bowl.

Cal Strong would love to believe Oregon twice offered Wilcox, but he turned them down to stay at Cal -- a superior program with better support. But there not a single on-the-record source that supports this. And Canzano is a weak moron.

The evidence Cal Strong has to support the claim that UW preferred DeBoer over Wilcox is that UW hired DeBoer and not Wilcox. There is not even a single report (confirmed or otherwise) that they offered Wilcox. So why on earth would anyone believe this?

Cal Strong wishes they had. But they didn't.
That's what I thought. The only thing you know is how it ended, but have no idea how they got there. Yet you claim otherwise in the DeBoer case despite no reporting, and believe the opposite in the UO case despite reporting. There is nothing principled about your argument, it's 100% your biased preference.
Cal Strong consistent and strong in his standards and reasoning. Unless a rumor is verified with on-the-record sources, Cal Strong no believe it happened. There no on-the-record sources that indicate Justin Wilcox ever received an interview from UW, much less an offer. There no on-the-record and reliable sources that indicate he ever received an offer to be the Oregon HC.

If you produce such verification, Cal Strong will believe it. But you no do that -- because you weak. You just believe whatever rumor you find on the internet.

Cal Strong was mistaken about Matt Campbell. But that not inconsistent with the principle of verification from reliable sources. It just a matter of Cal Strong no following UW particularly closely.
I chose to trust reporting from a reputable source that was cited by other reporters that I have come to trust.

Cal Strong!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
drizzlybears brother said:


I chose to trust reporting from a reputable source that was cited by other reporters that I have come to trust.
This is why Trump fans watch Fox/OAN and why woke folks watch MSNBC. Folks like you trust reporters who support their ideologies, regardless of whether or not the story has the standard journalistic number of on-the-record and credible sources.

Pointing out how dumb and wrong Conzano has been in the past is like trying to show a Trump supporter that Tucker Carleson has been wrong countless times, or a woke person that Rachel Maddow has been wrong countless times. Standards are useless against blind allegiance.

Drizzlybears -- be more like Cal, less like you.
drizzlybears brother
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal Strong! said:

drizzlybears brother said:


I chose to trust reporting from a reputable source that was cited by other reporters that I have come to trust.
This is why Trump fans watch Fox/OAN and why woke folks watch MSNBC. Folks like you trust reporters who support their ideologies, regardless of whether or not the story has the standard journalistic number of on-the-record and credible sources.

Pointing out how dumb and wrong Conzano has been in the past is like trying to show a Trump supporter that Tucker Carleson has been wrong countless times, or a woke person that Rachel Maddow has been wrong countless times. Standards are useless against blind allegiance.

Drizzlybears -- be more like Cal, less like you.
Folks like me trusted Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein on Watergate and Neil Sheehan with the Pentagon Papers. We have a long journalistic history in this country of journalist risking jail time to protect the identity of their sources. Anonymous sources are part of the backbone of reporting.
Stop with the journalism 101 BS.

You shouldn't criticize Fox and MSNBC viewers until you've looked in the mirror when selecting information that suits your preferences.

Except that DeBoer got the job at UW the rest of your claims about that process were invented by you.

Your evidence that UW preferred DeBoer over Wilcox is the same evidence you have that they preferred him over Saban. Yet you claimed otherwise.

You claimed UW was all in on DeBoer but you don't even know where he ranked on their list. (I happen to know that Aranda was their first choice, but that's irrelevant here)

The rest of your arguments were about Cheezit Bowls and win-loss records and how you visited other boards with your opinions revealing your true motives, your preferred bias.

I can't make it any plainer for you. Do with it what you will.
Cal Strong!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal Strong agree that Drizzlybears brother incapable of explaining his position. We agree on this point.

Woodward and Bernstein revealed several of their sources. They had people on the record. Those who were off the record were described as senior administrative officials (or in Felt's case, an FBI agent). These people were in danger, so Woodward and Bernstein revealed enough information to verify their access to information without revealing their names.

Conzano is not Woodward. Conzano is not Bernstein. Conzano is a clown. You believe a clown who never gave you any reason to believe he spoke to anyone who was in the room during these supposed interviews.

#weaksheep
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.