Story Poster
Photo by Bear Insider
Cal Football

Cal's Football Staff and what it says about the Bears commitment to winning

December 2, 2023
18,075

The easy and perhaps not inaccurate view is to see things through the simplest lens:

  • The offense was solid and improved so Jake Spavital is a priority staff member to retain
  • The Defense struggled two seasons in a row so it is time to replace Peter Sirmon

You can apply more subjective views on the other positional units and have a similar evaluation, where did difference-making players emerge and statistics seemingly indicate positional success?

Yet, other variables certainly feel relevant to include (this is not exhaustive):

  • Recruiting. how have the players they have evaluated and landed performed?   Are they viewed as a net positive in overall recruiting for the program?
  • For the coordinators, do they hire and retain quality assistants?
  • What's the relationship like between these coaches and the players?
  • Is the relationship between the assistants positive and productive?
  • Is the coach dealing with personal issues that are serious enough to be impacting the coach and the rest of the team?

Because no one is close enough to all the specific details, it comes down to trusting the Head Coach and the overall results he produces.   

It’s hard to describe the Bears' on-the-field performance as being anything other than mediocre  There have also been what feels like obvious mistakes made in the make-up of the staff.   Among those are the decision to hire Angus McClure as the OL coach and the compounded mistake of retaining him for a second season.  Additionally, it's hard not to question the decision to go with two Defensive Back coaches and not have a full-time Special Teams coach.   Cal's performance in the defensive backfield has fallen off a cliff since that decision has been made including this year where they had five players who have been honors winners. And Special teams have been well "special" in all the wrong ways.

We talk a lot about Cal making a REAL commitment to winning in Football and the critical importance that there is fulsome alignment between the Chancellor, the AD, and the Head Coach in this regard.  Wilcox, himself has pounded the table with the imperative of having this commitment rooted throughout the University.   What is likely not asked as often as it could be is whether the Head Coach himself truly making that commitment.

Have staff decisions been made around winning with high standards and accountability for every member of the staff?   Or have other concerns and values - treating assistants with respect, loyalty, etc taken precedence??  

Among the specific questions that can help evaluate whether the Head Coach is truly committed include:  Has the Head Coach pushed the administration to make sure the support staff around them are high quality and supportive of the vision and culture of the program?   How quickly are needed changes to the staff made?    Are other factors that while important and worthy of consideration obviating the big picture of performance?  E.g. Since the Head Coach isn't a great recruiter we need to emphasize assistant recruiting prowess ahead of their track record and ability to teach players.   

It is incredibly difficult to be a successful college football coach.  It's even more difficult at Cal right now, given the school's conscious decision over the past 15 years to ignore the importance of football, its corresponding failure to invest in the sport and the the lack of administrative support to football in almost every respect.

In part because of that, the head Football coach at Cal must be ruthlessly focused on constantly improving every aspect of the football program to get it to a place where it can win 8+ games year in and year out.  And we as fans and donors have to hold them accountable when it's clear that they are solving for things other than that goal.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about ignoring academics and character, IMO, those are table stakes at Cal.   Yet, they aren't a sufficiency.  

Jake Spavital is a good offensive mind and the offensive improvement for the Bears in 2023 was meaningful, but based on everything that we know, he had to leave.   The question is what happens now?  Does Wilcox find a way to improve the offensive staff?   

Tim Plough's departure is disappointing yet it's important to wait and see what occurs not only in hiring a new OC and TE coach but throughout the entire staff.   Given the lack of success on the field, this can no longer be about blind trust.  Wilcox needs to demonstrate both in his choices and the accompanying narrative that his decisions were made based on a focus on winning first.   And that accountability and performance matter more than any other factor.   

This is a critical offseason for Cal's Athletic Department and the Football program in particular.  Among the key areas of focus is how Justin Wilcox approaches the makeup of his coaching staff for 2024.  

Discussion from...

Cal's Football Staff and what it says about the Bears commitment to winning

11,158 Views | 48 Replies | Last: 5 mo ago by calumnus
bluehenbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Need an athletic director that understands what resources are needed for winning football and how to get them. Start there.
Cal_79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"Jake Spavital is a good offensive mind and the offensive improvement for the Bears in 2023 was meaningful, but based on everything that we know, he had to leave."

What do you mean? Why is it Spavital had to leave?

Econ141
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oh great - another critical year for Cal football. We all know how the last critical year went - we effectively got slow rolled into relegation with a paltry 9.5 mm media rights deal. And now with 1/3 the resources we think we can right the ship?

Wilcox will leave after his contract is over to take on a DC position in the B1G that pays almost as good. We will be left searching for coaches and assistants over and over again until we die out.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Econ141 said:

Oh great - another critical year for Cal football. We all know how the last critical year went - we effectively got slow rolled into relegation with a paltry 9.5 mm media rights deal. And now with 1/3 the resources we think we can right the ship?

Wilcox will leave after his contract is over to take on a DC position in the B1G that pays almost as good. We will be left searching for coaches and assistants over and over again until we die out.


Isn't it more like half, not 1/3, and goes up in 6 years?
Bearly Clad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This offseason and these hires will be the defining moment of Wilcox's tenure. Either he gets it right and builds on momentum to make us a regular bowl team again or it's another 2019 blip of a solid season followed by several more years of losing.

If it's the former it will also require hitting the portal and re-recruiting our guys so the roster isn't so devoid of talent that no one could make it successful. If it's the latter then it's the beginning of the end of the Wilcox tenure where we ride the mediocrity treadmill (or worse) for a couple more seasons until his buyout is enough to swallow.

The biggest red flag for me right now is the defense, an offensive coach can come in and find enough solid talent to work their system and perform well, but the fact that we have two DB coaches and a HC who played DB in college and they didn't play up to snuff is very concerning. Likewise that we have a DC who played and coached LB and a HC who's coached LB and a position coach who played and coached LB and still our defense has slid downhill is another major issue. So'oto had the LBs playing well and developing so he deserves some credit but the defensive staff as a whole has some major soul-searching to do to figure out what's going wrong and how to fix it
Econ141
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Econ141 said:

Oh great - another critical year for Cal football. We all know how the last critical year went - we effectively got slow rolled into relegation with a paltry 9.5 mm media rights deal. And now with 1/3 the resources we think we can right the ship?

Wilcox will leave after his contract is over to take on a DC position in the B1G that pays almost as good. We will be left searching for coaches and assistants over and over again until we die out.


Isn't it more like half, not 1/3, and goes up in 6 years?


Isn't their media right 30mm? I thought we are getting btw 9-10.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Econ141 said:

oski003 said:

Econ141 said:

Oh great - another critical year for Cal football. We all know how the last critical year went - we effectively got slow rolled into relegation with a paltry 9.5 mm media rights deal. And now with 1/3 the resources we think we can right the ship?

Wilcox will leave after his contract is over to take on a DC position in the B1G that pays almost as good. We will be left searching for coaches and assistants over and over again until we die out.


Isn't it more like half, not 1/3, and goes up in 6 years?


Isn't their media right 30mm? I thought we are getting btw 9-10.


You said 1/3 the resources. They have a larger payout than simply 1/3 the media contract, and they get 100% of the rest.
BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Econ141 said:

Oh great - another critical year for Cal football. We all know how the last critical year went - we effectively got slow rolled into relegation with a paltry 9.5 mm media rights deal. And now with 1/3 the resources we think we can right the ship?

Wilcox will leave after his contract is over to take on a DC position in the B1G that pays almost as good. We will be left searching for coaches and assistants over and over again until we die out.


Isn't it more like half, not 1/3, and goes up in 6 years?


ACC full members received an average of $39.4 million for 2021-22. Of that amount, $24 million is from the ESPN payment for games aired on an ESPN channel or ABC.

For their first 7 ACC years, Cal and Stanford will get 30% of that annual $24 million payment plus a full share of all other conference revenue.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearSD said:

oski003 said:

Econ141 said:

Oh great - another critical year for Cal football. We all know how the last critical year went - we effectively got slow rolled into relegation with a paltry 9.5 mm media rights deal. And now with 1/3 the resources we think we can right the ship?

Wilcox will leave after his contract is over to take on a DC position in the B1G that pays almost as good. We will be left searching for coaches and assistants over and over again until we die out.


Isn't it more like half, not 1/3, and goes up in 6 years?


ACC full members received an average of $39.4 million for 2021-22. Of that amount, $24 million is from the ESPN payment for games aired on an ESPN channel or ABC.

For their first 7 ACC years, Cal and Stanford will get 30% of that annual $24 million payment plus a full share of all other conference revenue.


Therefore, they get about 25 million.
Grrrrah76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't remember ever hearing Jake say "go bears" at the press conferences......
Nofado
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We need another offensive genius. Hopefully from Spavital tree so the offense can be revised not revamped. Mendoza and Ott need to be unleashed on day 1. Also need big OL from the portal. Offensive line protection solves a myriad period of woes. Any QB looks like a Heisman candidate with 5+ seconds of time. Vinnie Testaverde can attest to that.
Rushinbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bluehenbear said:

Need an athletic director that understands what resources are needed for winning football and how to get them. Start there.
actually we need to start with chancellor. a new one needs to endorse the importance of fb to a thriving univ. a new one needs to stand up to the anti-fb attitudes of some faculty and staff. all we have had for the last decade, at least, is cowering and sniveling. these academic snobs are bullies and counter-attack is the only thing that can keep them in check.

that means a chancellor from an academic/football power. how do they do it at Texas? (I was going to say also Mich, but their behavior lately has been the opposite of model - we don't want one of their lot.). UNC?

then, it's new broom sweeps clean. another egg head chancellor will keep us right where we are now, or worse. maybe the withholding of academic donations will get attention.
BearSD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rushinbear said:


how do they do it at Texas?
The way they do it at Texas is that their wealthy alums and boosters donate huge amounts to the athletic department and to NIL, and then donate even more. The Texas administration is not using university funds to pay for Sark, or recruiting top transfers, or expanding their stadium, or building A-plus athletic training facilities. It's all donor money.

It's not the chancellor. It's the donors. You want an athletic department like that, you need donors to shower it with money, money, and more money.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearSD said:

Rushinbear said:


how do they do it at Texas?
The way they do it at Texas is that their wealthy alums and boosters donate huge amounts to the athletic department and to NIL, and then donate even more. The Texas administration is not using university funds to pay for Sark, or recruiting top transfers, or expanding their stadium, or building A-plus athletic training facilities. It's all donor money.

It's not the chancellor. It's the donors. You want an athletic department like that, you need donors to shower it with money, money, and more money.

Don't forget.
UT also receives oil well money along with Texas A&M.
The UT System received $600 million alone in 2017 from these wells.
And the beef is that their $19.5 Billion Permanent University Fund in 2017 only created $38 million in financial aid.

UT System oil money is a gusher for its administration and a trickle for students | The Texas Tribune


"Cults don't end well. They really don't."
KenBurnski
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This article inspired feelings in me that perfectly align with the feelings experienced from being a cal football fan - confusion and anger.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

BearSD said:

oski003 said:

Econ141 said:

Oh great - another critical year for Cal football. We all know how the last critical year went - we effectively got slow rolled into relegation with a paltry 9.5 mm media rights deal. And now with 1/3 the resources we think we can right the ship?

Wilcox will leave after his contract is over to take on a DC position in the B1G that pays almost as good. We will be left searching for coaches and assistants over and over again until we die out.


Isn't it more like half, not 1/3, and goes up in 6 years?


ACC full members received an average of $39.4 million for 2021-22. Of that amount, $24 million is from the ESPN payment for games aired on an ESPN channel or ABC.

For their first 7 ACC years, Cal and Stanford will get 30% of that annual $24 million payment plus a full share of all other conference revenue.


Therefore, they get about 25 million.


Therefore what Cal gets is closer to one-third than one-half.
Shocky1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
greg, my take is that the challenges facing both the football & basketball programs start with the athletic director which in this opinion piece (which is appreciated) still neglects his malfeasance & financial mismanagement and misappropriation of resources which have critically impacted both programs

due to the athletic director tryna fund 30+ financially unsustainable sports, the cal football program has lacked the coaching salaries & nutrition/s&c program as monies have been redirected to women's field hockey & men's soccer, etc

does it concern you that knowlton is the only athletic director that plays dodgeball with all interview requests or that he don't got an active twitter account?...does it bother you that he secretly borrowed $11,000,000+ from the central campus which i uncovered thru public information requests?...does it make sense to you that he says we're receiving a full share from the acc but "donating" tens of millions of dollars back to the conference?...is he gonna sign the 4th occ contract for a 2024 game against a nationally ranked oregon state despite the acc commish telling him recently to schedule a mid major in mid season to ensure bowl eligibility?...why did he hire the unqualified & obstinate markeisha as the marketing director who refuses to allow all berkeley students to attend all games for free despite the current season average attendance of 2500+?...how can this site never run an article re: the athletic director being under investigation by an outside law firm (not munger) by the chancellor's office that could result in his termination?

until you & the bearinsider.com take a stance against james athur knowlton cal athletics is not gonna reach its potential, justin wilcox is not the problem

your writing an opinion piece which doesn't even mention knowlton is honestly kinda bizarro but i always respected that you also bleed blue & gold

as a starting point to maybe starting a long overdue positive conversation between us re: cal athletics perhaps you could share with me your thoughts on the director of football operations andrew mcgraw?
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

oski003 said:

BearSD said:

oski003 said:

Econ141 said:

Oh great - another critical year for Cal football. We all know how the last critical year went - we effectively got slow rolled into relegation with a paltry 9.5 mm media rights deal. And now with 1/3 the resources we think we can right the ship?

Wilcox will leave after his contract is over to take on a DC position in the B1G that pays almost as good. We will be left searching for coaches and assistants over and over again until we die out.


Isn't it more like half, not 1/3, and goes up in 6 years?


ACC full members received an average of $39.4 million for 2021-22. Of that amount, $24 million is from the ESPN payment for games aired on an ESPN channel or ABC.

For their first 7 ACC years, Cal and Stanford will get 30% of that annual $24 million payment plus a full share of all other conference revenue.


Therefore, they get about 25 million.


Therefore what Cal gets is closer to one-third than one-half.


Is Pee Wee Herman doing the math? Please explain your reasoning since it should be fairly clear it is near a half based on what has been presented.
HearstMining
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

oski003 said:

BearSD said:

oski003 said:

Econ141 said:

Oh great - another critical year for Cal football. We all know how the last critical year went - we effectively got slow rolled into relegation with a paltry 9.5 mm media rights deal. And now with 1/3 the resources we think we can right the ship?

Wilcox will leave after his contract is over to take on a DC position in the B1G that pays almost as good. We will be left searching for coaches and assistants over and over again until we die out.


Isn't it more like half, not 1/3, and goes up in 6 years?


ACC full members received an average of $39.4 million for 2021-22. Of that amount, $24 million is from the ESPN payment for games aired on an ESPN channel or ABC.

For their first 7 ACC years, Cal and Stanford will get 30% of that annual $24 million payment plus a full share of all other conference revenue.


Therefore, they get about 25 million.

Therefore what Cal gets is closer to one-third than one-half.
Maybe it's implicit in the arithmetic above, but remember that the 70% that Cal and Stanford don't receive for seven years is going to the other conference members, thus creating an even bigger difference in revenue. I know there's been talk about big donors filling that gap, but I'm sceptiCAL they'll do it for seven years. I think the program has 1-2 years to build momentum in order to attract players/coaches before it's permanently behind the power curve.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

BearSD said:

oski003 said:

Econ141 said:

Oh great - another critical year for Cal football. We all know how the last critical year went - we effectively got slow rolled into relegation with a paltry 9.5 mm media rights deal. And now with 1/3 the resources we think we can right the ship?

Wilcox will leave after his contract is over to take on a DC position in the B1G that pays almost as good. We will be left searching for coaches and assistants over and over again until we die out.


Isn't it more like half, not 1/3, and goes up in 6 years?


ACC full members received an average of $39.4 million for 2021-22. Of that amount, $24 million is from the ESPN payment for games aired on an ESPN channel or ABC.

For their first 7 ACC years, Cal and Stanford will get 30% of that annual $24 million payment plus a full share of all other conference revenue.


Therefore, they get about 25 million.


Therefore what Cal gets is closer to one-third than one-half.


Is Pee Wee Herman doing the math? Please explain your reasoning since it should be fairly clear it is near a half based on what has been presented.


$9.5 million is 38% of $25 million. Much closer to one-third (33.3%) than one-half (50%).
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
HearstMining said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

BearSD said:

oski003 said:

Econ141 said:

Oh great - another critical year for Cal football. We all know how the last critical year went - we effectively got slow rolled into relegation with a paltry 9.5 mm media rights deal. And now with 1/3 the resources we think we can right the ship?

Wilcox will leave after his contract is over to take on a DC position in the B1G that pays almost as good. We will be left searching for coaches and assistants over and over again until we die out.


Isn't it more like half, not 1/3, and goes up in 6 years?


ACC full members received an average of $39.4 million for 2021-22. Of that amount, $24 million is from the ESPN payment for games aired on an ESPN channel or ABC.

For their first 7 ACC years, Cal and Stanford will get 30% of that annual $24 million payment plus a full share of all other conference revenue.


Therefore, they get about 25 million.

Therefore what Cal gets is closer to one-third than one-half.
Maybe it's implicit in the arithmetic above, but remember that the 70% that Cal and Stanford don't receive for seven years is going to the other conference members, thus creating an even bigger difference in revenue. I know there's been talk about big donors filling that gap, but I'm sceptiCAL they'll do it for seven years. I think the program has 1-2 years to build momentum in order to attract players/coaches before it's permanently behind the power curve.


You are right, It is not included in the above calculations and will make our payout even closer to one-third of that of most of our conference foes (other than Stanford and SMU, who both have other resources to tap). Eventually we will catch up but we need to survive the short run to get to the long run.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

BearSD said:

oski003 said:

Econ141 said:

Oh great - another critical year for Cal football. We all know how the last critical year went - we effectively got slow rolled into relegation with a paltry 9.5 mm media rights deal. And now with 1/3 the resources we think we can right the ship?

Wilcox will leave after his contract is over to take on a DC position in the B1G that pays almost as good. We will be left searching for coaches and assistants over and over again until we die out.


Isn't it more like half, not 1/3, and goes up in 6 years?


ACC full members received an average of $39.4 million for 2021-22. Of that amount, $24 million is from the ESPN payment for games aired on an ESPN channel or ABC.

For their first 7 ACC years, Cal and Stanford will get 30% of that annual $24 million payment plus a full share of all other conference revenue.


Therefore, they get about 25 million.


Therefore what Cal gets is closer to one-third than one-half.


Is Pee Wee Herman doing the math? Please explain your reasoning since it should be fairly clear it is near a half based on what has been presented.


$9.5 million is 38% of $25 million. Much closer to one-third (33.3%) than one-half (50%).


And what is 24.9 million divided by 39.4 million? Is it 63%, which is much closer to 1/2 than a 1/3. It is actually much closer to 2/3. Please actually read what other posters write before interjecting with nonsense.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

BearSD said:

oski003 said:

Econ141 said:

Oh great - another critical year for Cal football. We all know how the last critical year went - we effectively got slow rolled into relegation with a paltry 9.5 mm media rights deal. And now with 1/3 the resources we think we can right the ship?

Wilcox will leave after his contract is over to take on a DC position in the B1G that pays almost as good. We will be left searching for coaches and assistants over and over again until we die out.


Isn't it more like half, not 1/3, and goes up in 6 years?


ACC full members received an average of $39.4 million for 2021-22. Of that amount, $24 million is from the ESPN payment for games aired on an ESPN channel or ABC.

For their first 7 ACC years, Cal and Stanford will get 30% of that annual $24 million payment plus a full share of all other conference revenue.


Therefore, they get about 25 million.


Therefore what Cal gets is closer to one-third than one-half.


Is Pee Wee Herman doing the math? Please explain your reasoning since it should be fairly clear it is near a half based on what has been presented.


$9.5 million is 38% of $25 million. Much closer to one-third (33.3%) than one-half (50%).


And what is 24.9 million divided by 39.4 million? Is it 63%, which is much closer to 1/2 than a 1/3. It is actually much closer to 2/3. Please actually read what other posters write before interjecting with nonsense.


Did you read BearSD's post?
What numbers do you think you are referencing? What do you think Cal's payout is going to be next year?
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

BearSD said:

oski003 said:

Econ141 said:

Oh great - another critical year for Cal football. We all know how the last critical year went - we effectively got slow rolled into relegation with a paltry 9.5 mm media rights deal. And now with 1/3 the resources we think we can right the ship?

Wilcox will leave after his contract is over to take on a DC position in the B1G that pays almost as good. We will be left searching for coaches and assistants over and over again until we die out.


Isn't it more like half, not 1/3, and goes up in 6 years?


ACC full members received an average of $39.4 million for 2021-22. Of that amount, $24 million is from the ESPN payment for games aired on an ESPN channel or ABC.

For their first 7 ACC years, Cal and Stanford will get 30% of that annual $24 million payment plus a full share of all other conference revenue.


Therefore, they get about 25 million.


Therefore what Cal gets is closer to one-third than one-half.


Is Pee Wee Herman doing the math? Please explain your reasoning since it should be fairly clear it is near a half based on what has been presented.


$9.5 million is 38% of $25 million. Much closer to one-third (33.3%) than one-half (50%).


And what is 24.9 million divided by 39.4 million? Is it 63%, which is much closer to 1/2 than a 1/3. It is actually much closer to 2/3. Please actually read what other posters write before interjecting with nonsense.


Did you read BearSD's post?
What numbers do you think you are referencing? What do you think Cal's payout is going to be?


~25 million
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

BearSD said:

oski003 said:

Econ141 said:

Oh great - another critical year for Cal football. We all know how the last critical year went - we effectively got slow rolled into relegation with a paltry 9.5 mm media rights deal. And now with 1/3 the resources we think we can right the ship?

Wilcox will leave after his contract is over to take on a DC position in the B1G that pays almost as good. We will be left searching for coaches and assistants over and over again until we die out.


Isn't it more like half, not 1/3, and goes up in 6 years?


ACC full members received an average of $39.4 million for 2021-22. Of that amount, $24 million is from the ESPN payment for games aired on an ESPN channel or ABC.

For their first 7 ACC years, Cal and Stanford will get 30% of that annual $24 million payment plus a full share of all other conference revenue.


Therefore, they get about 25 million.


Therefore what Cal gets is closer to one-third than one-half.


Is Pee Wee Herman doing the math? Please explain your reasoning since it should be fairly clear it is near a half based on what has been presented.


$9.5 million is 38% of $25 million. Much closer to one-third (33.3%) than one-half (50%).


And what is 24.9 million divided by 39.4 million? Is it 63%, which is much closer to 1/2 than a 1/3. It is actually much closer to 2/3. Please actually read what other posters write before interjecting with nonsense.


Did you read BearSD's post?
What numbers do you think you are referencing? What do you think Cal's payout is going to be?


~25 million


Read BearSD's post again. That is full media payout in the ACC. Cal will only get 30% initially.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

BearSD said:

oski003 said:

Econ141 said:

Oh great - another critical year for Cal football. We all know how the last critical year went - we effectively got slow rolled into relegation with a paltry 9.5 mm media rights deal. And now with 1/3 the resources we think we can right the ship?

Wilcox will leave after his contract is over to take on a DC position in the B1G that pays almost as good. We will be left searching for coaches and assistants over and over again until we die out.


Isn't it more like half, not 1/3, and goes up in 6 years?


ACC full members received an average of $39.4 million for 2021-22. Of that amount, $24 million is from the ESPN payment for games aired on an ESPN channel or ABC.

For their first 7 ACC years, Cal and Stanford will get 30% of that annual $24 million payment plus a full share of all other conference revenue.


Therefore, they get about 25 million.


Therefore what Cal gets is closer to one-third than one-half.


Is Pee Wee Herman doing the math? Please explain your reasoning since it should be fairly clear it is near a half based on what has been presented.


$9.5 million is 38% of $25 million. Much closer to one-third (33.3%) than one-half (50%).


And what is 24.9 million divided by 39.4 million? Is it 63%, which is much closer to 1/2 than a 1/3. It is actually much closer to 2/3. Please actually read what other posters write before interjecting with nonsense.


Did you read BearSD's post?
What numbers do you think you are referencing? What do you think Cal's payout is going to be?


~25 million


Read BearSD's post again. That is full media payout in the ACC. Cal will only get 30% initially.


I don't need to reread BearSD's post to reiterate that "plus a full share of all other conference revenue" means Cal has much more than 1/3 the resources of the other teams. Thanks.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

BearSD said:

oski003 said:

Econ141 said:

Oh great - another critical year for Cal football. We all know how the last critical year went - we effectively got slow rolled into relegation with a paltry 9.5 mm media rights deal. And now with 1/3 the resources we think we can right the ship?

Wilcox will leave after his contract is over to take on a DC position in the B1G that pays almost as good. We will be left searching for coaches and assistants over and over again until we die out.


Isn't it more like half, not 1/3, and goes up in 6 years?


ACC full members received an average of $39.4 million for 2021-22. Of that amount, $24 million is from the ESPN payment for games aired on an ESPN channel or ABC.

For their first 7 ACC years, Cal and Stanford will get 30% of that annual $24 million payment plus a full share of all other conference revenue.


Therefore, they get about 25 million.


Therefore what Cal gets is closer to one-third than one-half.


Is Pee Wee Herman doing the math? Please explain your reasoning since it should be fairly clear it is near a half based on what has been presented.


$9.5 million is 38% of $25 million. Much closer to one-third (33.3%) than one-half (50%).


And what is 24.9 million divided by 39.4 million? Is it 63%, which is much closer to 1/2 than a 1/3. It is actually much closer to 2/3. Please actually read what other posters write before interjecting with nonsense.


Did you read BearSD's post?
What numbers do you think you are referencing? What do you think Cal's payout is going to be?


~25 million


Read BearSD's post again. That is full media payout in the ACC. Cal will only get 30% initially.


I don't need to reread BearSD's post to reiterate that "plus a full share of all other conference revenue" means Cal has much more than 1/3 the resources of the other teams. Thanks.


You can assert it, and may even be right, which would be good, but what are your numbers? My math was based on what SDBear wrote and you responded to.

I see you are saying Cal will get $24.9 million from the ACC despite only getting $8 million from the media deal. What is the source of those $16.9 million in other revenues per school? What is the breakdown?
MrGPAC
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

BearSD said:

oski003 said:

Econ141 said:

Oh great - another critical year for Cal football. We all know how the last critical year went - we effectively got slow rolled into relegation with a paltry 9.5 mm media rights deal. And now with 1/3 the resources we think we can right the ship?

Wilcox will leave after his contract is over to take on a DC position in the B1G that pays almost as good. We will be left searching for coaches and assistants over and over again until we die out.


Isn't it more like half, not 1/3, and goes up in 6 years?


ACC full members received an average of $39.4 million for 2021-22. Of that amount, $24 million is from the ESPN payment for games aired on an ESPN channel or ABC.

For their first 7 ACC years, Cal and Stanford will get 30% of that annual $24 million payment plus a full share of all other conference revenue.


Therefore, they get about 25 million.


Therefore what Cal gets is closer to one-third than one-half.


Is Pee Wee Herman doing the math? Please explain your reasoning since it should be fairly clear it is near a half based on what has been presented.


$9.5 million is 38% of $25 million. Much closer to one-third (33.3%) than one-half (50%).


And what is 24.9 million divided by 39.4 million? Is it 63%, which is much closer to 1/2 than a 1/3. It is actually much closer to 2/3. Please actually read what other posters write before interjecting with nonsense.


Did you read BearSD's post?
What numbers do you think you are referencing? What do you think Cal's payout is going to be?


~25 million


Read BearSD's post again. That is full media payout in the ACC. Cal will only get 30% initially.


I don't need to reread BearSD's post to reiterate that "plus a full share of all other conference revenue" means Cal has much more than 1/3 the resources of the other teams. Thanks.


You can assert it, and may even be right, which would be good, but what are your numbers? My math was based on what SDBear wrote and you responded to.

I see you are saying Cal will get $24.9 million from the ACC despite only getting $8 million from the media deal. What is the source of those $16.9 million in other revenues per school? What is the breakdown?



Acc network and any other media rights not covered by the primary. Last year acc got 24 million per team from the main media deal, which is what we are getting 1/3rd of, but the teams got 39 million in total from all media rights. We will get a full share of that 15 million difference.

We would actually expect that number to go up because of the market adds of Texas smu and the bay area increasing acc network subscribers and revenue. We should expect something greater than 23 million overall.
Econ141
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

BearSD said:

oski003 said:

Econ141 said:

Oh great - another critical year for Cal football. We all know how the last critical year went - we effectively got slow rolled into relegation with a paltry 9.5 mm media rights deal. And now with 1/3 the resources we think we can right the ship?

Wilcox will leave after his contract is over to take on a DC position in the B1G that pays almost as good. We will be left searching for coaches and assistants over and over again until we die out.


Isn't it more like half, not 1/3, and goes up in 6 years?


ACC full members received an average of $39.4 million for 2021-22. Of that amount, $24 million is from the ESPN payment for games aired on an ESPN channel or ABC.

For their first 7 ACC years, Cal and Stanford will get 30% of that annual $24 million payment plus a full share of all other conference revenue.


Therefore, they get about 25 million.


Therefore what Cal gets is closer to one-third than one-half.


Is Pee Wee Herman doing the math? Please explain your reasoning since it should be fairly clear it is near a half based on what has been presented.


$9.5 million is 38% of $25 million. Much closer to one-third (33.3%) than one-half (50%).


And what is 24.9 million divided by 39.4 million? Is it 63%, which is much closer to 1/2 than a 1/3. It is actually much closer to 2/3. Please actually read what other posters write before interjecting with nonsense.


Did you read BearSD's post?
What numbers do you think you are referencing? What do you think Cal's payout is going to be?


~25 million


Read BearSD's post again. That is full media payout in the ACC. Cal will only get 30% initially.


I don't need to reread BearSD's post to reiterate that "plus a full share of all other conference revenue" means Cal has much more than 1/3 the resources of the other teams. Thanks.


You can assert it, and may even be right, which would be good, but what are your numbers? My math was based on what SDBear wrote and you responded to.

I see you are saying Cal will get $24.9 million from the ACC despite only getting $8 million from the media deal. What is the source of those $16.9 million in other revenues per school? What is the breakdown?



Would love to understand what Cal gets paid out (guaranteed) in the first year of ACC vs the guaranteed payout of our last year in the PAC.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MrGPAC said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

BearSD said:

oski003 said:

Econ141 said:

Oh great - another critical year for Cal football. We all know how the last critical year went - we effectively got slow rolled into relegation with a paltry 9.5 mm media rights deal. And now with 1/3 the resources we think we can right the ship?

Wilcox will leave after his contract is over to take on a DC position in the B1G that pays almost as good. We will be left searching for coaches and assistants over and over again until we die out.


Isn't it more like half, not 1/3, and goes up in 6 years?


ACC full members received an average of $39.4 million for 2021-22. Of that amount, $24 million is from the ESPN payment for games aired on an ESPN channel or ABC.

For their first 7 ACC years, Cal and Stanford will get 30% of that annual $24 million payment plus a full share of all other conference revenue.


Therefore, they get about 25 million.


Therefore what Cal gets is closer to one-third than one-half.


Is Pee Wee Herman doing the math? Please explain your reasoning since it should be fairly clear it is near a half based on what has been presented.


$9.5 million is 38% of $25 million. Much closer to one-third (33.3%) than one-half (50%).


And what is 24.9 million divided by 39.4 million? Is it 63%, which is much closer to 1/2 than a 1/3. It is actually much closer to 2/3. Please actually read what other posters write before interjecting with nonsense.


Did you read BearSD's post?
What numbers do you think you are referencing? What do you think Cal's payout is going to be?


~25 million


Read BearSD's post again. That is full media payout in the ACC. Cal will only get 30% initially.


I don't need to reread BearSD's post to reiterate that "plus a full share of all other conference revenue" means Cal has much more than 1/3 the resources of the other teams. Thanks.


You can assert it, and may even be right, which would be good, but what are your numbers? My math was based on what SDBear wrote and you responded to.

I see you are saying Cal will get $24.9 million from the ACC despite only getting $8 million from the media deal. What is the source of those $16.9 million in other revenues per school? What is the breakdown?



Acc network and any other media rights not covered by the primary. Last year acc got 24 million per team from the main media deal, which is what we are getting 1/3rd of, but the teams got 39 million in total from all media rights. We will get a full share of that 15 million difference.

We would actually expect that number to go up because of the market adds of Texas smu and the bay area increasing acc network subscribers and revenue. We should expect something greater than 23 million overall.


OK Here is what I am seeing:

We get 30% of the media deal so instead of $25 million we get $7.5 million. If the previous total payout is $39.5 million per school, that is $14.5 million in other. So we are at $22 million. The ACC Network will expand but also have more schools to distribute to. But I am sure they don't add us if we are not accretive, so assume somevincrease. Meanwhile the other ACC schools will divide up the $60 million from Cal Stanford and SMU so that gets their media payout up $3 to $4 million per school. Our gap with the rest of the ACC is about $22 million ($17.5 + $3 to $4 million) or almost exactly 50% (just as 003 asserted).
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

BearSD said:

oski003 said:

Econ141 said:

Oh great - another critical year for Cal football. We all know how the last critical year went - we effectively got slow rolled into relegation with a paltry 9.5 mm media rights deal. And now with 1/3 the resources we think we can right the ship?

Wilcox will leave after his contract is over to take on a DC position in the B1G that pays almost as good. We will be left searching for coaches and assistants over and over again until we die out.


Isn't it more like half, not 1/3, and goes up in 6 years?


ACC full members received an average of $39.4 million for 2021-22. Of that amount, $24 million is from the ESPN payment for games aired on an ESPN channel or ABC.

For their first 7 ACC years, Cal and Stanford will get 30% of that annual $24 million payment plus a full share of all other conference revenue.


Therefore, they get about 25 million.


Therefore what Cal gets is closer to one-third than one-half.


Is Pee Wee Herman doing the math? Please explain your reasoning since it should be fairly clear it is near a half based on what has been presented.


$9.5 million is 38% of $25 million. Much closer to one-third (33.3%) than one-half (50%).


And what is 24.9 million divided by 39.4 million? Is it 63%, which is much closer to 1/2 than a 1/3. It is actually much closer to 2/3. Please actually read what other posters write before interjecting with nonsense.


Did you read BearSD's post?
What numbers do you think you are referencing? What do you think Cal's payout is going to be?


~25 million


Read BearSD's post again. That is full media payout in the ACC. Cal will only get 30% initially.


I don't need to reread BearSD's post to reiterate that "plus a full share of all other conference revenue" means Cal has much more than 1/3 the resources of the other teams. Thanks.


You can assert it, and may even be right, which would be good, but what are your numbers? My math was based on what SDBear wrote and you responded to.

I see you are saying Cal will get $24.9 million from the ACC despite only getting $8 million from the media deal. What is the source of those $16.9 million in other revenues per school? What is the breakdown?



Acc network and any other media rights not covered by the primary. Last year acc got 24 million per team from the main media deal, which is what we are getting 1/3rd of, but the teams got 39 million in total from all media rights. We will get a full share of that 15 million difference.

How many more times must this be repeated?

... Edited to add that I am glad you are finally reading what folks are posting instead of arguing because the facts you knew supported your viewpoint.
UrsineMaximus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Well Wilcox has proved time and again that his ability to hire and subsequently fire those hires is exceedingly poor. Nothing, to date, has displayed a change in his management. I was (and still am but less so) a supporter of Wilcox when first hired. I did not know what his C-level abilities where at the time but now history has proven it is piss poor. Is Wilcox stubborn? Blind? Or just stupid? Next few weeks should tell a lot. So far, he made the easy (safe) choice to promote Bloesch...hmm, I wonder if he considered much less interviewed anyone else before making that choice. Sirmon needs to go, a DB coach needs to go, a ST coach needs to be hired. So several more choices to be made and good managers/CEOs make them exceedingly fast and w/o blinking.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Econ141 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

calumnus said:

oski003 said:

BearSD said:

oski003 said:

Econ141 said:

Oh great - another critical year for Cal football. We all know how the last critical year went - we effectively got slow rolled into relegation with a paltry 9.5 mm media rights deal. And now with 1/3 the resources we think we can right the ship?

Wilcox will leave after his contract is over to take on a DC position in the B1G that pays almost as good. We will be left searching for coaches and assistants over and over again until we die out.


Isn't it more like half, not 1/3, and goes up in 6 years?


ACC full members received an average of $39.4 million for 2021-22. Of that amount, $24 million is from the ESPN payment for games aired on an ESPN channel or ABC.

For their first 7 ACC years, Cal and Stanford will get 30% of that annual $24 million payment plus a full share of all other conference revenue.


Therefore, they get about 25 million.


Therefore what Cal gets is closer to one-third than one-half.


Is Pee Wee Herman doing the math? Please explain your reasoning since it should be fairly clear it is near a half based on what has been presented.


$9.5 million is 38% of $25 million. Much closer to one-third (33.3%) than one-half (50%).


And what is 24.9 million divided by 39.4 million? Is it 63%, which is much closer to 1/2 than a 1/3. It is actually much closer to 2/3. Please actually read what other posters write before interjecting with nonsense.


Did you read BearSD's post?
What numbers do you think you are referencing? What do you think Cal's payout is going to be?


~25 million


Read BearSD's post again. That is full media payout in the ACC. Cal will only get 30% initially.


I don't need to reread BearSD's post to reiterate that "plus a full share of all other conference revenue" means Cal has much more than 1/3 the resources of the other teams. Thanks.


You can assert it, and may even be right, which would be good, but what are your numbers? My math was based on what SDBear wrote and you responded to.

I see you are saying Cal will get $24.9 million from the ACC despite only getting $8 million from the media deal. What is the source of those $16.9 million in other revenues per school? What is the breakdown?



Would love to understand what Cal gets paid out (guaranteed) in the first year of ACC vs the guaranteed payout of our last year in the PAC.


According to this article the ACC paid out $39.4 million and the Pac-12 paid out $37 million, so if we drop to $22 million that will be a $15 million hit.

https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/2023/05/22/Colleges/ncaa-conference-revenues-acc-pac-12.aspx
Cal89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Under Spav, the offense was improved, which isn't exactly saying much. As with his previous stint here, the production was made-out by some to be good to even prolific. It was subar.

Scoring: 7th best in the Pac
Yards/play: 8th
Yards/rush: 5th
Yards/attempt: 11th
3rd down conv rate: 9th




Sig test...
Nofado
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The first five games don't really count in terms of how much we've improved. I would look at the last three games as a barometer.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.