Great write up. The rhetorical tone is perfect. I realized yesterday that I don't know what I'm going to do about the Big Game. I'm coming out to the Bay Area for it, but I'm seriously thinking of sitting up on Tightwad Hill. This write up captures exactly why-I DO NOT WANT TO PAY $50 (or more!) to watch Cal football. Every bone in my body rebels against it, even though I can probably sit wherever I want to given what is likely to be not great attendance. TBH, every game I've been able to sit where I want every game of the Wilcox era I've attended. It IS one thing to be bad but exciting and zany, as some of the Dykes era games were but it is deadly to be boring and bad. You just want to turn away, so you don't see the car crash.
Cal never boress me! those are alive gues on the fielD who are putting pretty much everything on the line for the bears! CAP SAID ", THE BEARS NEVER DIE". THEY LIVE ON THE FIELD AND IN MY HEART!
It's an interesting quandary. Assuming Wilcox isn't trying to lose (and a lot of players still seem to be trying), 2 possibilities come to mind.
Did Wilcox legitimately think Musgrave's offense was going to work, at least with the right transfer QB? And by the time it became obvious that it's not going to with the players in aggregate Cal has and can attract, was it too late to make a productive change until after the season?
Or did Wilcox and Musgrave think they could attract a better transfer QB? Or did they think Plummer would develop into a more efficient QB that would be good enough to win with this system and supporting cast? And in either case, when it became clear the answer was no, it was too late to do anything about it?
In any of these cases, the result is a mostly lost season. But deciding which scenario for things going wrong is key to deciding what to do next. It's been a program defining issue for other teams in the conference as well; Mike Riley at Oregon State in the declining later years was the classic example, and loyalty to coordinators of questionable or out of date systems was at the center of the issue there as well.
The key decision when things aren't working is are you trying to do the right thing, and it would or will work if you work harder/do it better, or is what you are trying to do the wrong thing, and it won't work with any amount of hard work and effort (and you need to take a different approach, possibly with different types of coaches and players)? The latter choice is often very hard for a head coach to come to the conclusion needs to be made. After all, they honestly thought they were making the best choices of staff and scheme and style when they got everyone into the mess.
I think Wilcox and Musgrave thought better QB play would unlock the offense. It turns out whether or not Plummer is an upgrade over Garbers became irrelevant because what they didn’t anticipate is the O-line going from bad to worse, essentially making it impossible for any pocket passing type QB to be successful
Misjudging talent, or depth (a variation of the same thing), certainly will lead to disaster. And its easy to fall into the trap, after all everyone seems to think things are going to get better when in fact, that's often hope without foundation. And if the real problem is personnel that aren't up to the task, it's not going to get fixed until another round of recruiting (which will be more difficult) happens.
Boring and winning is one thing. Sonny Dykes was high scoring but defensively inept and never boring. Hard to get behind boring and losing. I guess at least there are no scandals like in other programs.
With Sonny's teams (aside from his year 1), there always seemed to be a chance of Cal scoring a bunch of points quickly and making a game of it, even when the game was out of hand. Now, as soon as Cal is down by 10, it feels like being down 35.
Unfortunately this is not true, as I attended nearly every single one of those games. The CA schools were a guaranteed loss every year, and when games got close, Sonny kicked field goals.
Sonny won a total of one game against CA schools in his tenure at Cal. One.
The coach he is now and the coach he was at Cal are not the same.
I'm not debating that USC, UCLA, and Furd were better than Cal while Dykes was here. The gap closed a bit under Wilcox, but now seems to be widening again. Judging a coach on his record against CA teams is not the best metric (not the worst either); it depends on how good those teams were during his tenure. Stanford in particular has not been a constant; they were much better for a run of years during peak Harbargh-Shaw than they were before or after.
If JW wants to be boring adn good -- teh Wisconsin way -- he needs to recruit better offensive linemen. Period.
The elephant in the room is that boring and bad also leads current lads to turn their eyes towards the Portal. Of Ott, Sturdivant, and Hunter, will any of them return? Could anyone in good conscience counsel them to stay?
Speaking of offensive linemen, several folks here, as well as tv announcers, have observed that RT Session gets handled easily by the opposition. It’s so bad that I wonder if the other team goes easy on him just to get some practice, being aware that they can take over the game at this weak point at any time. Which might also be how Milner was able to do well.
I’m sure Session is doing what he can. It’s just sad that, as OCB implies, we don’t have anyone better.
This is currently my major concern, OCB - even more than the coaching changes.
Given the disastrous current recruiting cycle, Cal can ill-afford to lose players of this caliber. It flat out can't happen. Hiring a new OC and OL-coach is a must, but will it really make much of a difference if they're coaching fringe P12 players like Tommy Christakos, Monroe Young and Damien Moore? They will be seriously behind the 8-ball, almost immediately.
Worse, as we discussed on the other thread, one of Wilcox's only real saving grace right now is that the players love to play for him...he loses that, and he probably gets fired after next year.
I'd bet JW does not get fired after next year. Just too expensive to pay him off. With any luck, the Chancellor fires Knowlton next year. (Definitely do not want JK to hire a new football coach unless we've been relegated to teh Mountain West.)
Please do...I totally agree, Avi. It sure didn't sound correct, and I didn't really study the article in depth.
I seem to remember hearing the buyout was major after this year...something to do with paying what's owed on the original extension (2020 contract?). Dunno.
Apologies if my post misleads - not my intention.
Either way, right now, it appears to at the very least be in the running for worst Head Coach contract in all of College Football...well done, Knowlton.
Essentially, 100% of base salary, talent fee and retention bonus for the remainder of the Term had this Contract not have been terminated.
Extension goes thru Dec 31-2027, at avg $5m/yr.
JW does have a requirement to mitigate by looking for a new job. If he gets a DC position paying $1m/yr, that would offset what Cal owes. If he gets a HC job at $5m/yr, Cal owes nothing.
Is that just after 2022 season? What's the source?
So Knowlton basically handed him pretty much a fully guaranteed contract...how is that possible? And why would the buyouts increase as the years went on - you're basically paying him more money to fire him down the road? Buyouts usually decrease over time...
Need more clarification, me thinks.
Either way, the fact that this is even a topic of conversation 7-months after signing, before the calendar hits November in an even year, 7-game home schedule is a disaster.
Harsin coached with Wilcox at Boise State 2001–2002 and 2006–2009. Harsin is a QB coach at heart, has won championships, was a poor fit at Auburn, and I'm sure has buyout language that makes the financials work.
Big shout-out to P12 Network and AT&T. Because in the 3rd quarter I was able sit in the stadium AND watch Cal’s amazing, sensational OT water polo win over UCLA. On my phone. WAAAY better than what was on the field in front of me. #1 in the country, baby!
I can't help but think back to when I came to Cal in 1989 (Bruce Snyder HC and Troy Taylor at QB) and they went 4-7 and nobody seemed to care. Things were bleak and Taylor was graduating, so people expected it to only get worse. The next year, with Paws at QB and Mooch as OC, there was new attitude and things really turned around (7W-4L-1T). 1991 was even better, (10-2). So, maybe there's more hope than we think?
I hereby call myself out for being a boring fan. I used to think up stuff to bring to games like a big "There Is No Stanfurdium" sign. I used to find joy in losing but at least being funnier and more grounded about it than other fanbases were. I think all of us here should commit for the rest of this season to being interesting. No more boilerplate "we have a horrible offensive line and x and y and z need to be fired" posts; we're decrying how boring our offense is while being even more boring ourselves by posting repetitive, predictable rants. We've had them ad nauseam. Let's get creative!
Well, John, we DO have a horrible offensive line and not sure about X, Y and Z, but McClure will likely be fired, and Musgrave will be replaced…pretty much the same thing. ;-).
I actually typed this post with a really creative shirt that I had made myself. I love this t-shirt…it’s a pic I took of my older pup at Tunnel View in Yosemite, with the gorgeous sight line behind her…it’s screened onto a navy blue tshirt…awesome.
I hadn’t given much thought to Stanfurdium as an element, but if doing so results in more Cal red zone touchdowns, or keeps Ott/Sturdi/Hunter/Mavin out of the portal, then hell…sign me up.
In fact, make you a deal: I’ll make and bring a sign of your choosing to the Auburn game next September 9 if we retain all 4 of those players. You tell me what it should say (within reason) and I’ll make, bring, and walk the aisles with it v the Tigers.
So far so good. Brooks and Moore transferring out, so it’s Ott’s backfield. Hopefully he sticks. We’ll see what happens after the new OC hire & once the portal officially opens.
There is no Stanfurdium, so no need to think about it. Or in fact, who's going to transfer, because that's out of our control. As far as transfers go, what might be more interesting than guessing at the insides of our current players' heads is identifying players on other teams who are talented but wasted because they can't get playing time, are on an FCS team, etc. and so might be inclined to come to a P5 place where they can start. We almost certainly will have a bunch of incoming transfers. In any case, your proposal don't cost me nothing and will keep me following the Bears during the offseason! I'm already thinking of sign ideas...
I shouldn't have read this before bed. The terrible ideas are coming. I would suggest some brag about our intelligence like "We already solved the Saturday Times crossword" but that would take an army to hoist. Maybe just solve the puzzle and blow it up?
This was a bad hire from the start. Zak Hill and Musgrave were on the open market at the same time, and Hill chose ASU and we got second fiddle with Musgrave.
Hill was fired for bringing recruits on campus during the covid quiet period, but he's 42 and has a long road ahead of him. We can acquire a A+ OC for a discount at the end of this season.
Will Hill leave us for the SEC after a few years and bringing Cal back to relevancy? Yes.
Do I care? No. I just want to see the words "Cal + Relevancy" again.
Playing football without a defensive and offensive line seems like a difficult hill to climb.
Great write up. The rhetorical tone is perfect. I realized yesterday that I don't know what I'm going to do about the Big Game. I'm coming out to the Bay Area for it, but I'm seriously thinking of sitting up on Tightwad Hill. This write up captures exactly why-I DO NOT WANT TO PAY $50 (or more!) to watch Cal football. Every bone in my body rebels against it, even though I can probably sit wherever I want to given what is likely to be not great attendance. TBH, every game I've been able to sit where I want every game of the Wilcox era I've attended. It IS one thing to be bad but exciting and zany, as some of the Dykes era games were but it is deadly to be boring and bad. You just want to turn away, so you don't see the car crash.
Cal never boress me! those are alive gues on the fielD who are putting pretty much everything on the line for the bears! CAP SAID ", THE BEARS NEVER DIE". THEY LIVE ON THE FIELD AND IN MY HEART!
JUST STAY ALIVE ...AND ......GO BEARS!!!!
It's an interesting quandary. Assuming Wilcox isn't trying to lose (and a lot of players still seem to be trying), 2 possibilities come to mind.
Did Wilcox legitimately think Musgrave's offense was going to work, at least with the right transfer QB? And by the time it became obvious that it's not going to with the players in aggregate Cal has and can attract, was it too late to make a productive change until after the season?
Or did Wilcox and Musgrave think they could attract a better transfer QB? Or did they think Plummer would develop into a more efficient QB that would be good enough to win with this system and supporting cast? And in either case, when it became clear the answer was no, it was too late to do anything about it?
In any of these cases, the result is a mostly lost season. But deciding which scenario for things going wrong is key to deciding what to do next. It's been a program defining issue for other teams in the conference as well; Mike Riley at Oregon State in the declining later years was the classic example, and loyalty to coordinators of questionable or out of date systems was at the center of the issue there as well.
The key decision when things aren't working is are you trying to do the right thing, and it would or will work if you work harder/do it better, or is what you are trying to do the wrong thing, and it won't work with any amount of hard work and effort (and you need to take a different approach, possibly with different types of coaches and players)? The latter choice is often very hard for a head coach to come to the conclusion needs to be made. After all, they honestly thought they were making the best choices of staff and scheme and style when they got everyone into the mess.
I think Wilcox and Musgrave thought better QB play would unlock the offense. It turns out whether or not Plummer is an upgrade over Garbers became irrelevant because what they didn’t anticipate is the O-line going from bad to worse, essentially making it impossible for any pocket passing type QB to be successful
Misjudging talent, or depth (a variation of the same thing), certainly will lead to disaster. And its easy to fall into the trap, after all everyone seems to think things are going to get better when in fact, that's often hope without foundation. And if the real problem is personnel that aren't up to the task, it's not going to get fixed until another round of recruiting (which will be more difficult) happens.
Boring and winning is one thing. Sonny Dykes was high scoring but defensively inept and never boring. Hard to get behind boring and losing. I guess at least there are no scandals like in other programs.
It got pretty boring when we played winning teams. Every game against a losing team was very exciting though.
Especially against Wazzu
Never boring???? Did you see any of our games against California schools in that era? Boring as hell and blowouts to boot
With Sonny's teams (aside from his year 1), there always seemed to be a chance of Cal scoring a bunch of points quickly and making a game of it, even when the game was out of hand. Now, as soon as Cal is down by 10, it feels like being down 35.
Unfortunately this is not true, as I attended nearly every single one of those games. The CA schools were a guaranteed loss every year, and when games got close, Sonny kicked field goals.
Sonny won a total of one game against CA schools in his tenure at Cal. One.
The coach he is now and the coach he was at Cal are not the same.
Wilcox may have broken the streak against USC, but not because of his ability of a coach. Specifically because of Helton's lack thereof.
I'm not debating that USC, UCLA, and Furd were better than Cal while Dykes was here. The gap closed a bit under Wilcox, but now seems to be widening again. Judging a coach on his record against CA teams is not the best metric (not the worst either); it depends on how good those teams were during his tenure. Stanford in particular has not been a constant; they were much better for a run of years during peak Harbargh-Shaw than they were before or after.
Excluding his 1-11 season, here are your results:
USC 0-3.
Closest loss: 27-21
Biggest loss: 45-24
Stanford, 0-3.
Closest loss: 35-22 😖
Biggest loss: 38-17
UCLA, 1-3.
Closest loss: 36-34
Win: 36-10
Biggest Loss: 40-24 (Cal ranked #20)
That was the biggest mark against Sonny: the games against Furd were never close.
Yes, Furd was much better in those years. But still, there was just never any hope in a Big Game.
If JW wants to be boring adn good -- teh Wisconsin way -- he needs to recruit better offensive linemen. Period.
The elephant in the room is that boring and bad also leads current lads to turn their eyes towards the Portal. Of Ott, Sturdivant, and Hunter, will any of them return? Could anyone in good conscience counsel them to stay?
Speaking of offensive linemen, several folks here, as well as tv announcers, have observed that RT Session gets handled easily by the opposition. It’s so bad that I wonder if the other team goes easy on him just to get some practice, being aware that they can take over the game at this weak point at any time. Which might also be how Milner was able to do well.
I’m sure Session is doing what he can. It’s just sad that, as OCB implies, we don’t have anyone better.
This is currently my major concern, OCB - even more than the coaching changes.
Given the disastrous current recruiting cycle, Cal can ill-afford to lose players of this caliber. It flat out can't happen. Hiring a new OC and OL-coach is a must, but will it really make much of a difference if they're coaching fringe P12 players like Tommy Christakos, Monroe Young and Damien Moore? They will be seriously behind the 8-ball, almost immediately.
Worse, as we discussed on the other thread, one of Wilcox's only real saving grace right now is that the players love to play for him...he loses that, and he probably gets fired after next year.
I'd bet JW does not get fired after next year. Just too expensive to pay him off. With any luck, the Chancellor fires Knowlton next year. (Definitely do not want JK to hire a new football coach unless we've been relegated to teh Mountain West.)
I'm not sure that reading is correct. We'll try and have something more detailed soon.
Please do...I totally agree, Avi. It sure didn't sound correct, and I didn't really study the article in depth.
I seem to remember hearing the buyout was major after this year...something to do with paying what's owed on the original extension (2020 contract?). Dunno.
Apologies if my post misleads - not my intention.
Either way, right now, it appears to at the very least be in the running for worst Head Coach contract in all of College Football...well done, Knowlton.
The Farudo reading is incorrect.
Essentially, 100% of base salary, talent fee and retention bonus for the remainder of the Term had this Contract not have been terminated.
Extension goes thru Dec 31-2027, at avg $5m/yr.
JW does have a requirement to mitigate by looking for a new job. If he gets a DC position paying $1m/yr, that would offset what Cal owes. If he gets a HC job at $5m/yr, Cal owes nothing.
Is that just after 2022 season? What's the source?
So Knowlton basically handed him pretty much a fully guaranteed contract...how is that possible? And why would the buyouts increase as the years went on - you're basically paying him more money to fire him down the road? Buyouts usually decrease over time...
Need more clarification, me thinks.
Either way, the fact that this is even a topic of conversation 7-months after signing, before the calendar hits November in an even year, 7-game home schedule is a disaster.
I have never seen an extension of a coach look this bad so quickly.
They need to do an investigation over Wilcox’s extension. It made little sense then and even less now.
I'm so far withdrawn from Cal football right now, I'll just say "Well said" on this. Not a cry, just yawn.
You're finally coming around, CalBear91...we saved a place for you.
It's not fair to blame Wilcox for that sleeping guy. I've seen that guy sleeping in the stands since Tedford was here.
Hire Bryan Harsin for OC.
Harsin coached with Wilcox at Boise State 2001–2002 and 2006–2009. Harsin is a QB coach at heart, has won championships, was a poor fit at Auburn, and I'm sure has buyout language that makes the financials work.
Big shout-out to P12 Network and AT&T. Because in the 3rd quarter I was able sit in the stadium AND watch Cal’s amazing, sensational OT water polo win over UCLA. On my phone. WAAAY better than what was on the field in front of me. #1 in the country, baby!
Spav and Jacob Peeler will probably be looking for work soon :-D
We need Peeler as recruiter
I can't help but think back to when I came to Cal in 1989 (Bruce Snyder HC and Troy Taylor at QB) and they went 4-7 and nobody seemed to care. Things were bleak and Taylor was graduating, so people expected it to only get worse. The next year, with Paws at QB and Mooch as OC, there was new attitude and things really turned around (7W-4L-1T). 1991 was even better, (10-2). So, maybe there's more hope than we think?
Dykes improved classroom performance. I think you are referring to Tedford.
I hereby call myself out for being a boring fan. I used to think up stuff to bring to games like a big "There Is No Stanfurdium" sign. I used to find joy in losing but at least being funnier and more grounded about it than other fanbases were. I think all of us here should commit for the rest of this season to being interesting. No more boilerplate "we have a horrible offensive line and x and y and z need to be fired" posts; we're decrying how boring our offense is while being even more boring ourselves by posting repetitive, predictable rants. We've had them ad nauseam. Let's get creative!
Well, John, we DO have a horrible offensive line and not sure about X, Y and Z, but McClure will likely be fired, and Musgrave will be replaced…pretty much the same thing. ;-).
I actually typed this post with a really creative shirt that I had made myself. I love this t-shirt…it’s a pic I took of my older pup at Tunnel View in Yosemite, with the gorgeous sight line behind her…it’s screened onto a navy blue tshirt…awesome.
I hadn’t given much thought to Stanfurdium as an element, but if doing so results in more Cal red zone touchdowns, or keeps Ott/Sturdi/Hunter/Mavin out of the portal, then hell…sign me up.
In fact, make you a deal: I’ll make and bring a sign of your choosing to the Auburn game next September 9 if we retain all 4 of those players. You tell me what it should say (within reason) and I’ll make, bring, and walk the aisles with it v the Tigers.
Cool?
How we doing so far? Been World Cup obsessed so not following the news.
So far so good. Brooks and Moore transferring out, so it’s Ott’s backfield. Hopefully he sticks. We’ll see what happens after the new OC hire & once the portal officially opens.
There is no Stanfurdium, so no need to think about it. Or in fact, who's going to transfer, because that's out of our control. As far as transfers go, what might be more interesting than guessing at the insides of our current players' heads is identifying players on other teams who are talented but wasted because they can't get playing time, are on an FCS team, etc. and so might be inclined to come to a P5 place where they can start. We almost certainly will have a bunch of incoming transfers. In any case, your proposal don't cost me nothing and will keep me following the Bears during the offseason! I'm already thinking of sign ideas...
I nominate Bob to come up with a list of said players who might transfer to Cal. He's an expert on FCS football.
I shouldn't have read this before bed. The terrible ideas are coming. I would suggest some brag about our intelligence like "We already solved the Saturday Times crossword" but that would take an army to hoist. Maybe just solve the puzzle and blow it up?
Terrific “spot on “ read. Many Thanks for your insight and efforts
Agreed. Thank you Avi for a great article.
This was a bad hire from the start. Zak Hill and Musgrave were on the open market at the same time, and Hill chose ASU and we got second fiddle with Musgrave.
Hill was fired for bringing recruits on campus during the covid quiet period, but he's 42 and has a long road ahead of him. We can acquire a A+ OC for a discount at the end of this season.
Will Hill leave us for the SEC after a few years and bringing Cal back to relevancy? Yes.
Do I care? No. I just want to see the words "Cal + Relevancy" again.
At end of season, fire McClure and Musgrave and get Troy Taylor as OC.
No way Troy Taylor comes here as an OC.
Then Wilcox needs to be fired.