Seth Davis' The Athletic article, contained this infuriating attribution from the Chancellor:
“To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.”
It’s not common for an interview about a college athletics program to begin with a quote from Tennyson, but Cal is a most uncommon place. In the most recent edition of U.S. News and World Report’s rankings of best global universities, Cal came in at No. 4, behind only Harvard, MIT, and its private Bay Area rival, Stanford. The quote that concludes Tennyson’s “Ulysses” is proffered by the university’s chancellor, Carol Christ, a renowned scholar in Victorian literature who once chaired Cal’s English department. Her responsibilities are a lot bigger nowadays, but her perspective on athletics remains the same. Asked whether she believes that big-time sports should serve as a “front porch” to the university, Christ throws a sharp elbow, literary-style.
“So I’m going to change your metaphor,” she says. “We really have a wraparound porch. We have 30 sports, and it’s extraordinarily important to me that our athletes, and there are over 900 of them, have opportunities to compete at the highest level. Last year we had three national championships, in men’s water polo, men’s swimming and diving, and men’s crew. I understand that football and basketball are revenue sports, but I don’t see them as the sole measure of athletic success.”
My apologies for copying the long chunk here, but this whole porch analogy is downright puerile.
There may well be a porch, but the house where it's supposed to be attached--is burning.
It's somewhat disappointing that Christ views her own perspective as the only one that counts when it comes to Cal Athletics.
Look. This is what Wilcox believes in and what “we” signed up for when he got extended til 2028 and when Knowlton got extended. Orange slices for everyone.
“ Cal extended our football head coach through 2027 after two straight losing seasons because he declined the Oregon job and we felt we owed him? What other major program does this?”
NO OTHER MAJOR PROGRAM would have done this. It’s idiocy.
Well that's not really what happened. I'm no Wilcox apologist but he didn't seek out a new job; his alma mater contacted him, and he turned down the position. Sonny, although I think he got a bad wrap here even if he may not have been a great fit, was actively looking elsewhere.
That extension really was a big bet that's looking pretty bad right now though.
Sonny was a Techsun thru and thru. He was always gonna return home. (Kinda like those New Yawkers who believe there is nothing of value west of the Hudson River, i.e., the world revolves around NYC).
I think the transfer portal after the season will tell us what we need to know. If we can retain our top talent then maybe there's some hope. But if we lose it (like we see with our basketball program) then that should be the final dagger in the Wilcox era.
I am scared of the transfer portal. But is there any possibilities that we may be able to get 3* and 4* players that's lost starting duties at blue blood schools?
I'm scared too, but it's important to prioritize having a good staff first and let the chips fall where they may as far as transfers. The Wilcox ride may be a very long one still. Also, blood in, blood out: If he makes the right hire, maybe they bring some Grade A and B talent with them.
If we give them a reason to come. No one is looking to come play for this Cal Offense. But if we make a good hire, like a really good hire, then possibly. If we can keep our stars right now, that’ll be a partial victory to me.
Troy Taylor continues to win. Most successful organizations cut their losses and move on to a brighter future. Instead our organization sits back continues to hope, wish and complain.
Thanks Avi. I'm so thinly invested in the team these days that I'm not even making comments much. But I will say that any improved performance by the Oline must have something to do with Greatwood. I'd love to hear someone like Rugbear share their views on how, if at all, Oline play has changed since Greatwood arrived. What is he even doing? Is he coaching on the field?
I don't blame the faculty at all. Many are in the top tier of their profession and, collectively, they bring in the "big bucks" for the university (esp. in terms of grantsmanship). The state of California, the faculty, and the students (via tuition) are paying the electric bills (not the athletic department). Meanwhile, we spent 500 million dollars on facilities, are paying a head coach 4.5 million a year....who is losing, consistently, and the assistant coaches are getting 5x to 10x what the best faculty are getting paid. And oh yeah, now some of the players are out earning the best faculty!
I would be irritated with football and MBB too; it's one thing to get that win and bring in revenue; it's a whole different story when you fail. Let's admit it, this war of attrition in college football has landed squarely on planet stupid. From the outside looking in, I completely understand why some would not support it.
But why does the faculty have such an outsized influence at Cal vs, say Stanford or Duke or Michigan or UCLA? It's understandable they would look at athletics with derision, but what's not understandable is why they have such sway. Athletics is additive--as a revenue generator, as a brand builder, for the health of student experience, for the health of the alumni experience. It's not an either/or. And the bulk of their cynicism is bunk morality: Like what's more antiquated or more privileged than the idea of the tenured professor? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. As someone who spent a large part of my career working in academia and with academics, but also in the private and public spheres, I can say with 100% certainty that faculty do not live in the same world the rest of us. Nor are they at all qualified to determine what's in the best OVERALL interest for the health of their university.
That antiquated thing called "tenure" is the only damned thing that makes the job worthwhile. WTF else would you be a professor in this day and age (at a school like Cal probably working 60+ hours per week) if not for job security (the pay has never been there and the perks are long gone)? The end of the tenure system would require a substantial pay increase to make it fly. More importantly, tenure prevents politicians from ousting people that are doing work that they disagree with (which is super relevant in some states right now).
So why is Cal different in attitude than the other schools? Good question. Is it the protestor spirit? Are the faculty smarter? More arrogant? Not sure. Personally I love Cal athletics and think football/MBB are an important part of the student and alumni experience. But let's admit it, it is partly the stupidity of the system that led us to feel as if we had to pay a man $4.5 M and extend his contract to 2027 to support a winning program. In more cases than not, a school has to beg the alums for cash to get them out of their bad decision making in the name of "athletic success". The whole system probably needs to be stripped down and rebuilt (with salary caps for coaches). Otherwise, the chickens are coming home to roost. Just look at what is happening with fUCLA/U$C...and how Cal is caught in the cross hairs. It's madness pure and simple. Without the university brands, this is nothing but a b-tier USFL...which is destined to fail.
Still don't understand. How exactly, concretely, is the faculty holding the football program back?
My overall sense is that Cal is not managing their college football program like it is a business. It is a business, and it is severely underperforming. If there are blocks on what the athletic department can do, those blocks need to be removed as soon possible. If there is nothing blocking the athletic department from kicking Cal football in the ass to get this moribund program firing on all the cylinders that need to be firing in a modern college football program, then that's on the leadership, which would need to be replaced with leadership that can make better decisions about how to run a modern college football program.
Agreed. For profit businesses, especially public ones - have to continually perform. Would a CEO leave a bunch of execs on his staff who consistently underperformed? No, it would be career suicide through either misplaced loyalty or incompetence, as shareholders would make clear. Cal athletics has no shareholders but it has stakeholders with a vested interest in how the program/business is run. Their opinions have to count, or as you see, they will vote with their feet.
Yeah but you see a public university or a non-profit private university are NOT businesses and should not be run by misplaced business concepts. The goal is NOT (and should NOT be) to profit on the backs of the students and increase share value for investors. Half of the problems in higher education (such as tuition-based funding) are the result of business blowhards that don't get how it works and what such practices incentivize (which is bad behavior).
And any solution to the college sports conundrum will have to figure out how to balance for profit athletics schemes with a non-profit student-facing mission.
I get it but sports is run like a business, e.g. TV revenue is king for both football and basketball. They are not run like schools or departments within the University with administrative officials, deans, and professors.
....and any solution to the college sports conundrum will have to figure out how to balance for profit athletics schemes with a non-profit student-facing mission.
As far as the tenure question goes, I think that's oversimplifying. I think you're correct that they would require better compensated for sure, and I actually do think professors need to conduct their work within a bubble. But I also think their influence is outsized at Cal. And I don't think tenure is the only alternative model to becoming a higher education version of an elementary school public school teacher. As far as the culture at Cal, that's what I'm getting at. I'm sure that faculty antipathy towards athletics is felt on most campuses, but the difference here is the power dynamic is off balance. And no one would disagree with your characterization of college athletics, but that's also not realistic. You're either in or your out. The worse place to be is in between. There is no benefit to over moralizing at this point it unless you're willing to go so far as to cut bait. I mean, why are we paying Wilcox and Fox at all given the results? Wouldn't it make more sense to just be honest and hire someone for a half a million to get slightly worse results or go in the opposite direction and shoot for a competitive program?
What’s frustrating is that this doesn’t need to be a faculty Vs athlete fight. Everybody goes to the same university and wants to do their best to represent the school. It’s a cultural thing at Cal and it’s very frustrating to see certain Faculty behaving like it’s 40 years ago.
It's a notable accomplishment that Wilcox has kept the Bears in, or got them back in, so many games that no one would reasonably expect Cal to come close in, given the resources and challenges at hand.
I truly hope Musgrave's continued tenure through the season is a function of Wilcox searching but not identifying any replacements at this point in time. It seems to be that a new OC hire could help create recruiting momentum and stem the tide of kids entering the portal. The sooner we generate this momentum, the better.
Another way to look at it: USC played down to their competition. They sleep-walked the first quarter until they realized that they are gonna have to put out some effort bcos the Bears really believed that they could win.
Plus, the score is a whole lot different if the Trojans did not have a couple of critical first down drops late in the game.
Is there any chance that some divine power negotiates with Wilcox and Troy Taylor that Troy Taylor become OC next year with the eventual takeover of HC in a few years? Or we do a Remember the Titans and bring Taylor in as HC and demote Wilcox to DC. Lol.
I graduated from Sac State in the 80's and while there was never even tempted to attend a football game at their stadium that looked like it was built for high school games. Sac State has always been a commuter school and a relatively inexpensive means to an end with very little quality campus life. So what Troy Taylor has accomplished there in three short years trumps all the discussions about how hard it is to win at Cal with the lack of institutional support and petty professors who resent the salaries of football coaches.
The man has said he loves Cal more than anything, so not getting him to come there - don't care what title he holds - would be the loss of this decade for Cal football. Just my opinion after seeing Sac State knock off three Top 10 programs in three successive weeks.
I believe Wilcox will probably get two more seasons to turn the program into a winner. starting - maybe with a new OC. I suspect if we win against OSU and Stanford the OC will be retained. Hopefully next season with more players back and maybe some dabbling in the portal the defense will advance to the mean it has been during Wilcox' time at Cal. If we beat OSU then 5 wins is probably where we end up, giving us that 5-7 floor we've seen time and again in the Wilcox era. Beating UCLA would be great, but even at home this might be a daunting task.
Beavers have the 4th overall defense in the P12, 3rd v. the run, and figure to dominate both LOS. A win Saturday would be one of the biggest in the Wilcox era at Cal.
Sure, though perhaps lost in the season long Musgrave/McClure discussion is the fact that Sirmon’s D is the worst in the Conference against the pass, largely because we can’t rush the QB. Gulbranson figures to be able to move the ball through the air.
Cal > UNLV > Utah St > UConn > BC > L'ville > Wake Forest > Florida St > LSU > Florida > Utah > USC
Thank you for the article, Avi!
Seth Davis' The Athletic article, contained this infuriating attribution from the Chancellor:
“To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.”
It’s not common for an interview about a college athletics program to begin with a quote from Tennyson, but Cal is a most uncommon place. In the most recent edition of U.S. News and World Report’s rankings of best global universities, Cal came in at No. 4, behind only Harvard, MIT, and its private Bay Area rival, Stanford. The quote that concludes Tennyson’s “Ulysses” is proffered by the university’s chancellor, Carol Christ, a renowned scholar in Victorian literature who once chaired Cal’s English department. Her responsibilities are a lot bigger nowadays, but her perspective on athletics remains the same. Asked whether she believes that big-time sports should serve as a “front porch” to the university, Christ throws a sharp elbow, literary-style.
“So I’m going to change your metaphor,” she says. “We really have a wraparound porch. We have 30 sports, and it’s extraordinarily important to me that our athletes, and there are over 900 of them, have opportunities to compete at the highest level. Last year we had three national championships, in men’s water polo, men’s swimming and diving, and men’s crew. I understand that football and basketball are revenue sports, but I don’t see them as the sole measure of athletic success.”
My apologies for copying the long chunk here, but this whole porch analogy is downright puerile.
There may well be a porch, but the house where it's supposed to be attached--is burning.
It's somewhat disappointing that Christ views her own perspective as the only one that counts when it comes to Cal Athletics.
Wrap around porch is fine, as long as football and basketball are the front door and swing, not around the corner on the side yard.
Look. This is what Wilcox believes in and what “we” signed up for when he got extended til 2028 and when Knowlton got extended. Orange slices for everyone.
“ Cal extended our football head coach through 2027 after two straight losing seasons because he declined the Oregon job and we felt we owed him? What other major program does this?”
NO OTHER MAJOR PROGRAM would have done this. It’s idiocy.
When Dykes flirted with other programs he got fired, when Wilcox did it he got an iron clad extension.
Well that's not really what happened. I'm no Wilcox apologist but he didn't seek out a new job; his alma mater contacted him, and he turned down the position. Sonny, although I think he got a bad wrap here even if he may not have been a great fit, was actively looking elsewhere.
That extension really was a big bet that's looking pretty bad right now though.
Knowlton is a boob
Dykes was courting. Wilcox was courted. Not at all the same.
Pretty sure Dykes campaigned for the Mizzou job, at the very least. He was a poor fit from day 1, however…always had one foot out the door.
Sonny was a Techsun thru and thru. He was always gonna return home. (Kinda like those New Yawkers who believe there is nothing of value west of the Hudson River, i.e., the world revolves around NYC).
It absolutely does. I just got tired of that battle against the massive East Coast bias after so much time living upstate in the 518….
Newellbany, God love him, continues to fight the good fight, tho I believe it is starting to take it’s toll on him. I mean, how can it not?
I think the transfer portal after the season will tell us what we need to know. If we can retain our top talent then maybe there's some hope. But if we lose it (like we see with our basketball program) then that should be the final dagger in the Wilcox era.
I am scared of the transfer portal. But is there any possibilities that we may be able to get 3* and 4* players that's lost starting duties at blue blood schools?
What the portal taketh, the portal giveth. Unless we are in a spiral of suckitude, in which case it only taketh.
I'm scared too, but it's important to prioritize having a good staff first and let the chips fall where they may as far as transfers. The Wilcox ride may be a very long one still. Also, blood in, blood out: If he makes the right hire, maybe they bring some Grade A and B talent with them.
True. Even if we get anyone coming in, if we fail at coaching it will be the same thing again.
We have been getting some recent transfers from Michigan, Florida State, USC so I'm hoping for some good incoming transfers.
If we give them a reason to come. No one is looking to come play for this Cal Offense. But if we make a good hire, like a really good hire, then possibly. If we can keep our stars right now, that’ll be a partial victory to me.
Troy Taylor continues to win. Most successful organizations cut their losses and move on to a brighter future. Instead our organization sits back continues to hope, wish and complain.
Thanks Avi. I'm so thinly invested in the team these days that I'm not even making comments much. But I will say that any improved performance by the Oline must have something to do with Greatwood. I'd love to hear someone like Rugbear share their views on how, if at all, Oline play has changed since Greatwood arrived. What is he even doing? Is he coaching on the field?
Greatwood is a consultant and by NCAA rule, is not allowed to interact with players. (Tedford had such a role at U-Dub after he left Cal.)
Didn't know that, thanks. So he could still be pulling Angus aside in private meetings and screaming WTF!
NTURE ABHORS A VACUUMM AND CAL? GERBEAR
I don't blame the faculty at all. Many are in the top tier of their profession and, collectively, they bring in the "big bucks" for the university (esp. in terms of grantsmanship). The state of California, the faculty, and the students (via tuition) are paying the electric bills (not the athletic department). Meanwhile, we spent 500 million dollars on facilities, are paying a head coach 4.5 million a year....who is losing, consistently, and the assistant coaches are getting 5x to 10x what the best faculty are getting paid. And oh yeah, now some of the players are out earning the best faculty!
I would be irritated with football and MBB too; it's one thing to get that win and bring in revenue; it's a whole different story when you fail. Let's admit it, this war of attrition in college football has landed squarely on planet stupid. From the outside looking in, I completely understand why some would not support it.
But why does the faculty have such an outsized influence at Cal vs, say Stanford or Duke or Michigan or UCLA? It's understandable they would look at athletics with derision, but what's not understandable is why they have such sway. Athletics is additive--as a revenue generator, as a brand builder, for the health of student experience, for the health of the alumni experience. It's not an either/or. And the bulk of their cynicism is bunk morality: Like what's more antiquated or more privileged than the idea of the tenured professor? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. As someone who spent a large part of my career working in academia and with academics, but also in the private and public spheres, I can say with 100% certainty that faculty do not live in the same world the rest of us. Nor are they at all qualified to determine what's in the best OVERALL interest for the health of their university.
That antiquated thing called "tenure" is the only damned thing that makes the job worthwhile. WTF else would you be a professor in this day and age (at a school like Cal probably working 60+ hours per week) if not for job security (the pay has never been there and the perks are long gone)? The end of the tenure system would require a substantial pay increase to make it fly. More importantly, tenure prevents politicians from ousting people that are doing work that they disagree with (which is super relevant in some states right now).
So why is Cal different in attitude than the other schools? Good question. Is it the protestor spirit? Are the faculty smarter? More arrogant? Not sure. Personally I love Cal athletics and think football/MBB are an important part of the student and alumni experience. But let's admit it, it is partly the stupidity of the system that led us to feel as if we had to pay a man $4.5 M and extend his contract to 2027 to support a winning program. In more cases than not, a school has to beg the alums for cash to get them out of their bad decision making in the name of "athletic success". The whole system probably needs to be stripped down and rebuilt (with salary caps for coaches). Otherwise, the chickens are coming home to roost. Just look at what is happening with fUCLA/U$C...and how Cal is caught in the cross hairs. It's madness pure and simple. Without the university brands, this is nothing but a b-tier USFL...which is destined to fail.
Still don't understand. How exactly, concretely, is the faculty holding the football program back?
My overall sense is that Cal is not managing their college football program like it is a business. It is a business, and it is severely underperforming. If there are blocks on what the athletic department can do, those blocks need to be removed as soon possible. If there is nothing blocking the athletic department from kicking Cal football in the ass to get this moribund program firing on all the cylinders that need to be firing in a modern college football program, then that's on the leadership, which would need to be replaced with leadership that can make better decisions about how to run a modern college football program.
Agreed. For profit businesses, especially public ones - have to continually perform. Would a CEO leave a bunch of execs on his staff who consistently underperformed? No, it would be career suicide through either misplaced loyalty or incompetence, as shareholders would make clear. Cal athletics has no shareholders but it has stakeholders with a vested interest in how the program/business is run. Their opinions have to count, or as you see, they will vote with their feet.
Yeah but you see a public university or a non-profit private university are NOT businesses and should not be run by misplaced business concepts. The goal is NOT (and should NOT be) to profit on the backs of the students and increase share value for investors. Half of the problems in higher education (such as tuition-based funding) are the result of business blowhards that don't get how it works and what such practices incentivize (which is bad behavior).
And any solution to the college sports conundrum will have to figure out how to balance for profit athletics schemes with a non-profit student-facing mission.
I get it but sports is run like a business, e.g. TV revenue is king for both football and basketball. They are not run like schools or departments within the University with administrative officials, deans, and professors.
....and any solution to the college sports conundrum will have to figure out how to balance for profit athletics schemes with a non-profit student-facing mission.
As far as the tenure question goes, I think that's oversimplifying. I think you're correct that they would require better compensated for sure, and I actually do think professors need to conduct their work within a bubble. But I also think their influence is outsized at Cal. And I don't think tenure is the only alternative model to becoming a higher education version of an elementary school public school teacher. As far as the culture at Cal, that's what I'm getting at. I'm sure that faculty antipathy towards athletics is felt on most campuses, but the difference here is the power dynamic is off balance. And no one would disagree with your characterization of college athletics, but that's also not realistic. You're either in or your out. The worse place to be is in between. There is no benefit to over moralizing at this point it unless you're willing to go so far as to cut bait. I mean, why are we paying Wilcox and Fox at all given the results? Wouldn't it make more sense to just be honest and hire someone for a half a million to get slightly worse results or go in the opposite direction and shoot for a competitive program?
What’s frustrating is that this doesn’t need to be a faculty Vs athlete fight. Everybody goes to the same university and wants to do their best to represent the school. It’s a cultural thing at Cal and it’s very frustrating to see certain Faculty behaving like it’s 40 years ago.
Also...
Total revenue of AD in 2021: ~ $92 M ($88 M in expenses).
External funding (academics): $870 M
And we pay who what???
Forty years ago head coaches were not out-earning faculty by 20 to 40x....
It's a notable accomplishment that Wilcox has kept the Bears in, or got them back in, so many games that no one would reasonably expect Cal to come close in, given the resources and challenges at hand.
I truly hope Musgrave's continued tenure through the season is a function of Wilcox searching but not identifying any replacements at this point in time. It seems to be that a new OC hire could help create recruiting momentum and stem the tide of kids entering the portal. The sooner we generate this momentum, the better.
Another way to look at it: USC played down to their competition. They sleep-walked the first quarter until they realized that they are gonna have to put out some effort bcos the Bears really believed that they could win.
Plus, the score is a whole lot different if the Trojans did not have a couple of critical first down drops late in the game.
Just sayin'.
Is there any chance that some divine power negotiates with Wilcox and Troy Taylor that Troy Taylor become OC next year with the eventual takeover of HC in a few years? Or we do a Remember the Titans and bring Taylor in as HC and demote Wilcox to DC. Lol.
I graduated from Sac State in the 80's and while there was never even tempted to attend a football game at their stadium that looked like it was built for high school games. Sac State has always been a commuter school and a relatively inexpensive means to an end with very little quality campus life. So what Troy Taylor has accomplished there in three short years trumps all the discussions about how hard it is to win at Cal with the lack of institutional support and petty professors who resent the salaries of football coaches.
The man has said he loves Cal more than anything, so not getting him to come there - don't care what title he holds - would be the loss of this decade for Cal football. Just my opinion after seeing Sac State knock off three Top 10 programs in three successive weeks.
I believe Wilcox will probably get two more seasons to turn the program into a winner. starting - maybe with a new OC. I suspect if we win against OSU and Stanford the OC will be retained. Hopefully next season with more players back and maybe some dabbling in the portal the defense will advance to the mean it has been during Wilcox' time at Cal. If we beat OSU then 5 wins is probably where we end up, giving us that 5-7 floor we've seen time and again in the Wilcox era. Beating UCLA would be great, but even at home this might be a daunting task.
If we somehow went 3-0 over the next 3 games, I still would want a new offensive staff.
I’d say its 100x more likely we go 0-3 over going 3-0
Beavers have the 4th overall defense in the P12, 3rd v. the run, and figure to dominate both LOS. A win Saturday would be one of the biggest in the Wilcox era at Cal.
We’re not beating the Beavers at Reser.
That running back Ramirez (freshman) is like Ott. Gulbranson the QB was not very effective in their last game, though.
Sure, though perhaps lost in the season long Musgrave/McClure discussion is the fact that Sirmon’s D is the worst in the Conference against the pass, largely because we can’t rush the QB. Gulbranson figures to be able to move the ball through the air.
So you blame Sirmon