What gets me is that folks assume that's a fait accompli. As though it can't change. I've never seen an investigative journalist dig deep into why this is. Sure, we have a few articles every few years about that professor who hates football, but someone should dig in there and find out what is the deal for decade by decade indifference.
I would welcome such an investigation, wholeheartedly. I think it traces back to the Ronnie Knox affair in 1952 and the strictures that were placed on football recruiting by Clark Kerr in the wake of that episode in Cal football history. It eventually resulted in the downfall of Pappy Waldorf's tenure as head coach in 1956.
In my humble opinion, that was the genesis of the hobbling of Cal football. Cal has had success at irregular intervals since and in spite of administrative and institutional indifference towards football, specifically, and revenue sports, more generally.
I realize that this doesn't explain the success of non-revenue sports at Cal, particularly rowing, swimming and diving, water polo, and rugby. But it seems to me that excepting rugby, all of those sports have a long history as Olympic sports and thereby, it's held in esteem as somewhat analogous to winning a Nobel prize in terms of global recognition. Olympic gold is acceptable and laudable in that context.
As I wrote, I was referring to the Senior Management group at the athletics department - check out their bios on the Cal Athletics website - Statistics 2 aside, I've addressed the flaws and flawed performances of Knowlton and Wilcox in many other comments, but this was specific to the senior management cadre, a group which is extremely diverse and extremely inept. Plus none of them are Cal grads so they don't bleed blue and gold. Also, most of them are products of small-time, second tier colleges so they aren't imbued with major university instincts and experiences. You guys need to be better readers.
Tom Holmoe era resurrected. I had a choice to watch Cal on Saturday, glad I spent that time watching the Ducks and Huskies. We suck again! And we’re going to suck for a long time. Well written article — but putting in formal terms what we know subconsciously is even more depressing.
My comments were specific to the current Cal Athletics Dept Senior Management group. They are diverse and they have failed to provide the leadership needed; the department is a mess. They were poor choices and should be let go and they should be replaced by the best, brightest, most capable candidates possible irregardless of race, gender, and all the rest of the defining stuff because that is what it's going to take to save Cal Athletics. I believe in merit and competence, leadership, guts and hard work. If I was chancellor I'd go after Gloria Nevarez as AD. Your reading skills need some work.
Hmm...let me break down your own statement then. The logic lesson comes for free.
"They are diverse and they have failed to provide the leadership needed; the department is a mess."
This is the epitome of a racist statement. You connect diversity, the fact that some of these people are minorities or women, and attribute the idea that THIS is the reason for the department being a mess. Your underlying fallacious argument is that these people were hired STRICTLY based on their skin color or gender, and THAT is the reason for their 'incompetence.' Which then logically means that you think that the default status of minorities and women is incompetence, until proven otherwise (like your convenient "I'm not a racist, see, I like THIS minority" pick of Gloria Nevarez"
You statement that you wanted them replaced by the 'best, brightest, most capable...'irregardless' of..." is a lie. There is nothing to say that the people hired in the department right now weren't the best candidates available at the time, and it simply didn't work out. No. You will never ascribe the 'best and the brightest' to any minority in a position without it being a success because your inherent thought process is that if a minority is hired, it's a diversity hire and therefore they're automatically unqualified.
All of the other statements about wanting 'merit' (you have no proof the people in the department now weren't hired on merit), hard work (you have no prood that the people in the department don't work hard), etc. and yet you ascribe 'diverse' staffers as missing all of that.
It's racist. At its core. And if you wanna know how I know it is, I research, write, and lecture on this VERY topic when it comes to campus racism.
Your understanding of how racism works and is perpetuated needs a LOT of work.
No worries. This isn't even a heavy lift because it's the most common racist POV out there. That 'diversity' is why things fail. Or that minorities and women ONLY get their positions because of who they are, to the detriment of white men who OBVIOUSLY are judged only on merit, hard work, and pluck. And the most insidious part of this mindset is that Black, Latinx, women, etc. aren't allowed to be mediocre like a bunch of white men (hello Knowlton, Wilcox, Gilbertson, Holmoe, etc...), but need to be EXTRAORDINARY in order to justify their existence in a position. If not extraordinary, then the only reason why they're there is because of their skin color or gender.
It's an asinine belief system that needs to be called out directly each and every time. And since I've forgotten more about this subject than anyone on this board, I'm happy to be the one to crush it like Marshawn said, "Over and over and over and over..."
"They are diverse and they have failed to provide the leadership needed"
Might I introduce you to the Statistics 2 classic banger: Correlation does not imply causation.
Nevermind that the individuals with the largest amount of individual control in our recent success (or lack thereof), Wilcox and Knowlton, are not exactly a duo most would categorize as diverse.
Here's my thing: Let's assume that the Cal administration, for better or worse, isn't going to substantially change their approach to college football, Wilcox or not. They've proven to be inept in everything from recruiting to marketing. But what if we, the passionate fans, create our own private strategy to make Cal football a thing?
Like, what if we raised money to place billboards in areas that Cal never markets? Like East Oakland? Richmond? You know, the non-white, not Old Blues, who typically fill up the seats at most major college stadiums? We also create an NIL where we gather as many alums to tithe for football. There are at least 100K alums with a $20/month give that wouldn't be odious, but would provide $2 mil a month into an NIL for football.
There are creative ways to get corporations to sponsor sections and seats in Memorial. Hell, I'd have them sponsor everything. It would be awesome if Cal, known for its people power, used that same power to radically change Cal football.
hey man, how busy are you these days? you got time to take on the AD job at CAL? these are some very good ideas that clearly illustrate how bad knowlton is.
Your point about connecting with the non-white communities is one that has been a long disappointment with Cal for me. It feels like large parts of the Cal community speak down about Stanford’s elitism but our own community acts much the same.
I came to Berkeley from Hawaii and as a person of Samoan descent, I was always a bit miffed that there was never an attempt to connect with the Pacific Islander community in the Bay Area and I know many black students who felt the same about the lack of connection. It’s a shame because as the flagship public institution it should be our mission to connect with them and as an athletic department/business it just makes sense.
I love the idea of smaller monthly, recurring donations and would sign up immediately if I had faith it would buy us a voice for the direction of this athletic department.
Or put another way, he's figured out how to lose in new and ever more confounding ways. In Wilcox years past, even when we couldn't score, there was always a prayer for an upset, and there were some great upsets... Now we just get mopped by anyone competent. And let's not hang our hat on a Big Game victory -- it will be a limp Cal program headed to Palo Alto to face a Stanford team that is starting to believe.
I think somehow the powers that be had the impression that we could suck at football, so long as we win the Big Game. And, yes, I would not bet money on that game, this year.
It's a giant pool of money that then gets used to attract talent to Cal, be it indirectly (improving resources available to athletes) or directly (literally sponsoring an athlete to come to Cal AKA paying for a player to choose Cal). There's nuance and technicalities involved but that's basically it.
Okay, admissions is not a problem, for now, but what about grants and donations? How much more would the “Light” program have raked in if football and basketball fans felt better about our whole culture, not just academic.
It's unclear how firing Wilcox and crew would do anything but set the next man up for failure. Until numerous obstacles are addressed, its just repeating the same cycle as with Sonny.
"Additionally, major Cal donors are very unwilling to really make any major commitments to a new direction as long as athletic director Jim Knowlton is the one who will have to make the call."
Where did this statement come from? Is someone here talking to major donors?
This is the general sentiment. Donors do not want Jim Knowlton making the next Cal football coaching hire, particularly when he is likely a lame duck and is responsible for the extension that put us in this predicament to begin with.
I think the curiosity here is for the source of this statement... Is this more of a vibe check, or are there off-the-record sources that have stated as much to Write For Cal? I don't really expect to get a straight answer but I think it's a valid question.
yeah this is where I was coming from. Obviously it's the general sentiment here on these pages, but IMO without evidence it's a bit of a stretch to assume that the major donors are thinking the same way as we peons are.
So its clear Justin Wilcox is not the answer but we have to keep him another two years because he got an inexplicable extension and now we can’t afford a buyout and a new coach? And were supposed to be a serious program?
We have 10 years left on the current CFB landscape, if not less, not even considering the length of time we need to be relevant to be picked in the next round of realignment, either we go full in or we will say goodbye to football in 8-10 years. It's that simple.
Two words: institutional indifference.
Cal's administration doesn't understand the value of a thriving revenue sports program and isn't curious enough to find out or get better.
Consequently, major donors sit on the sidelines or on their hands and say, "This is fine", while the building burns.
What gets me is that folks assume that's a fait accompli. As though it can't change. I've never seen an investigative journalist dig deep into why this is. Sure, we have a few articles every few years about that professor who hates football, but someone should dig in there and find out what is the deal for decade by decade indifference.
I would welcome such an investigation, wholeheartedly. I think it traces back to the Ronnie Knox affair in 1952 and the strictures that were placed on football recruiting by Clark Kerr in the wake of that episode in Cal football history. It eventually resulted in the downfall of Pappy Waldorf's tenure as head coach in 1956.
In my humble opinion, that was the genesis of the hobbling of Cal football. Cal has had success at irregular intervals since and in spite of administrative and institutional indifference towards football, specifically, and revenue sports, more generally.
I realize that this doesn't explain the success of non-revenue sports at Cal, particularly rowing, swimming and diving, water polo, and rugby. But it seems to me that excepting rugby, all of those sports have a long history as Olympic sports and thereby, it's held in esteem as somewhat analogous to winning a Nobel prize in terms of global recognition. Olympic gold is acceptable and laudable in that context.
"Football is so bourgeois."
With regard to the coach and the overall situation of the program, it is perhaps interesting that Boston College is on a virtually identical position
As I wrote, I was referring to the Senior Management group at the athletics department - check out their bios on the Cal Athletics website - Statistics 2 aside, I've addressed the flaws and flawed performances of Knowlton and Wilcox in many other comments, but this was specific to the senior management cadre, a group which is extremely diverse and extremely inept. Plus none of them are Cal grads so they don't bleed blue and gold. Also, most of them are products of small-time, second tier colleges so they aren't imbued with major university instincts and experiences. You guys need to be better readers.
Knowlton, Jennifer Simon-Oneill, Jay John. Are you kidding me? We’re whiter than a Simi Valley country club.
Tom Holmoe era resurrected. I had a choice to watch Cal on Saturday, glad I spent that time watching the Ducks and Huskies. We suck again! And we’re going to suck for a long time. Well written article — but putting in formal terms what we know subconsciously is even more depressing.
Really didn't have "diversity is what's wrong with Cal Athletics" on my WFC comment bingo card
My comments were specific to the current Cal Athletics Dept Senior Management group. They are diverse and they have failed to provide the leadership needed; the department is a mess. They were poor choices and should be let go and they should be replaced by the best, brightest, most capable candidates possible irregardless of race, gender, and all the rest of the defining stuff because that is what it's going to take to save Cal Athletics. I believe in merit and competence, leadership, guts and hard work. If I was chancellor I'd go after Gloria Nevarez as AD. Your reading skills need some work.
Hmm...let me break down your own statement then. The logic lesson comes for free.
"They are diverse and they have failed to provide the leadership needed; the department is a mess."
This is the epitome of a racist statement. You connect diversity, the fact that some of these people are minorities or women, and attribute the idea that THIS is the reason for the department being a mess. Your underlying fallacious argument is that these people were hired STRICTLY based on their skin color or gender, and THAT is the reason for their 'incompetence.' Which then logically means that you think that the default status of minorities and women is incompetence, until proven otherwise (like your convenient "I'm not a racist, see, I like THIS minority" pick of Gloria Nevarez"
You statement that you wanted them replaced by the 'best, brightest, most capable...'irregardless' of..." is a lie. There is nothing to say that the people hired in the department right now weren't the best candidates available at the time, and it simply didn't work out. No. You will never ascribe the 'best and the brightest' to any minority in a position without it being a success because your inherent thought process is that if a minority is hired, it's a diversity hire and therefore they're automatically unqualified.
All of the other statements about wanting 'merit' (you have no proof the people in the department now weren't hired on merit), hard work (you have no prood that the people in the department don't work hard), etc. and yet you ascribe 'diverse' staffers as missing all of that.
It's racist. At its core. And if you wanna know how I know it is, I research, write, and lecture on this VERY topic when it comes to campus racism.
Your understanding of how racism works and is perpetuated needs a LOT of work.
Thank you for calling this out directly.
No worries. This isn't even a heavy lift because it's the most common racist POV out there. That 'diversity' is why things fail. Or that minorities and women ONLY get their positions because of who they are, to the detriment of white men who OBVIOUSLY are judged only on merit, hard work, and pluck. And the most insidious part of this mindset is that Black, Latinx, women, etc. aren't allowed to be mediocre like a bunch of white men (hello Knowlton, Wilcox, Gilbertson, Holmoe, etc...), but need to be EXTRAORDINARY in order to justify their existence in a position. If not extraordinary, then the only reason why they're there is because of their skin color or gender.
It's an asinine belief system that needs to be called out directly each and every time. And since I've forgotten more about this subject than anyone on this board, I'm happy to be the one to crush it like Marshawn said, "Over and over and over and over..."
"They are diverse and they have failed to provide the leadership needed"
Might I introduce you to the Statistics 2 classic banger: Correlation does not imply causation.
Nevermind that the individuals with the largest amount of individual control in our recent success (or lack thereof), Wilcox and Knowlton, are not exactly a duo most would categorize as diverse.
Here's my thing: Let's assume that the Cal administration, for better or worse, isn't going to substantially change their approach to college football, Wilcox or not. They've proven to be inept in everything from recruiting to marketing. But what if we, the passionate fans, create our own private strategy to make Cal football a thing?
Like, what if we raised money to place billboards in areas that Cal never markets? Like East Oakland? Richmond? You know, the non-white, not Old Blues, who typically fill up the seats at most major college stadiums? We also create an NIL where we gather as many alums to tithe for football. There are at least 100K alums with a $20/month give that wouldn't be odious, but would provide $2 mil a month into an NIL for football.
There are creative ways to get corporations to sponsor sections and seats in Memorial. Hell, I'd have them sponsor everything. It would be awesome if Cal, known for its people power, used that same power to radically change Cal football.
hey man, how busy are you these days? you got time to take on the AD job at CAL? these are some very good ideas that clearly illustrate how bad knowlton is.
^^^^^^^^THIS!
Your point about connecting with the non-white communities is one that has been a long disappointment with Cal for me. It feels like large parts of the Cal community speak down about Stanford’s elitism but our own community acts much the same.
I came to Berkeley from Hawaii and as a person of Samoan descent, I was always a bit miffed that there was never an attempt to connect with the Pacific Islander community in the Bay Area and I know many black students who felt the same about the lack of connection. It’s a shame because as the flagship public institution it should be our mission to connect with them and as an athletic department/business it just makes sense.
I love the idea of smaller monthly, recurring donations and would sign up immediately if I had faith it would buy us a voice for the direction of this athletic department.
after watching the 49ers and the eagles lose to good defense I kinda wish we were good on defense again
Yeah, but a constipated offense, with a great defense, still loses games.
Besides, Wilcox tends to lose rockfights.
Or put another way, he's figured out how to lose in new and ever more confounding ways. In Wilcox years past, even when we couldn't score, there was always a prayer for an upset, and there were some great upsets... Now we just get mopped by anyone competent. And let's not hang our hat on a Big Game victory -- it will be a limp Cal program headed to Palo Alto to face a Stanford team that is starting to believe.
I think somehow the powers that be had the impression that we could suck at football, so long as we win the Big Game. And, yes, I would not bet money on that game, this year.
As an alum how do I help by using NIL?
Please tell anybody who cares about Cal football.
https://calegends.com/our-services/
So I just donate and it makes players enticed? Sorry for missing the obvious here, seems a little crypto in nature.
It's a giant pool of money that then gets used to attract talent to Cal, be it indirectly (improving resources available to athletes) or directly (literally sponsoring an athlete to come to Cal AKA paying for a player to choose Cal). There's nuance and technicalities involved but that's basically it.
But, a word of warning, it’s not tax deductible, so be forewarned.
This isn’t purgatory. Purgatory would be Cal finishing 6-6 or even 5-7 again. Were staring right in the face of 4-8 or even 3-9.
We are in college football hell.
I wouldn't say we're in hell. I'd say we're at the gates right now. We continue on this path, and this time next year we could be in the third ring.
Probably that part reserved for virtuous pagans, but, still, Hell.
Hanging out with Pythagoras? I'm down
I'll bring my merit badges.
I think we're several miles below purgatory.
Applications to Colorado are up 41%, people want to be associated with a winner. This is universally true.
Pretty sure Berkeley does not and will never have an admissions issue.
Okay, admissions is not a problem, for now, but what about grants and donations? How much more would the “Light” program have raked in if football and basketball fans felt better about our whole culture, not just academic.
Not the point. Sorry u missed it.
I anticipate Knowlton will be gone after Christ finally leaves.
If you have to wait for the Second Coming for Knowlton to leave you guys are in trouble. ;)
Welp, yes, we are in trouble.
Best of luck to the Utes for this season and in the Big 12
Best of luck to you guys in The ACC. Hope to see you all in some non-con games.
If I have anything to say about it, we have all cupcakes in our OOC schedule. Sorry, but Utah would be no cupcake. ;)
But, that being said, I think most of us will miss you all.
You have a classy program and you should be proud.
Your lips to Oski's furry ears
It's unclear how firing Wilcox and crew would do anything but set the next man up for failure. Until numerous obstacles are addressed, its just repeating the same cycle as with Sonny.
"Additionally, major Cal donors are very unwilling to really make any major commitments to a new direction as long as athletic director Jim Knowlton is the one who will have to make the call."
Where did this statement come from? Is someone here talking to major donors?
Rich donors should kick off Knowlton off the campus
This is the general sentiment. Donors do not want Jim Knowlton making the next Cal football coaching hire, particularly when he is likely a lame duck and is responsible for the extension that put us in this predicament to begin with.
I think the curiosity here is for the source of this statement... Is this more of a vibe check, or are there off-the-record sources that have stated as much to Write For Cal? I don't really expect to get a straight answer but I think it's a valid question.
yeah this is where I was coming from. Obviously it's the general sentiment here on these pages, but IMO without evidence it's a bit of a stretch to assume that the major donors are thinking the same way as we peons are.
So its clear Justin Wilcox is not the answer but we have to keep him another two years because he got an inexplicable extension and now we can’t afford a buyout and a new coach? And were supposed to be a serious program?
Is there a modern precedent for this?
And fans are supposed to come and support this program?
Recruits are supposed to come and play for Wilcox? What is the recruiting pitch? Come to Cal and play for me because they can’t fire me!!!
We have 10 years left on the current CFB landscape, if not less, not even considering the length of time we need to be relevant to be picked in the next round of realignment, either we go full in or we will say goodbye to football in 8-10 years. It's that simple.
I’m impressed Cal has survived this long