Only the Soviet Union had more failed Five Year Plans than Cal. It's kinda refreshing to give a football coach more than five years to build the foundation, cultivate relationships with the HS recruits we want, and figure out how to get Cal from mediocrity to excellence. Like everyone, I got frustrated by the close losses, but on the macro level, I have a feeling that if Cal steps up in the other areas outside of the coaching, that Cal football can be successful under Wilcox. Call it a hunch, but I think he's going to be someone we'll look at as being a success.
I just wonder if JW will ever field a capable enough offense that can consistently compete with the top P12 teams...Wilcox’s Wisconsin-type approach is great when you have the horses on the O-line that can dominate the LOS. Either Cal doesn’t get those players, which is odd bc former Wilcox OL are in the League...or more likely, maybe the OL coaching needs a bump....
Losing future draft picks Makai Polk & Mettaur hurts, tho...do players see this O and try and get away to bump their profile?
Looking at it objectively, this is somewhat of a headscratcher. Kind of like what SC did with Helton a few years ago. But then look at Kelly and UCLA! He started off getting higher pay and will continue to get more than Wilcox. But I think this just the new operating environment where you have to pay more for a decent coach and megabucks for an excellent coach. If you don't extend Wilcox, then what do you do?
I would respectfully disagree. On a macro level, Helton continuously underachieved while being handed top recruiting classes. Then the bottom fell out of his recruiting.
Wilcox performed average with average classes (very generally speaking). Not world-beating, but not Helton-level.
I don’t think anyone was against extending Wilcox, especially once it was decided he was coming back. The 2 biggest questions on an extension was the length of the extension and the terms of the buyout/termination. I believe most knowledgeable fans felt like 2 years would be a fair extension for both parties, 4 years seems a bit much for a coach with a record like Wilcox.
True and good point. If it is something like the buyout is 90% of his remaining contract in years 1-2 but falls to like 25% of the remaining contact after year 2 would be good.
I wonder what the terms of the buyout and early termination are.
I think a 4 year extension is a bit much for a coach who has never had a winning Pac 12 season and has an overall losing Pac 12 record. 2 years would seem appropriate. Justin Wilcox is about to get a 10 year rebuild window, that is just hard to believe and a big gamble in modern CFB, I hope the gamble pays off.
I think they're looking at the man & what he's doing, not the W-L record. If you exercise & eat right, the pounds will eventually come off, even if the scale isn't showing it in the short term.
How do we know that Wilcox didn't turn down the Oregon job for non football reasons? Maybe he really likes his lifestyle here and the Bay Area in general. I lived in Walnut Creek for 20 years and loved every minute of it. I was always prepared to turn down more prestigious and higher paying offers to less desirable places like our company HQ in Detroit.
Wilcox has had five years to stamp his identity here, and I don't see it changing much despite a pay bump and a 4-year extension. Expect more unimaginative offense and ugly, close games that his defenses will be expected to carry to victory in the waning moments of the game. Sometimes it will work, and sometimes it won't. About 50 percent of the time as history shows. In the meantime, who is going to put butts in Memorial?
I think a lot of us believed Wilcox wasn't a good fit for the "spotlight" of the Oregon job, and for that reason we didn't dream they would ever offer him.. And perhaps he felt the same way. The fundamental question is "what do the administration and larger donors expect from the program in terms of wins and losses." It probably isn't what the fans expect, and that would be the the irony (or falsehood) in Knowlton's statement.
We are likely to finish right about at 5 wins next season. And maybe the next, as we'll be breaking in our 2nd qb in 2 years. I think the '24-'25 season is our target for good things.
Extension or not, Wilcox will be on the hot seat with 2 more consecutive losing seasons...that would be 4 in a row, with most likely sparse crowds at Memorial, a program on a downward sloping trajectory, and a P12 record approaching 20 games under .500. Plus, his fantastic recruiting class from last year would seemingly have to have drastically underachieved for this team to win just 9-10 games combined over the next two seasons.
He’ll probably be gone. Hopefully this does not happen...with consistent QB play next season, 6-6 is doable, provided the D is ready to play...gotta be 2-1 in non-con, finally beat our damn nemesis, and TCOB at altitude in Boulder...then you get UW/STAN/Wazzu, which are all potential coin toss games, and I’m not ruling out a W over the Ducks...
But you have to get competent QB play - doesn’t need to be Aaron Rodgers/1st round draft pick stuff, but no Devin Modster/Spencer Brasch/Ryan Glover nonsense.
Good news. The past 2 covid-related seasons have been rough. With the institutional support and inertia of continuity we can get to a better place. Ad astra.
Anyone who has shown as much of a commitment to Cal and the program as Wilcox has earned my full support, and I have a lot more faith that a coach dedicated to the program can turn things around. Compare that to Dykes, who had similar on-field results, but was actively hitting up other programs with the "hey, you guys hiring?" stuff. Wilcox could have used Cal like a stepping stone the way his predecessor would have (given the opportunity), but he didn't. He deserves the raise and he deserves institutional support.
Full support is one thing, and I think most Cal fans are willing to give that to Wilcox. The question is what are your expectations for success on the field (not in the lives of the players), and do you reasonably expect Wilcox to deliver?
Providing a team that donors and fans can be proud is the baseline. Wins and losses are part of the equation but unlike other CFB programs are not the sine qua non of success for the Cal FB program. There hasn't been a Cal team under Wilcox that I have not been proud of despite some frustrations through the vagaries of a given season. Seeing guys like Saffel and Clark testify to the integrity and quality of character Wilcox possess, combined with the fact that this team never quits, provides a lot of faith that things will align for Wilcox and that he is building sustained success that will pay off.
I agree fully. But I also have (what I think) are low expectations in terms of wins and losses. All things aside, down to brass tacks, the question is: What are your expectations for winning, and do you think we can achieve that under Wilcox? It's OK if you think Wilcox is the optimal coach, who maximizes everything there is to maximize when it comes to Cal football with the resources he has. I'm just curious to know what people expect, in terms of success on the field.
There needs to be more success on the field. Straight up - 15-25 in P12 play during a decidedly dark period for the conference has gotten better coaches fired, not extended. And the program is close, though are we any closer to contending for a P12 Championship than we were 5 years ago? It's a fair question.
I like Wilcox the man, and am pleased he stuck around - I really am. I don't think there is some coaching Messiah that is going to walk through the gates of Memorial and turn this into a perennial 10-win program. It took Rich Brooks and Kyle Whittingham 17 seasons in Eugene and SLC before they got to the Rose Bowl...stability is good...however, despite a senior laden offense from the top on down, we still struggled to field a competent, consistent product. This is a problem - Wilcox needs to recruit better, especially at the skill positions - the development of this WR crew will be interesting in '22. It remains to be seen whether he can recruit a QB, as well.
Time to get to work...I only made it to one home game this season, v. Wazzu, tho I would've come up for SC if bowl eligibility was on the line. The crowd v the Cougars tho was incredibly disappointing, and unless he starts getting more people in the seats, eventually Knowlton may have to cut ties with him, regardless of how good a guy he is and how many times he said no to Uncle Phil.
Plenty of coaches out there 1. care about their kids; 2. run a clean program; 3. graduate their players...some of them also win 7-8 games a year...would love to see Wilcox get us to that level.
Just an add-on: if Wilcox and Sirmon had gotten the D ironed out from the get-go last season, most notably the tackling, this team likely beats both Nevada and TCU, and is 7-5 and bowl bound, and no one is complaining... THAT is something that is totally fixable, and should be our baseline...
At the end of the day, #2 is pretty much a show stopper for college teams getting to the top. I'm truly glad Wilcox is all in at Cal. He needs big time donors to pay for the best facilities, top notch tutors, huge travel budget, top notch assistants, reasonable admissions, all of it, to get beyond .500 consistently.
I look forward to bundling up, making the hike deep into the canyons of El Paso and giving a hearty Go Bears!!! from the Cal section in the 2023 Sun Bowl...
Roadtrip from the 858....we hop on 8 to Gila Bend, then hook up with I-10 all the way to UTEP. It's a breeze.
For example: My expectations are annually an above .500 record, and once a decade we field a top-15 team. I'm not extra confident Wilcox can deliver on either, though hopeful. Likewise, I'm not sure if I should reset my expectations, given the institution. Hence, I seriously would like to hear what others expect.
I have similar expectations with the caveat that we can’t have a 5 or 6 win season in the year that we have actual expectations of competing for a Pac 12 title and a senior/experienced team that should finish in the top 15.
These are reasonable expectations for a program like Cal, when paired with a solid graduation rate and no shenanigans off the field by the coaches and players. We've got the solid graduation rate and lack of shenanigans, and hopefully, the offense will work itself out to properly pair itself with what has been some very good defensive units (run the goddamn ball more).
Expecting anything more is just crazy - we're not dumping millions of dollars a year in recruiting. We also have academic restrictions and an arcane bureaucracy most other schools do not have to deal with.
I would be perfectly happy with being a team that usually wins 7-8 games each season, with 9-10 win seasons and 5-6 win seasons every now and then. Not holding my breath for a 11+ win season. 4 win season is unacceptable.
Dykes was a bad fit from the start, and he was desperately trying to make a *lateral* move once he realized the extent of his lack of institutional support. I wouldn't call that a stepping stone, per se.
Wilcox getting increased money for his assistants is the best part. He dealt for not his paycheck. He understands what he needs to be successful. Now surround himself with better assistants on offense (in future).
I'm very pleased with this news. I will look forward to learning more about how the additional pool of dollars for assistant coaches helps us going forward, and likewise with an increased administrative budget. Change doesn't happen at CAL overnight, but a steady hand on the helm will guide us to a better place over time. I agree that Wilcox is the guy that has all the attributes to be that helmsman.
Clean program, mediocre results. Hard to know how much Cal is holding him back. With this and the improved incentives for assistants it sounds like Cal's investing enough for us to find out.
Now, how do we break down the administrative issues that hold Cal football back? I don't believe that dysfunction is inevitable, but to make change and get healthy, you've gotta recognize that you're sick.
Serious question.: Do academic/admissions standards fit into the "administrative issues" category, or do you think we can still recruit the players we need to be successful on the field in the current CFB landscape regardless of those standards, with other institutional support?
Stanford has certainly proven that you can win with high academic standards, but you have to successfully brand yourself as such on the recruiting trail and I don't particularly get the sense that we've figured that out yet.
Has Stanford really proven anything, or was that just the couple year run with Harbaugh+Luck? (Similarly Tedford+Rodgers). The only, single school I can think of with high academic standards for their athletes and a national presence is Notre Dame.. and their history goes without saying...
Cal student athlete GPA requirement should be 2.0. The discussion starts and almost ends pretty much there. I'm not sure if its 2.5 or 2.75 now but that is absolutely hell to go through independent of being a student athlete on its own and being a Cal student on its own.
Good point. I had a similar question, though I'm not sure if all of the schools you mentioned impose the same standards as Cal for athletes. At first glance, I seriously doubt Michigan does. The only successful program with academic standards I thought of is Notre Dame (if you throw out Stanford's Harbaugh/Luck years). The others analogs I'd thought of were schools like Virginia, Northwestern, and Vanderbilt, which is pretty much the company we keep. Let's not forget that Texas is historically a football blue blood with a decent academic school, but doesn't mean anything about their standards for athletes.
Only the Soviet Union had more failed Five Year Plans than Cal. It's kinda refreshing to give a football coach more than five years to build the foundation, cultivate relationships with the HS recruits we want, and figure out how to get Cal from mediocrity to excellence. Like everyone, I got frustrated by the close losses, but on the macro level, I have a feeling that if Cal steps up in the other areas outside of the coaching, that Cal football can be successful under Wilcox. Call it a hunch, but I think he's going to be someone we'll look at as being a success.
I hope your hunch is right. A lot of pieces have to fall into place to complete the picture.
I just wonder if JW will ever field a capable enough offense that can consistently compete with the top P12 teams...Wilcox’s Wisconsin-type approach is great when you have the horses on the O-line that can dominate the LOS. Either Cal doesn’t get those players, which is odd bc former Wilcox OL are in the League...or more likely, maybe the OL coaching needs a bump....
Losing future draft picks Makai Polk & Mettaur hurts, tho...do players see this O and try and get away to bump their profile?
I'm going to interpret "very high expectations" in Coach Wilcox's quote thusly...
high expectations = win the Pac-12 North
very high expectations = Pac 12 champion/Rose Bowl
Bowl eligible 3 out of 5 years, with 1 of them being the Holiday or Alamo Bowl?
And now he's got four years to do it.
Looking at it objectively, this is somewhat of a headscratcher. Kind of like what SC did with Helton a few years ago. But then look at Kelly and UCLA! He started off getting higher pay and will continue to get more than Wilcox. But I think this just the new operating environment where you have to pay more for a decent coach and megabucks for an excellent coach. If you don't extend Wilcox, then what do you do?
I would respectfully disagree. On a macro level, Helton continuously underachieved while being handed top recruiting classes. Then the bottom fell out of his recruiting.
Wilcox performed average with average classes (very generally speaking). Not world-beating, but not Helton-level.
I don’t think anyone was against extending Wilcox, especially once it was decided he was coming back. The 2 biggest questions on an extension was the length of the extension and the terms of the buyout/termination. I believe most knowledgeable fans felt like 2 years would be a fair extension for both parties, 4 years seems a bit much for a coach with a record like Wilcox.
2 years extension is essentially running in place.
Go bold or go home.
Buyout terms will be huge. 4 years isn't unreasonable if the buyout terms after year 2 is very favorable for Cal.
True and good point. If it is something like the buyout is 90% of his remaining contract in years 1-2 but falls to like 25% of the remaining contact after year 2 would be good.
I wonder what the terms of the buyout and early termination are.
I think a 4 year extension is a bit much for a coach who has never had a winning Pac 12 season and has an overall losing Pac 12 record. 2 years would seem appropriate. Justin Wilcox is about to get a 10 year rebuild window, that is just hard to believe and a big gamble in modern CFB, I hope the gamble pays off.
I am happy we got more money for assistants.
I think they're looking at the man & what he's doing, not the W-L record. If you exercise & eat right, the pounds will eventually come off, even if the scale isn't showing it in the short term.
THIS IS GOOD (emphasis mine)
How do we know that Wilcox didn't turn down the Oregon job for non football reasons? Maybe he really likes his lifestyle here and the Bay Area in general. I lived in Walnut Creek for 20 years and loved every minute of it. I was always prepared to turn down more prestigious and higher paying offers to less desirable places like our company HQ in Detroit.
Wilcox has had five years to stamp his identity here, and I don't see it changing much despite a pay bump and a 4-year extension. Expect more unimaginative offense and ugly, close games that his defenses will be expected to carry to victory in the waning moments of the game. Sometimes it will work, and sometimes it won't. About 50 percent of the time as history shows. In the meantime, who is going to put butts in Memorial?
I really don't expect him to take his new paycheck, put his feet up on the couch & kick back for the next 5 years.
I think a lot of us believed Wilcox wasn't a good fit for the "spotlight" of the Oregon job, and for that reason we didn't dream they would ever offer him.. And perhaps he felt the same way. The fundamental question is "what do the administration and larger donors expect from the program in terms of wins and losses." It probably isn't what the fans expect, and that would be the the irony (or falsehood) in Knowlton's statement.
This extension will look foolish if we finish with 5 or fewer wins next season and still have a stagnant offense.
We are likely to finish right about at 5 wins next season. And maybe the next, as we'll be breaking in our 2nd qb in 2 years. I think the '24-'25 season is our target for good things.
Extension or not, Wilcox will be on the hot seat with 2 more consecutive losing seasons...that would be 4 in a row, with most likely sparse crowds at Memorial, a program on a downward sloping trajectory, and a P12 record approaching 20 games under .500. Plus, his fantastic recruiting class from last year would seemingly have to have drastically underachieved for this team to win just 9-10 games combined over the next two seasons.
He’ll probably be gone. Hopefully this does not happen...with consistent QB play next season, 6-6 is doable, provided the D is ready to play...gotta be 2-1 in non-con, finally beat our damn nemesis, and TCOB at altitude in Boulder...then you get UW/STAN/Wazzu, which are all potential coin toss games, and I’m not ruling out a W over the Ducks...
But you have to get competent QB play - doesn’t need to be Aaron Rodgers/1st round draft pick stuff, but no Devin Modster/Spencer Brasch/Ryan Glover nonsense.
The QB is truly the wildcard. i.e. We need one who will win games *in spite* of the coaches.
Good news. The past 2 covid-related seasons have been rough. With the institutional support and inertia of continuity we can get to a better place. Ad astra.
Anyone who has shown as much of a commitment to Cal and the program as Wilcox has earned my full support, and I have a lot more faith that a coach dedicated to the program can turn things around. Compare that to Dykes, who had similar on-field results, but was actively hitting up other programs with the "hey, you guys hiring?" stuff. Wilcox could have used Cal like a stepping stone the way his predecessor would have (given the opportunity), but he didn't. He deserves the raise and he deserves institutional support.
Full support is one thing, and I think most Cal fans are willing to give that to Wilcox. The question is what are your expectations for success on the field (not in the lives of the players), and do you reasonably expect Wilcox to deliver?
Providing a team that donors and fans can be proud is the baseline. Wins and losses are part of the equation but unlike other CFB programs are not the sine qua non of success for the Cal FB program. There hasn't been a Cal team under Wilcox that I have not been proud of despite some frustrations through the vagaries of a given season. Seeing guys like Saffel and Clark testify to the integrity and quality of character Wilcox possess, combined with the fact that this team never quits, provides a lot of faith that things will align for Wilcox and that he is building sustained success that will pay off.
I agree fully. But I also have (what I think) are low expectations in terms of wins and losses. All things aside, down to brass tacks, the question is: What are your expectations for winning, and do you think we can achieve that under Wilcox? It's OK if you think Wilcox is the optimal coach, who maximizes everything there is to maximize when it comes to Cal football with the resources he has. I'm just curious to know what people expect, in terms of success on the field.
There needs to be more success on the field. Straight up - 15-25 in P12 play during a decidedly dark period for the conference has gotten better coaches fired, not extended. And the program is close, though are we any closer to contending for a P12 Championship than we were 5 years ago? It's a fair question.
I like Wilcox the man, and am pleased he stuck around - I really am. I don't think there is some coaching Messiah that is going to walk through the gates of Memorial and turn this into a perennial 10-win program. It took Rich Brooks and Kyle Whittingham 17 seasons in Eugene and SLC before they got to the Rose Bowl...stability is good...however, despite a senior laden offense from the top on down, we still struggled to field a competent, consistent product. This is a problem - Wilcox needs to recruit better, especially at the skill positions - the development of this WR crew will be interesting in '22. It remains to be seen whether he can recruit a QB, as well.
Time to get to work...I only made it to one home game this season, v. Wazzu, tho I would've come up for SC if bowl eligibility was on the line. The crowd v the Cougars tho was incredibly disappointing, and unless he starts getting more people in the seats, eventually Knowlton may have to cut ties with him, regardless of how good a guy he is and how many times he said no to Uncle Phil.
Plenty of coaches out there 1. care about their kids; 2. run a clean program; 3. graduate their players...some of them also win 7-8 games a year...would love to see Wilcox get us to that level.
Just an add-on: if Wilcox and Sirmon had gotten the D ironed out from the get-go last season, most notably the tackling, this team likely beats both Nevada and TCU, and is 7-5 and bowl bound, and no one is complaining... THAT is something that is totally fixable, and should be our baseline...
At the end of the day, #2 is pretty much a show stopper for college teams getting to the top. I'm truly glad Wilcox is all in at Cal. He needs big time donors to pay for the best facilities, top notch tutors, huge travel budget, top notch assistants, reasonable admissions, all of it, to get beyond .500 consistently.
Well said my friend and I agree with you.
I look forward to bundling up, making the hike deep into the canyons of El Paso and giving a hearty Go Bears!!! from the Cal section in the 2023 Sun Bowl...
Roadtrip from the 858....we hop on 8 to Gila Bend, then hook up with I-10 all the way to UTEP. It's a breeze.
For example: My expectations are annually an above .500 record, and once a decade we field a top-15 team. I'm not extra confident Wilcox can deliver on either, though hopeful. Likewise, I'm not sure if I should reset my expectations, given the institution. Hence, I seriously would like to hear what others expect.
I have similar expectations with the caveat that we can’t have a 5 or 6 win season in the year that we have actual expectations of competing for a Pac 12 title and a senior/experienced team that should finish in the top 15.
Yes, THIS...
These are reasonable expectations for a program like Cal, when paired with a solid graduation rate and no shenanigans off the field by the coaches and players. We've got the solid graduation rate and lack of shenanigans, and hopefully, the offense will work itself out to properly pair itself with what has been some very good defensive units (run the goddamn ball more).
Expecting anything more is just crazy - we're not dumping millions of dollars a year in recruiting. We also have academic restrictions and an arcane bureaucracy most other schools do not have to deal with.
I would be perfectly happy with being a team that usually wins 7-8 games each season, with 9-10 win seasons and 5-6 win seasons every now and then. Not holding my breath for a 11+ win season. 4 win season is unacceptable.
This is perfectly written
Dykes was a bad fit from the start, and he was desperately trying to make a *lateral* move once he realized the extent of his lack of institutional support. I wouldn't call that a stepping stone, per se.
Wilcox getting increased money for his assistants is the best part. He dealt for not his paycheck. He understands what he needs to be successful. Now surround himself with better assistants on offense (in future).
I'm very pleased with this news. I will look forward to learning more about how the additional pool of dollars for assistant coaches helps us going forward, and likewise with an increased administrative budget. Change doesn't happen at CAL overnight, but a steady hand on the helm will guide us to a better place over time. I agree that Wilcox is the guy that has all the attributes to be that helmsman.
Congrats Wilcox now let's make some noise!
Clean program, mediocre results. Hard to know how much Cal is holding him back. With this and the improved incentives for assistants it sounds like Cal's investing enough for us to find out.
Now, how do we break down the administrative issues that hold Cal football back? I don't believe that dysfunction is inevitable, but to make change and get healthy, you've gotta recognize that you're sick.
Serious question.: Do academic/admissions standards fit into the "administrative issues" category, or do you think we can still recruit the players we need to be successful on the field in the current CFB landscape regardless of those standards, with other institutional support?
Stanford has certainly proven that you can win with high academic standards, but you have to successfully brand yourself as such on the recruiting trail and I don't particularly get the sense that we've figured that out yet.
Has Stanford really proven anything, or was that just the couple year run with Harbaugh+Luck? (Similarly Tedford+Rodgers). The only, single school I can think of with high academic standards for their athletes and a national presence is Notre Dame.. and their history goes without saying...
They did go to three Rose Bowls in four years. I'm sure I don't have to remind you, but we haven't been to one in 70 years.
Plus a Fiesta Bowl and the majority of that winning was without Harbaugh/Luck.
Wisconsin’s undergrad admissions standards are significantly lower than Cal’s. Or at least they were some years ago when I attended both.
Cal student athlete GPA requirement should be 2.0. The discussion starts and almost ends pretty much there. I'm not sure if its 2.5 or 2.75 now but that is absolutely hell to go through independent of being a student athlete on its own and being a Cal student on its own.
Michigan, Stanford, UNC, UCLA, UW. It can be done without needing to change the requirement
Good point. I had a similar question, though I'm not sure if all of the schools you mentioned impose the same standards as Cal for athletes. At first glance, I seriously doubt Michigan does. The only successful program with academic standards I thought of is Notre Dame (if you throw out Stanford's Harbaugh/Luck years). The others analogs I'd thought of were schools like Virginia, Northwestern, and Vanderbilt, which is pretty much the company we keep. Let's not forget that Texas is historically a football blue blood with a decent academic school, but doesn't mean anything about their standards for athletes.
Thanks, Bob! We on tha same page!!!