[msqueri]

Wilcox is not the problem. Cal is the problem. Just look at the history and how the hoops and football programs have performed since 1960. Even look at the WVB and WBB programs. For the most part, suck , suck, suck. Softball had a nice run, but has been terrible for years now.

You can also look at Sonny Dykes. Cal fans were convinced he was the anti-christ of a football coach. Now he's at a place that actually gives a scintilla of a shit, and has his TCU team 10-0, ranked #4, possibly headed to CFP.

Cal has now signed two straight naming rights deals with companies that went bankrupt. They signed a deal with Under Armor that blew up in their face too. It's indifferent ineptitude all around, but sure, it's all Wilcox's fault they suck.

Dykes was awful at Cal.  Did nothing to improve an awful defense.  And he was a poor fit to boot. 

Yes, they have Administrative problems.  But so does Stanford.  Bay Area college football is dying. Blame the coaches all you want.  It’s their program.  But without administrative support, neither program is going anywhere.

If Shaw is gone, which I highly doubt, who takes his place?  My guess is an older Coordinator that has never had a shot at an HC.  Or an older HC from a non Power Five.  Cause if I’m an up and coming young coach looking for my first HC job, no way I take a position at either Stanford or Cal.  Maybe they look a few miles south and try to get Brennan.

As for Wilcox - amazing how quickly perceptions  change.  Didn’t he just supposedly turn down the Washington job?  A decision he may come to rue.

Jaw-dropping how much of this post I think is wrong, but very busy day so not sure I can engage. I think it's closer to being all wrong than to half right.

Jaw dropping!  Impressive!  So, please elaborate, what points are “jaw droppingly” wrong ?

1.  Bay Area college football is dying?
2. Administrations at both Stanford are not invested in football.
3. That any HC needs administrative support.
4.  Dykes was awful at Cal and a bad fit to boot
5. Shaw will be back next year
6. Stanford is not an attractive job to a young up and coming coach.

0-6?  Surely, I got a couple right.  I mean, even a blind squirrel…..

Ok, my earlier post was over the top. Sorry. Reactions to each of your points in turn:

1. Dying is too strong a word, unless you mean in a truly philosophical sense that from our first breath we're all in the process of dying. I think there are demographic, social, and other factors that hurt Bay Area football but some of those have been applicable for quite some time and those that are accelerating will be more likely to wound Bay Area football than kill it. I also think it is important not to make sweeping statements based on how intense a certain moment feels in supporting those hypotheses. Big Game is at a historic low point as a rivalry (last year was the first in over a quarter century in which both teams came in with three or fewer wins, and now we're repeating that sad stat). Of course Bay Area football feels like it's dying. But as an analytical matter I think it's precarious to make an assessment on something based on its highest or lowest points. It will be easier to make an assessment of Stanford football, for instance, once it doesn't have one of the worst coaches in the country. Or, if a succession of Stanford coaches prove to be one of the worst coaches in the country then we will be in a better position to assess that it wasn't so much Shaw but that "Bay Area football is dying." The claim is just too premature and too stark at the moment. Moreover, "Bay Area football" is not synonymous with "Stanford football." We're the least locally rooted or locally dependent team in the nation. Bay Area football could be on an inexorable decline with that affecting Cal much more than it affects Stanford.

2. Probably your claim I agree with the most, but it's overwrought and not necessarily permanent. Stanford's administration in recent years has had very reasonable (some would say low) standards for admitting football players, allowed not just early enrollment but very early enrollment (if players take summer school that means they can now get three quarters, basically an academic year, in before their non-football classmates), adapted to trends in college football by allowing spring official visits, shelled out mucho dinero for the head football coach, supposedly gave a big extension/raise to the defensive coordinator too at some point, acquiesced to far from trivial NIL/collective participation, by the sounds of comments from the recent Faculty Senate meeting apparently are at least considering the implications/finances of Big 10 membership, etc.. We're not Texas A&M, but we're also not Cal Tech either. And then on permanence, evidently Persis Drell is particularly hostile to big college athletics. She's one person. Maybe she won't be in the job forever and somebody more supportive of athletics will take her place. We've had supportive provosts in the past, and it's not like these broad debates are anything new at Stanford.

3. There are competitive programs that get less support than Stanford, not least because they just have less money. Pitt, Baylor, BYU, Wake Forest, and many other Power Five teams have significantly less revenue than Stanford. We're not an economic weakling even with our tiny fan base and non-football crazy location. Additionally, as I noted above, Stanford has gotten some administrative support in key ways. If a new coach is given half of Shaw's salary, that's a modestly competitive salary. Finally, there's always the possibility of succeeding in spite of headwinds. We can call this the Major League (the movie) effect. It's always possible that the administration does the football program no favors but a talented coach scraps some success. If a coach is allowed to use the scholarships, coaching positions, and facilities that currently exist, success is possible. I guess I'm not really sure what administrative support you think a coach needs.

4. Awful too strong a word for Dykes at Cal as Dykes was the same level of success as Wilcox and Gilbertson, more successful than Holmoe, and less successful than Tedford. When you're the norm how can that be considered awful? That's like calling Tyrone Willingham's Stanford tenure awful. Simply the wrong word. I could buy that Dykes was a bad fit. Dykes' resume is flat-out awesome, and Cal was the relative blemish on it. He made his teams better three years in a row at Louisiana Tech. Then he did it again at Cal before a disappointing fourth year that was his last. Then he won 25 games in his last three years at SMU. Now this year he's undefeated and almost a shoo-in for national coach of the year. Cal was the blemish but par for their course. Overall the resume is incredible. Cal is what's awful, not Dykes.

5. I have many thoughts on this that we can go into if desired but my bottom line is I don't know and neither do you. The abjectness of Shaw's failure and the rumblings about discontent among powers-that-be make this much more of an open question than you suggest. I'm not ready to predict Shaw will be gone, but he might be.

6. Your wrongest take. BC covered it pretty well. A Power Five job that offers millions of dollars is going to be a plum gig. Period. Even Colorado will have candidates for their job. This is about scarcity and economics. You don't have to beg people when you have one of the 70 best jobs in your profession (Stanford's job probably closer to top 30) and you're giving them life-changing money.

[msqueri]

Wilcox is not the problem. Cal is the problem. Just look at the history and how the hoops and football programs have performed since 1960. Even look at the WVB and WBB programs. For the most part, suck , suck, suck. Softball had a nice run, but has been terrible for years now.

You can also look at Sonny Dykes. Cal fans were convinced he was the anti-christ of a football coach. Now he's at a place that actually gives a scintilla of a shit, and has his TCU team 10-0, ranked #4, possibly headed to CFP.

Cal has now signed two straight naming rights deals with companies that went bankrupt. They signed a deal with Under Armor that blew up in their face too. It's indifferent ineptitude all around, but sure, it's all Wilcox's fault they suck.

Dykes was awful at Cal.  Did nothing to improve an awful defense.  And he was a poor fit to boot. 

Yes, they have Administrative problems.  But so does Stanford.  Bay Area college football is dying. Blame the coaches all you want.  It’s their program.  But without administrative support, neither program is going anywhere.

If Shaw is gone, which I highly doubt, who takes his place?  My guess is an older Coordinator that has never had a shot at an HC.  Or an older HC from a non Power Five.  Cause if I’m an up and coming young coach looking for my first HC job, no way I take a position at either Stanford or Cal.  Maybe they look a few miles south and try to get Brennan.

As for Wilcox - amazing how quickly perceptions  change.  Didn’t he just supposedly turn down the Washington job?  A decision he may come to rue.

Jaw-dropping how much of this post I think is wrong, but very busy day so not sure I can engage. I think it's closer to being all wrong than to half right.

Jaw dropping!  Impressive!  So, please elaborate, what points are “jaw droppingly” wrong ?

1.  Bay Area college football is dying?
2. Administrations at both Stanford are not invested in football.
3. That any HC needs administrative support.
4.  Dykes was awful at Cal and a bad fit to boot
5. Shaw will be back next year
6. Stanford is not an attractive job to a young up and coming coach.

0-6?  Surely, I got a couple right.  I mean, even a blind squirrel…..

Ok, my earlier post was over the top. Sorry. Reactions to each of your points in turn:

1. Dying is too strong a word, unless you mean in a truly philosophical sense that from our first breath we're all in the process of dying. I think there are demographic, social, and other factors that hurt Bay Area football but some of those have been applicable for quite some time and those that are accelerating will be more likely to wound Bay Area football than kill it. I also think it is important not to make sweeping statements based on how intense a certain moment feels in supporting those hypotheses. Big Game is at a historic low point as a rivalry (last year was the first in over a quarter century in which both teams came in with three or fewer wins, and now we're repeating that sad stat). Of course Bay Area football feels like it's dying. But as an analytical matter I think it's precarious to make an assessment on something based on its highest or lowest points. It will be easier to make an assessment of Stanford football, for instance, once it doesn't have one of the worst coaches in the country. Or, if a succession of Stanford coaches prove to be one of the worst coaches in the country then we will be in a better position to assess that it wasn't so much Shaw but that "Bay Area football is dying." The claim is just too premature and too stark at the moment. Moreover, "Bay Area football" is not synonymous with "Stanford football." We're the least locally rooted or locally dependent team in the nation. Bay Area football could be on an inexorable decline with that affecting Cal much more than it affects Stanford.

2. Probably your claim I agree with the most, but it's overwrought and not necessarily permanent. Stanford's administration in recent years has had very reasonable (some would say low) standards for admitting football players, allowed not just early enrollment but very early enrollment (if players take summer school that means they can now get three quarters, basically an academic year, in before their non-football classmates), adapted to trends in college football by allowing spring official visits, shelled out mucho dinero for the head football coach, supposedly gave a big extension/raise to the defensive coordinator too at some point, acquiesced to far from trivial NIL/collective participation, by the sounds of comments from the recent Faculty Senate meeting apparently are at least considering the implications/finances of Big 10 membership, etc.. We're not Texas A&M, but we're also not Cal Tech either. And then on permanence, evidently Persis Drell is particularly hostile to big college athletics. She's one person. Maybe she won't be in the job forever and somebody more supportive of athletics will take her place. We've had supportive provosts in the past, and it's not like these broad debates are anything new at Stanford.

3. There are competitive programs that get less support than Stanford, not least because they just have less money. Pitt, Baylor, BYU, Wake Forest, and many other Power Five teams have significantly less revenue than Stanford. We're not an economic weakling even with our tiny fan base and non-football crazy location. Additionally, as I noted above, Stanford has gotten some administrative support in key ways. If a new coach is given half of Shaw's salary, that's a modestly competitive salary. Finally, there's always the possibility of succeeding in spite of headwinds. We can call this the Major League (the movie) effect. It's always possible that the administration does the football program no favors but a talented coach scraps some success. If a coach is allowed to use the scholarships, coaching positions, and facilities that currently exist, success is possible. I guess I'm not really sure what administrative support you think a coach needs.

4. Awful too strong a word for Dykes at Cal as Dykes was the same level of success as Wilcox and Gilbertson, more successful than Holmoe, and less successful than Tedford. When you're the norm how can that be considered awful? That's like calling Tyrone Willingham's Stanford tenure awful. Simply the wrong word. I could buy that Dykes was a bad fit. Dykes' resume is flat-out awesome, and Cal was the relative blemish on it. He made his teams better three years in a row at Louisiana Tech. Then he did it again at Cal before a disappointing fourth year that was his last. Then he won 25 games in his last three years at SMU. Now this year he's undefeated and almost a shoo-in for national coach of the year. Cal was the blemish but par for their course. Overall the resume is incredible. Cal is what's awful, not Dykes.

5. I have many thoughts on this that we can go into if desired but my bottom line is I don't know and neither do you. The abjectness of Shaw's failure and the rumblings about discontent among powers-that-be make this much more of an open question than you suggest. I'm not ready to predict Shaw will be gone, but he might be.

6. Your wrongest take. BC covered it pretty well. A Power Five job that offers millions of dollars is going to be a plum gig. Period. Even Colorado will have candidates for their job. This is about scarcity and economics. You don't have to beg people when you have one of the 70 best jobs in your profession (Stanford's job probably closer to top 30) and you're giving them life-changing money.