(11-05-2012, 10:12 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:I don't think kal football has a "brand" that resonates to recruits
They don't have a brand period, unless not having a brand is a brand.Â
The problem with California as it relates to its football program, is that there is absolutely zero leadership. In as much as Oregon has Knight, Stanford has Arillaga. Both those guys want to win. Their money has forced the university to care about fielding a winning football program. California has some wealthy donors, but it doesn't have anyone to step up and demand performance. The culture there is that they don't really want to win that badly. As long as they go to a bowl game, beat Stanford occasionally, and graduate players, that's enough for California.
Even now, with even the most ardent Tedford apologists now admitting he must go, there are donors who still aren't convinced he should go because they "like" him.Â
I once read a post on NDNation that was about all you ever need to know about winning in sports. it went something like this: Coaches who fall in love with QBs and ADs who fall in love with coaches do not have long lives.
The implication is if it is not about performance, the enterprise fails. You can add "donors who fall in love with coaches" to the same quote. At California, you have all three. It's a total and complete disaster, from virtually every angle, including the obvious financial one.
The only way California can ever be saved from a football standpoint, and get back to being a championship contender, is if someone steps up to demand and pay for California to perform. Absent that, it's just going to continue to be what it has been most of the time since the 1950s.