[DC 86]

You can get some up-and comer at $2M/year level.  If they prove their worth, then yes, the price goes up.  But at least that guy will have built something and presumably earned the salary bounce.

And btw, there is a real institutional issue regarding whether Stanford should pay its head football coach $9M/year.  I'll bet a majority of Stanford alums (and faculty) believe the answer is no.  There is no doubt in my mind that college football - like all (or most) walks of society - is stratifying into "the haves" and "the have nots."  Stanford, if it intends to stay in college football, will likely fall to the "have nots" side of the ledger - we're already there in terms of on-field performance - and just have to play within those restrictions for as long as Stanford University thinks it makes sense to do so.   

It may be a grim reality to some, but that's the world we're in now.

1. There isn't a single FBS Power 5 head coach who earns as little as $2 mm/year. No "up and comer" worth hiring is signing up for that salary, in an area with the highest cost of living in the country no less.

2. I'm pretty sure you know that Shaw doesn't earn $9 mm/year. You (and others) keep repeating that for effect, but that's not his annual salary, it was one year that included deferred compensation. His salary is high, there's no need to exaggerate.

3. Whether Shaw (or a different head coach) earns $2 mm/year or $10 mm/year it would still be out of whack with faculty salaries and such, but that's the reality of the market, and the nature of a football program that generates its own revenue and alumni donations. Whether Shaw is the best man for the job at the moment is a legitimate debate, but I'm perfectly comfortable with Stanford paying the going rate for the job. I don't understand the logic of trying to hire someone at well below market rate. Why shouldn't Stanford be one of the "haves", we certainly have the resources.

[DC 86]

You can get some up-and comer at $2M/year level.  If they prove their worth, then yes, the price goes up.  But at least that guy will have built something and presumably earned the salary bounce.

And btw, there is a real institutional issue regarding whether Stanford should pay its head football coach $9M/year.  I'll bet a majority of Stanford alums (and faculty) believe the answer is no.  There is no doubt in my mind that college football - like all (or most) walks of society - is stratifying into "the haves" and "the have nots."  Stanford, if it intends to stay in college football, will likely fall to the "have nots" side of the ledger - we're already there in terms of on-field performance - and just have to play within those restrictions for as long as Stanford University thinks it makes sense to do so.   

It may be a grim reality to some, but that's the world we're in now.

1. There isn't a single FBS Power 5 head coach who earns as little as $2 mm/year. No "up and comer" worth hiring is signing up for that salary, in an area with the highest cost of living in the country no less.

2. I'm pretty sure you know that Shaw doesn't earn $9 mm/year. You (and others) keep repeating that for effect, but that's not his annual salary, it was one year that included deferred compensation. His salary is high, there's no need to exaggerate.

3. Whether Shaw (or a different head coach) earns $2 mm/year or $10 mm/year it would still be out of whack with faculty salaries and such, but that's the reality of the market, and the nature of a football program that generates its own revenue and alumni donations. Whether Shaw is the best man for the job at the moment is a legitimate debate, but I'm perfectly comfortable with Stanford paying the going rate for the job. I don't understand the logic of trying to hire someone at well below market rate. Why shouldn't Stanford be one of the "haves", we certainly have the resources.

[teejers1]

You can get some up-and comer at $2M/year level.  If they prove their worth, then yes, the price goes up.  But at least that guy will have built something and presumably earned the salary bounce.

And btw, there is a real institutional issue regarding whether Stanford should pay its head football coach $9M/year.  I'll bet a majority of Stanford alums (and faculty) believe the answer is no.  There is no doubt in my mind that college football - like all (or most) walks of society - is stratifying into "the haves" and "the have nots."  Stanford, if it intends to stay in college football, will likely fall to the "have nots" side of the ledger - we're already there in terms of on-field performance - and just have to play within those restrictions for as long as Stanford University thinks it makes sense to do so.   

It may be a grim reality to some, but that's the world we're in now.

1. There isn't a single FBS Power 5 head coach who earns as little as $2 mm/year. No "up and comer" worth hiring is signing up for that salary, in an area with the highest cost of living in the country no less.

2. I'm pretty sure you know that Shaw doesn't earn $9 mm/year. You (and others) keep repeating that for effect, but that's not his annual salary, it was one year that included deferred compensation. His salary is high, there's no need to exaggerate.

3. Whether Shaw (or a different head coach) earns $2 mm/year or $10 mm/year it would still be out of whack with faculty salaries and such, but that's the reality of the market, and the nature of a football program that generates its own revenue and alumni donations. Whether Shaw is the best man for the job at the moment is a legitimate debate, but I'm perfectly comfortable with Stanford paying the going rate for the job. I don't understand the logic of trying to hire someone at well below market rate. Why shouldn't Stanford be one of the "haves", we certainly have the resources.

Farm93 used $9M figure in your post.  I followed suit.  And whether deferred comp or not, that was Shaw's reported annual comp in 2019.  I agree that his base is either $5.7 or $6.7 (that I couldn't discern). We'll get more info in next 990.

As for your last question, my answer would be as follows:  "because at some point the $$-chasing college football industry becomes at odds with the overall mission of the university."  I don't think Stanford alums should put together a billion dollar slush fund to pay kids to play football or basketball at Stanford.  But that's certainly legal now; and Stanford certainly has "the resources" for that to occur.  Similarly, I don't think Stanford's head football coach should make top dollar - especially when that is $9 or $10M/year, irrespective of results.  And I certainly don't think the guy we currently have should be making the $$ he has given the state of the program - but I get that there are contractual obligations that were imposed years ago with Bernie's Blunder.

But that's just one fan's opinion.

[teejers1]

You can get some up-and comer at $2M/year level.  If they prove their worth, then yes, the price goes up.  But at least that guy will have built something and presumably earned the salary bounce.

And btw, there is a real institutional issue regarding whether Stanford should pay its head football coach $9M/year.  I'll bet a majority of Stanford alums (and faculty) believe the answer is no.  There is no doubt in my mind that college football - like all (or most) walks of society - is stratifying into "the haves" and "the have nots."  Stanford, if it intends to stay in college football, will likely fall to the "have nots" side of the ledger - we're already there in terms of on-field performance - and just have to play within those restrictions for as long as Stanford University thinks it makes sense to do so.   

It may be a grim reality to some, but that's the world we're in now.

1. There isn't a single FBS Power 5 head coach who earns as little as $2 mm/year. No "up and comer" worth hiring is signing up for that salary, in an area with the highest cost of living in the country no less.

2. I'm pretty sure you know that Shaw doesn't earn $9 mm/year. You (and others) keep repeating that for effect, but that's not his annual salary, it was one year that included deferred compensation. His salary is high, there's no need to exaggerate.

3. Whether Shaw (or a different head coach) earns $2 mm/year or $10 mm/year it would still be out of whack with faculty salaries and such, but that's the reality of the market, and the nature of a football program that generates its own revenue and alumni donations. Whether Shaw is the best man for the job at the moment is a legitimate debate, but I'm perfectly comfortable with Stanford paying the going rate for the job. I don't understand the logic of trying to hire someone at well below market rate. Why shouldn't Stanford be one of the "haves", we certainly have the resources.

Farm93 used $9M figure in your post.  I followed suit.  And whether deferred comp or not, that was Shaw's reported annual comp in 2019.  I agree that his base is either $5.7 or $6.7 (that I couldn't discern). We'll get more info in next 990.

As for your last question, my answer would be as follows:  "because at some point the $$-chasing college football industry becomes at odds with the overall mission of the university."  I don't think Stanford alums should put together a billion dollar slush fund to pay kids to play football or basketball at Stanford.  But that's certainly legal now; and Stanford certainly has "the resources" for that to occur.  Similarly, I don't think Stanford's head football coach should make top dollar - especially when that is $9 or $10M/year, irrespective of results.  And I certainly don't think the guy we currently have should be making the $$ he has given the state of the program - but I get that there are contractual obligations that were imposed years ago with Bernie's Blunder.

But that's just one fan's opinion.

[McKenwood]

You can get some up-and comer at $2M/year level.  If they prove their worth, then yes, the price goes up.  But at least that guy will have built something and presumably earned the salary bounce.

And btw, there is a real institutional issue regarding whether Stanford should pay its head football coach $9M/year.  I'll bet a majority of Stanford alums (and faculty) believe the answer is no.  There is no doubt in my mind that college football - like all (or most) walks of society - is stratifying into "the haves" and "the have nots."  Stanford, if it intends to stay in college football, will likely fall to the "have nots" side of the ledger - we're already there in terms of on-field performance - and just have to play within those restrictions for as long as Stanford University thinks it makes sense to do so.   

It may be a grim reality to some, but that's the world we're in now.

1. There isn't a single FBS Power 5 head coach who earns as little as $2 mm/year. No "up and comer" worth hiring is signing up for that salary, in an area with the highest cost of living in the country no less.

2. I'm pretty sure you know that Shaw doesn't earn $9 mm/year. You (and others) keep repeating that for effect, but that's not his annual salary, it was one year that included deferred compensation. His salary is high, there's no need to exaggerate.

3. Whether Shaw (or a different head coach) earns $2 mm/year or $10 mm/year it would still be out of whack with faculty salaries and such, but that's the reality of the market, and the nature of a football program that generates its own revenue and alumni donations. Whether Shaw is the best man for the job at the moment is a legitimate debate, but I'm perfectly comfortable with Stanford paying the going rate for the job. I don't understand the logic of trying to hire someone at well below market rate. Why shouldn't Stanford be one of the "haves", we certainly have the resources.

You used $9M figure in your post.  I followed suit.  And whether deferred comp or not, that was Shaw's reported annual comp in 2019.  I agree that his base is either $5.7 or $6.7 (that I couldn't discern). We'll get more info in next 990.

As for your last question, my answer would be as follows:  "because at some point the $$-chasing college football industry becomes at odds with the overall mission of the university."  I don't think Stanford alums should put together a billion dollar slush fund to pay kids to play football or basketball at Stanford.  But that's certainly legal now; and Stanford certainly has "the resources" for that to occur.  Similarly, I don't think Stanford's head football coach should make top dollar - especially when that is $9 or $10M/year, irrespective of results.  And I certainly don't think the guy we currently have should be making the $$ he has given the state of the program - but I get that there are contractual obligations that were imposed years ago with Bernie's Blunder.

But that's just one fan's opinion.

Bernie's Blunder. The challenge is discerning which one.

No constituency associated with Stanford is onboard for gargantuan salaries for sports coaches without exceptional production. Right now Stanford has the worst of both worlds. A coach who for the 2021 season was among the highest paid (the highest?) in the Pac-12 and yet produced dismal results.

Stanford is hurtling towards the time where big time football cannot be justified in part because they have the wrong guys (Muir, Shaw) in leadership roles. Given that Muir has retained his position leads me to believe that Stanford's overall leadership is compromised as well. Not a good situation when so many far reaching decisions need to be made.

[McKenwood]

You can get some up-and comer at $2M/year level.  If they prove their worth, then yes, the price goes up.  But at least that guy will have built something and presumably earned the salary bounce.

And btw, there is a real institutional issue regarding whether Stanford should pay its head football coach $9M/year.  I'll bet a majority of Stanford alums (and faculty) believe the answer is no.  There is no doubt in my mind that college football - like all (or most) walks of society - is stratifying into "the haves" and "the have nots."  Stanford, if it intends to stay in college football, will likely fall to the "have nots" side of the ledger - we're already there in terms of on-field performance - and just have to play within those restrictions for as long as Stanford University thinks it makes sense to do so.   

It may be a grim reality to some, but that's the world we're in now.

1. There isn't a single FBS Power 5 head coach who earns as little as $2 mm/year. No "up and comer" worth hiring is signing up for that salary, in an area with the highest cost of living in the country no less.

2. I'm pretty sure you know that Shaw doesn't earn $9 mm/year. You (and others) keep repeating that for effect, but that's not his annual salary, it was one year that included deferred compensation. His salary is high, there's no need to exaggerate.

3. Whether Shaw (or a different head coach) earns $2 mm/year or $10 mm/year it would still be out of whack with faculty salaries and such, but that's the reality of the market, and the nature of a football program that generates its own revenue and alumni donations. Whether Shaw is the best man for the job at the moment is a legitimate debate, but I'm perfectly comfortable with Stanford paying the going rate for the job. I don't understand the logic of trying to hire someone at well below market rate. Why shouldn't Stanford be one of the "haves", we certainly have the resources.

You used $9M figure in your post.  I followed suit.  And whether deferred comp or not, that was Shaw's reported annual comp in 2019.  I agree that his base is either $5.7 or $6.7 (that I couldn't discern). We'll get more info in next 990.

As for your last question, my answer would be as follows:  "because at some point the $$-chasing college football industry becomes at odds with the overall mission of the university."  I don't think Stanford alums should put together a billion dollar slush fund to pay kids to play football or basketball at Stanford.  But that's certainly legal now; and Stanford certainly has "the resources" for that to occur.  Similarly, I don't think Stanford's head football coach should make top dollar - especially when that is $9 or $10M/year, irrespective of results.  And I certainly don't think the guy we currently have should be making the $$ he has given the state of the program - but I get that there are contractual obligations that were imposed years ago with Bernie's Blunder.

But that's just one fan's opinion.

Bernie's Blunder. The challenge is discerning which one.

No constituency associated with Stanford is onboard for gargantuan salaries for sports coaches without exceptional production. Right now Stanford has the worst of both worlds. A coach who for the 2021 season was among the highest paid (the highest?) in the Pac-12 and yet produced dismal results.

Stanford is hurtling towards the time where big time football cannot be justified in part because they have the wrong guys (Muir, Shaw) in leadership roles. Given that Muir has retained his position leads me to believe that Stanford's overall leadership is compromised as well. Not a good situation when so many far reaching decisions need to be made.

[DC 86]

You used $9M figure in your post.  I followed suit.

Where did I use that figure?

[DC 86]

You used $9M figure in your post.  I followed suit.

Where did I use that figure?

[teejers1]

You used $9M figure in your post.  I followed suit.

Where did I use that figure?

Whoops.  Farm93 used that figure.  I've edited accordingly.

[teejers1]

You used $9M figure in your post.  I followed suit.

Where did I use that figure?

Whoops.  Farm93 used that figure.  I've edited accordingly.

[BostonCard]

You can get some up-and comer at $2M/year level.  If they prove their worth, then yes, the price goes up.  But at least that guy will have built something and presumably earned the salary bounce.

And btw, there is a real institutional issue regarding whether Stanford should pay its head football coach $9M/year.  I'll bet a majority of Stanford alums (and faculty) believe the answer is no.  There is no doubt in my mind that college football - like all (or most) walks of society - is stratifying into "the haves" and "the have nots."  Stanford, if it intends to stay in college football, will likely fall to the "have nots" side of the ledger - we're already there in terms of on-field performance - and just have to play within those restrictions for as long as Stanford University thinks it makes sense to do so.   

It may be a grim reality to some, but that's the world we're in now.

1. There isn't a single FBS Power 5 head coach who earns as little as $2 mm/year. No "up and comer" worth hiring is signing up for that salary, in an area with the highest cost of living in the country no less.

2. I'm pretty sure you know that Shaw doesn't earn $9 mm/year. You (and others) keep repeating that for effect, but that's not his annual salary, it was one year that included deferred compensation. His salary is high, there's no need to exaggerate.

3. Whether Shaw (or a different head coach) earns $2 mm/year or $10 mm/year it would still be out of whack with faculty salaries and such, but that's the reality of the market, and the nature of a football program that generates its own revenue and alumni donations. Whether Shaw is the best man for the job at the moment is a legitimate debate, but I'm perfectly comfortable with Stanford paying the going rate for the job. I don't understand the logic of trying to hire someone at well below market rate. Why shouldn't Stanford be one of the "haves", we certainly have the resources.

https://coloradobuffaloeswire.usatoday.c...21-season/

The cheapest coach in the PAC-12 right now is Jonathan Smith, good for $2.4 million a year.  The median was about $3.5 million.  I agree with you that a $2 million/year head coach is not in the offing, but there is real resistance to hiring a coach who will show up on the form 990, which was $2.5 million two years ago.  If the football coach were just outside the top 5 salaries for the University, the actual amount would be private, and everyone would at least not have to think about it.

As for his spot in the PAC-12,  Shaw leads the list, at a reported $9 million, but as you point out, that includes about $2.5 million in deferred compensation; his salary is close to $6 million, which would still be tops in the conference, at least until next  when he will probably be third.

BC

[BostonCard]

You can get some up-and comer at $2M/year level.  If they prove their worth, then yes, the price goes up.  But at least that guy will have built something and presumably earned the salary bounce.

And btw, there is a real institutional issue regarding whether Stanford should pay its head football coach $9M/year.  I'll bet a majority of Stanford alums (and faculty) believe the answer is no.  There is no doubt in my mind that college football - like all (or most) walks of society - is stratifying into "the haves" and "the have nots."  Stanford, if it intends to stay in college football, will likely fall to the "have nots" side of the ledger - we're already there in terms of on-field performance - and just have to play within those restrictions for as long as Stanford University thinks it makes sense to do so.   

It may be a grim reality to some, but that's the world we're in now.

1. There isn't a single FBS Power 5 head coach who earns as little as $2 mm/year. No "up and comer" worth hiring is signing up for that salary, in an area with the highest cost of living in the country no less.

2. I'm pretty sure you know that Shaw doesn't earn $9 mm/year. You (and others) keep repeating that for effect, but that's not his annual salary, it was one year that included deferred compensation. His salary is high, there's no need to exaggerate.

3. Whether Shaw (or a different head coach) earns $2 mm/year or $10 mm/year it would still be out of whack with faculty salaries and such, but that's the reality of the market, and the nature of a football program that generates its own revenue and alumni donations. Whether Shaw is the best man for the job at the moment is a legitimate debate, but I'm perfectly comfortable with Stanford paying the going rate for the job. I don't understand the logic of trying to hire someone at well below market rate. Why shouldn't Stanford be one of the "haves", we certainly have the resources.

https://coloradobuffaloeswire.usatoday.c...21-season/

The cheapest coach in the PAC-12 right now is Jonathan Smith, good for $2.4 million a year.  The median was about $3.5 million.  I agree with you that a $2 million/year head coach is not in the offing, but there is real resistance to hiring a coach who will show up on the form 990, which was $2.5 million two years ago.  If the football coach were just outside the top 5 salaries for the University, the actual amount would be private, and everyone would at least not have to think about it.

As for his spot in the PAC-12,  Shaw leads the list, at a reported $9 million, but as you point out, that includes about $2.5 million in deferred compensation; his salary is close to $6 million, which would still be tops in the conference, at least until next  when he will probably be third.

BC

[BostonCard]

I didn’t realize how disgraceful Miami was in the Cristobal hire.  Evidently the made the offer to Cristobal before firing Manny Diaz.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ckennedy247/status/1467542659455754243?s=21[/tweet]

Guess it’s not as bad as the guy who laid off 900 people via a zoom call, but still.

BC

---

Quick add.  Apparently, Miami was without an AD when this happened.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/aaron_torres/status/1467613472116539392?s=21[/tweet]

BC

[BostonCard]

I didn’t realize how disgraceful Miami was in the Cristobal hire.  Evidently the made the offer to Cristobal before firing Manny Diaz.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ckennedy247/status/1467542659455754243?s=21[/tweet]

Guess it’s not as bad as the guy who laid off 900 people via a zoom call, but still.

BC

---

Quick add.  Apparently, Miami was without an AD when this happened.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/aaron_torres/status/1467613472116539392?s=21[/tweet]

BC

[DC 86]

In other news, Jeff Tedford returning to Fresno State as HC.

[DC 86]

In other news, Jeff Tedford returning to Fresno State as HC.

[jacket3ree]

Don't feel too bad for Manny Diaz.  I don't know if he was HC at Temple long enough to order take-out before bolting to Coral Gables.

Miami is making a play for Clemson's AD, Dan Radakovich, who went to Clemson from GT. I'm not sure where that stands, but I've just started lunch.

Clemson is losing Venables to Oklahoma and probably Tony Elliot to either Duke or UVA with Radakovich one step behind maybe. Word on the street is that Dabo is a great CEO/motivator but leans heavily on good coordinators.  

Will it go 'round in circles?
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky?
Will it go 'round in circles?
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky?

I've got a story, ain't got no moral
Let the bad guy win every once in a while
I've got a story, ain't got no moral
Let the bad guy win every once in a while

[jacket3ree]

Don't feel too bad for Manny Diaz.  I don't know if he was HC at Temple long enough to order take-out before bolting to Coral Gables.

Miami is making a play for Clemson's AD, Dan Radakovich, who went to Clemson from GT. I'm not sure where that stands, but I've just started lunch.

Clemson is losing Venables to Oklahoma and probably Tony Elliot to either Duke or UVA with Radakovich one step behind maybe. Word on the street is that Dabo is a great CEO/motivator but leans heavily on good coordinators.  

Will it go 'round in circles?
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky?
Will it go 'round in circles?
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky?

I've got a story, ain't got no moral
Let the bad guy win every once in a while
I've got a story, ain't got no moral
Let the bad guy win every once in a while

[gailtate]

Don't feel too bad for Manny Diaz.  I don't know if he was HC at Temple long enough to order take-out before bolting to Coral Gables.

Miami is making a play for Clemson's AD, Dan Radakovich, who went to Clemson from GT. I'm not sure where that stands, but I've just started lunch.

Clemson is losing Venables to Oklahoma and probably Tony Elliot to either Duke or UVA with Radakovich one step behind maybe. Word on the street is that Dabo is a great CEO/motivator but leans heavily on good coordinators.  

Will it go 'round in circles?
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky?
Will it go 'round in circles?
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky?

I've got a story, ain't got no moral
Let the bad guy win every once in a while
I've got a story, ain't got no moral
Let the bad guy win every once in a while

MY MAN, BILLY PRESTON!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghj5V5cUo1s

[gailtate]

Don't feel too bad for Manny Diaz.  I don't know if he was HC at Temple long enough to order take-out before bolting to Coral Gables.

Miami is making a play for Clemson's AD, Dan Radakovich, who went to Clemson from GT. I'm not sure where that stands, but I've just started lunch.

Clemson is losing Venables to Oklahoma and probably Tony Elliot to either Duke or UVA with Radakovich one step behind maybe. Word on the street is that Dabo is a great CEO/motivator but leans heavily on good coordinators.  

Will it go 'round in circles?
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky?
Will it go 'round in circles?
Will it fly high like a bird up in the sky?

I've got a story, ain't got no moral
Let the bad guy win every once in a while
I've got a story, ain't got no moral
Let the bad guy win every once in a while

MY MAN, BILLY PRESTON!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghj5V5cUo1s

[JJJ]

This was so bad it was enjoyable. 

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...-pep-rally

[JJJ]

This was so bad it was enjoyable. 

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...-pep-rally

[teejers1]

This was so bad it was enjoyable. 

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...-pep-rally

the SBNation article was well-written; good, biting humor.

I'm thinking SC is in finals, and thus the tiny number of Trojan bandsters and only 3 dancers/song girls/whatever you call them.  In all events, the clip reaffirms the basic point that college bands need numbers to attain good sound.  The smaller the group, the more precise musically the musicians need to be to sound even decent (and those trumps were not precise).

Fortunately for Riley, he doesn't have to worry about the band or the pom pom girls.  He just needs to fix the football program.
Unfortunately, I think he'll succeed.

[teejers1]

This was so bad it was enjoyable. 

https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...-pep-rally

the SBNation article was well-written; good, biting humor.

I'm thinking SC is in finals, and thus the tiny number of Trojan bandsters and only 3 dancers/song girls/whatever you call them.  In all events, the clip reaffirms the basic point that college bands need numbers to attain good sound.  The smaller the group, the more precise musically the musicians need to be to sound even decent (and those trumps were not precise).

Fortunately for Riley, he doesn't have to worry about the band or the pom pom girls.  He just needs to fix the football program.
Unfortunately, I think he'll succeed.

[OutsiderFan]

If you saw this before the actual presser, the actual presser looks even worse:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/jga41agher/status/1468297411240280064[/tweet]

But USC will always choose cheesy over classy. They will always choose flash over substance. They will always choose obnoxious over humble. The worst fans I've ever seen at a live sports event were USC fans. There isn't a close second.

The name calling. The foul mouths to strangers. And the male fans were bad too.

[OutsiderFan]

If you saw this before the actual presser, the actual presser looks even worse:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/jga41agher/status/1468297411240280064[/tweet]

But USC will always choose cheesy over classy. They will always choose flash over substance. They will always choose obnoxious over humble. The worst fans I've ever seen at a live sports event were USC fans. There isn't a close second.

The name calling. The foul mouths to strangers. And the male fans were bad too.

[BobK]

Oregon has asked permission to interview Wilcox. The same Wilcox who stopped recruiting this year. Only 10 recruits all 3 stars. Oregon fans will revolt

[BobK]

Oregon has asked permission to interview Wilcox. The same Wilcox who stopped recruiting this year. Only 10 recruits all 3 stars. Oregon fans will revolt

[OutsiderFan]

Oregon has asked permission to interview Wilcox.  The same Wilcox who stopped recruiting this year.  Only 10 recruits all 3 stars.  Oregon fans will revolt

I call bullshit on this. Cal fans are the worst. No fan base has a greater sense of entitlement to ratio of accomplishments. 

Most of the fan base has been calling for Wilcox to be fired since probably the TCU loss.  The recruiting class looked like it might be decent at that point. They had a star QB and RB, as well as Jaxson Moi committed.  Late in the year thee are reports Wilcox isn't happy at Cal - and why should he be, given how impossible the school and city of Berkeley has made things on the football program - and his name is being linked to other jobs, like Oregon. Now, Cal fans are all butt hurt over the fact Wilcox is seemingly shopping himself.

The fact is Wilcox is in limbo without a contract extension at the moment and has to be looking out for his own career now. Cal has no clue what it is doing, only makes life difficult on the Head Football Coach, and everyone who knows this stuff - like Oregon fans - are well aware one's record at Cal has to be judged with a sizable grain of salt. IOW, if he were at a place like Oregon, Justin Wilcox absolutely would recruit better players, and absolutely would win a lot more than he did at Cal.

After Tedford's lousy graduation rates, Cal raised the bar on who could be recruited to the school, not even bothering to consider that better athlete support on campus and more priority on academics from the Head Coach might have increased graduation rates. Cal isn't Stanford and it loses just about every recruit it competes with Stanford for who is looking for the "40 year decision" for their college choice. Stanford fans know there are precious few top level football talents in that pool, so if Cal misses on them, they can only sign players a talent tier below what even Stanford gets.
Yet, even with lesser talent, Wilcox's team beat the tar out of Stanford this year, and has won the axe 2/3 seasons.

Wilcox would get Top 10 classes at Oregon. His teams would be physically tough and if they outperformed their talent as his Cal teams have, they will be an annual conference contender. I don't think Oregon would do any worse with Wilcox as Cristobal - who was a 27-47 Head Coach at FIU - to be honest. Wilcox arguably has a better resume now than Cristobal did when he was hired.

[OutsiderFan]

Oregon has asked permission to interview Wilcox.  The same Wilcox who stopped recruiting this year.  Only 10 recruits all 3 stars.  Oregon fans will revolt

I call bullshit on this. Cal fans are the worst. No fan base has a greater sense of entitlement to ratio of accomplishments. 

Most of the fan base has been calling for Wilcox to be fired since probably the TCU loss.  The recruiting class looked like it might be decent at that point. They had a star QB and RB, as well as Jaxson Moi committed.  Late in the year thee are reports Wilcox isn't happy at Cal - and why should he be, given how impossible the school and city of Berkeley has made things on the football program - and his name is being linked to other jobs, like Oregon. Now, Cal fans are all butt hurt over the fact Wilcox is seemingly shopping himself.

The fact is Wilcox is in limbo without a contract extension at the moment and has to be looking out for his own career now. Cal has no clue what it is doing, only makes life difficult on the Head Football Coach, and everyone who knows this stuff - like Oregon fans - are well aware one's record at Cal has to be judged with a sizable grain of salt. IOW, if he were at a place like Oregon, Justin Wilcox absolutely would recruit better players, and absolutely would win a lot more than he did at Cal.

After Tedford's lousy graduation rates, Cal raised the bar on who could be recruited to the school, not even bothering to consider that better athlete support on campus and more priority on academics from the Head Coach might have increased graduation rates. Cal isn't Stanford and it loses just about every recruit it competes with Stanford for who is looking for the "40 year decision" for their college choice. Stanford fans know there are precious few top level football talents in that pool, so if Cal misses on them, they can only sign players a talent tier below what even Stanford gets.
Yet, even with lesser talent, Wilcox's team beat the tar out of Stanford this year, and has won the axe 2/3 seasons.

Wilcox would get Top 10 classes at Oregon. His teams would be physically tough and if they outperformed their talent as his Cal teams have, they will be an annual conference contender. I don't think Oregon would do any worse with Wilcox as Cristobal - who was a 27-47 Head Coach at FIU - to be honest. Wilcox arguably has a better resume now than Cristobal did when he was hired.

[BobK]

I appreciate you Outsider are a cal fan or connected but my two Oregon friends are livid about Wilcox.

[BobK]

I appreciate you Outsider are a cal fan or connected but my two Oregon friends are livid about Wilcox.

[Giants]

I appreciate you Outsider are a cal fan or connected but my two Oregon friends are livid about Wilcox.

—-

Outside has been banging the drum for Wilcox for sometime.  Unfortunately, facts still matter and the truth is Wilcox is a mediocre head football coach.  

OTOH, BYU’s Sitake is someone who makes perfect sense for Oregon .  He has done a terrific job in Provo and is ready for a step up.  Heck, if Cal were so fortunate to see Oregon blunder into offering Wilcox, the Bears could take a big step forward by hiring Sitake.  However, given their underwhelming record of hiring head coaches, I doubt they would make that move.

[Giants]

I appreciate you Outsider are a cal fan or connected but my two Oregon friends are livid about Wilcox.

—-

Outside has been banging the drum for Wilcox for sometime.  Unfortunately, facts still matter and the truth is Wilcox is a mediocre head football coach.  

OTOH, BYU’s Sitake is someone who makes perfect sense for Oregon .  He has done a terrific job in Provo and is ready for a step up.  Heck, if Cal were so fortunate to see Oregon blunder into offering Wilcox, the Bears could take a big step forward by hiring Sitake.  However, given their underwhelming record of hiring head coaches, I doubt they would make that move.

[OutsiderFan]

Remember, Pete Carroll was USC's 7th choice.

[OutsiderFan]

Remember, Pete Carroll was USC's 7th choice.

[Giants]

Remember, Pete Carroll was USC's 7th choice.

4th Choice…

Riley, Erickson, Belotti.

https://www.espn.com/los-angeles/columns...id=4817142

[Giants]

Remember, Pete Carroll was USC's 7th choice.

4th Choice…

Riley, Erickson, Belotti.

https://www.espn.com/los-angeles/columns...id=4817142

[needle]

Wilcox + a hotshot offensive coordinator (not sure who exactly, perhaps former LSU offensive coordinator Joe Brady) would scare me as a Stanford fan.

Couldn't judge a Wilcox hire without knowing who the OC would be.

[needle]

Wilcox + a hotshot offensive coordinator (not sure who exactly, perhaps former LSU offensive coordinator Joe Brady) would scare me as a Stanford fan.

Couldn't judge a Wilcox hire without knowing who the OC would be.