While UCLA probably wins the "does the least with more" crown in the PAC hands down, Cal has got to be the leading contender for the "does the least with the most obvious potential" and "shoots oneself in the foot" awards. There is a real self-hate thing going on in Berkeley, and has been for generations. Lots of self-inflicted guilt and angst. Just my non-scientific opinion from 37 years of observation, but I'd guess that close to a third of the faculty WANTS athletic failure for one reason or another (the reasons are diverse; probably more so than the campus) and actively pursues that agenda. Makes for some big hurdles for any coaching staff to try to overcome.
The right coach could build a powerhouse at Cal. But the right coach is unlikely to ever be identified by the search committee, and even if he were identified, would be unlikely to accept the job offer. Too many easier places to succeed. I think their only chance is to roll the dice with a younger guy who has made a splash and hope the guy proves out. Because anyone high profile enough to be the obvious right guy will take a job elsewhere rather than fight the battles that would need to be fought in order to build a program at Cal.
The ideal candidate would probably be a Cal grad; early-mid 30's; 2-4 years of pro experience; committed to coaching; decent recruiter, but better football mind and manager; and would have served an apprenticeship for a really good coach in a power 5 conference. Would have been an O or D coordinator for a couple of years (could not be longer than that or he would be older), and have done well but have a limited track record.
JMHO, but I don't see any other realistic possibilities for success in Berkeley. The rest go there with high hopes but die of blood loss from the hundreds of small cuts and thrusts that in most cases are not visible at the time that they draw blood.
