Cal Strong have been saying for months now that Wilcox no seem competent. This his fifth year, and he can't even beat Nevada. And he never once have winning conference record. And worse yet, he have losing record vs. furd -- he doesn't even understand that the Big Game isn't "just another game." After five years, he does not seem to understand what the expectations are.

So Cal Strong would like to suggest a reasonable set of expectations to which the fans and alumni should hold the head coach and the Athletic administration.

• Winning conference record at least 3 times in first 5 years. This is not unreasonable, as this is just one game better than average in 3 out of the 5 years. That Wilcox has never done this once is illustrative of the expectation problems.

• Win the Big Game 4 out of every 5 years. The entire reason Cal Football exists is to decimate stanfurd. If you can't beat furd, you can't coach here. This is the most important game of the year, and the HC needs to win it or go find another job.

• Make it to Pac-12 Championship game once every 5 years. On average, each team should make it once every six years. So this is just slightly higher expectation than what an "average" coach should be able to achieve.

• If coach does the first three, he should get a five year extension. For the next 5 years, he should have to accomplish all of the above again, plus win the championship game and get us to the Rose Bowl (or whatever is in place that particular year in lieu of the Rose Bowl). Again, the norma distribution in a 12 team league is for each team is to win the league once every 12 years. But I think we should have slightly higher expectations than just "average." So it is reasonable for us to expect to make the Rose Bowl (or its equivalent) once a decade.

Please do not cite the whole weak sad-sack history. Just look at strong arguments here and engage them. If you disagree with these expectations, what is the reason? Why should Cal expect weaker than average, given our strong location, strong facilities, strong academic reputation, etc..?

Cal Strong! said:

---

Cal Strong have been saying for months now that Wilcox no seem competent. This his fifth year, and he can't even beat Nevada. And he never once have winning conference record. And worse yet, he have losing record vs. furd -- he doesn't even understand that the Big Game isn't "just another game." After five years, he does not seem to understand what the expectations are.

So Cal Strong would like to suggest a reasonable set of expectations to which the fans and alumni should hold the head coach and the Athletic administration.

• Winning conference record at least 3 times in first 5 years. This is not unreasonable, as this is just one game better than average in 3 out of the 5 years. That Wilcox has never done this once is illustrative of the expectation problems.

• Win the Big Game 4 out of every 5 years. The entire reason Cal Football exists is to decimate stanfurd. If you can't beat furd, you can't coach here. This is the most important game of the year, and the HC needs to win it or go find another job.

• Make it to Pac-12 Championship game once every 5 years. On average, each team should make it once every six years. So this is just slightly higher expectation than what an "average" coach should be able to achieve.

• If coach does the first three, he should get a five year extension. For the next 5 years, he should have to accomplish all of the above again, plus win the championship game and get us to the Rose Bowl (or whatever is in place that particular year in lieu of the Rose Bowl). Again, the norma distribution in a 12 team league is for each team is to win the league once every 12 years. But I think we should have slightly higher expectations than just "average." So it is reasonable for us to expect to make the Rose Bowl (or its equivalent) once a decade.

Please do not cite the whole weak sad-sack history. Just look at strong arguments here and engage them. If you disagree with these expectations, what is the reason? Why should Cal expect weaker than average, given our strong location, strong facilities, strong academic reputation, etc..?

---

Well, for one thing, many strong hs players are not interested in strong academics. We compete with the Furds, NWs, Dukes, VAs for the small number who do.

Cal Strong! said:

---

Cal Strong have been saying for months now that Wilcox no seem competent. This his fifth year, and he can't even beat Nevada. And he never once have winning conference record. And worse yet, he have losing record vs. furd -- he doesn't even understand that the Big Game isn't "just another game." After five years, he does not seem to understand what the expectations are.

So Cal Strong would like to suggest a reasonable set of expectations to which the fans and alumni should hold the head coach and the Athletic administration.

• Winning conference record at least 3 times in first 5 years. This is not unreasonable, as this is just one game better than average in 3 out of the 5 years. That Wilcox has never done this once is illustrative of the expectation problems.

• Win the Big Game 4 out of every 5 years. The entire reason Cal Football exists is to decimate stanfurd. If you can't beat furd, you can't coach here. This is the most important game of the year, and the HC needs to win it or go find another job.

• Make it to Pac-12 Championship game once every 5 years. On average, each team should make it once every six years. So this is just slightly higher expectation than what an "average" coach should be able to achieve.

• If coach does the first three, he should get a five year extension. For the next 5 years, he should have to accomplish all of the above again, plus win the championship game and get us to the Rose Bowl (or whatever is in place that particular year in lieu of the Rose Bowl). Again, the norma distribution in a 12 team league is for each team is to win the league once every 12 years. But I think we should have slightly higher expectations than just "average." So it is reasonable for us to expect to make the Rose Bowl (or its equivalent) once a decade.

Please do not cite the whole weak sad-sack history. Just look at strong arguments here and engage them. If you disagree with these expectations, what is the reason? Why should Cal expect weaker than average, given our strong location, strong facilities, strong academic reputation, etc..?

---

College football isn't based on averages. It is based on dynasties. Unlike pro football, where policies support parity, the NCAA benefits from the same 15 teams winning every year. One of the those, USC, is in the pac-12. In recent years, largely because of Phil Knight and Nike, Oregon has joined the club. There are other pac-12 teams that cycle in and out (Furd and Washington). Furd, a private school has more financial resources to throw into football than Cal does. Washington is a team that Cal has been successful against.

Citing history is not sad sack. If historically it does not work to try pounding a square peg into a round hole, than it is relevant to mention that when someone is trying to do that. You are trying to pound a square peg into a round hole and therefore your expectations of success are ridiculous.

That does not mean that Cal is not open to criticism and that we should not have expectations. Here would be a reasonable set of expectations based on reality:

• Cal should beat UCLA at least 50% of the time. Historically that has not happened.
• We should be able to get a really good starting QB and that QB should be very very good as a returning senior starter. During Cal's very mediocre decade of the 1980, Cal was able to repeatedly land top QBs. All the way up through the Tedford years we had some of the best QBs in the pac-12. But not in the last decade have we done that. Why?
• We should almost never lose to Oregon St.
• We should almost never lose to Arizona
• We should be able to retain good coaches and keep them for over 5 years. That means we need to have a culture that sells Cal to good coaches. Really it is quite the opposite right now. Virtually no coach sees Cal is the end job of his career. It is a 4 or 5 year step to something better. Even Oregon St. has more stability at HC. With a few years of exceptions OSU has made Erickson, Riley and Smith over a span of 3 decades.
• We need an HC that is committed to success on both sides of the ball at the same time, including STs.

These are the type of issues that affect Cal's overall success. I was a season ticket holder for nearly a decade. But I stopped supporting Cal because of these things. And I will not go back because I don't expect Cal to change. Because basically Cal doesn't want to.

With regard to your son that played QB last night, why didn't you name him Lovelock instead of Carson?

Coach Wilcox and Coach Musgrave need to eat more ful mudammas and learn to make game play offense adjustments.

Yogidamus said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

Cal Strong have been saying for months now that Wilcox no seem competent. This his fifth year, and he can't even beat Nevada. And he never once have winning conference record. And worse yet, he have losing record vs. furd -- he doesn't even understand that the Big Game isn't "just another game." After five years, he does not seem to understand what the expectations are.

So Cal Strong would like to suggest a reasonable set of expectations to which the fans and alumni should hold the head coach and the Athletic administration.

• Winning conference record at least 3 times in first 5 years. This is not unreasonable, as this is just one game better than average in 3 out of the 5 years. That Wilcox has never done this once is illustrative of the expectation problems.

• Win the Big Game 4 out of every 5 years. The entire reason Cal Football exists is to decimate stanfurd. If you can't beat furd, you can't coach here. This is the most important game of the year, and the HC needs to win it or go find another job.

• Make it to Pac-12 Championship game once every 5 years. On average, each team should make it once every six years. So this is just slightly higher expectation than what an "average" coach should be able to achieve.

• If coach does the first three, he should get a five year extension. For the next 5 years, he should have to accomplish all of the above again, plus win the championship game and get us to the Rose Bowl (or whatever is in place that particular year in lieu of the Rose Bowl). Again, the norma distribution in a 12 team league is for each team is to win the league once every 12 years. But I think we should have slightly higher expectations than just "average." So it is reasonable for us to expect to make the Rose Bowl (or its equivalent) once a decade.

Please do not cite the whole weak sad-sack history. Just look at strong arguments here and engage them. If you disagree with these expectations, what is the reason? Why should Cal expect weaker than average, given our strong location, strong facilities, strong academic reputation, etc..?

---

Cal Strong! posting STRONG post. Offensive game plan soft as baby poop and smell worse. Need to get STRONG smoothie program ASAP and get STRONG coach that can win games.

---

It is said that there are heartless coaches and players' coaches. For example, Chip comes across as a heartless coach. JW comes across more as a players' coach. I'm thinkin' the TCU game will give us evidence to decide if I'm right.

Strong offensive line and 400 pound full back. Run Strong up the middle every high diddle diddle touch down.

heartofthebear said:

---

College football isn't based on averages. It is based on dynasties. Unlike pro football, where policies support parity, the NCAA benefits from the same 15 teams winning every year. One of the those, USC, is in the pac-12. In recent years, largely because of Phil Knight and Nike, Oregon has joined the club. There are other pac-12 teams that cycle in and out (Furd and Washington). Furd, a private school has more financial resources to throw into football than Cal does. Washington is a team that Cal has been successful against.

Citing history is not sad sack. If historically it does not work to try pounding a square peg into a round hole, than it is relevant to mention that when someone is trying to do that. You are trying to pound a square peg into a round hole and therefore your expectations of success are ridiculous.

That does not mean that Cal is not open to criticism and that we should not have expectations. Here would be a reasonable set of expectations based on reality:

• Cal should beat UCLA at least 50% of the time. Historically that has not happened.
• We should be able to get a really good starting QB and that QB should be very very good as a returning senior starter. During Cal's very mediocre decade of the 1980, Cal was able to repeatedly land top QBs. All the way up through the Tedford years we had some of the best QBs in the pac-12. But not in the last decade have we done that. Why?
• We should almost never lose to Oregon St.
• We should almost never lose to Arizona
• We should be able to retain good coaches and keep them for over 5 years. That means we need to have a culture that sells Cal to good coaches. Really it is quite the opposite right now. Virtually no coach sees Cal is the end job of his career. It is a 4 or 5 year step to something better. Even Oregon St. has more stability at HC. With a few years of exceptions OSU has made Erickson, Riley and Smith over a span of 3 decades.
• We need an HC that is committed to success on both sides of the ball at the same time, including STs.

These are the type of issues that affect Cal's overall success. I was a season ticket holder for nearly a decade. But I stopped supporting Cal because of these things. And I will not go back because I don't expect Cal to change. Because basically Cal doesn't want to.

---

WSU most disadvantaged team in conference. Weak school. Weak location. Weak recruiting potential. But they recently had 7-2 winning conference record.

This is strong use of history. This show that weaker teams can have winning records. Cal no do this under Dykes or Wilcox. Why? Because there are no strong expectations.

Someone has to win and someone has to lose every game. In order to have winning conference record, you just need to win one more time than you lose. These expectations not "ridiculous." They very basic.

If a coach can't win more than he lose, we should fire him. If he can't have a single winning conference record in 5 years, we should fire him. If he can't beat furd on consistent basis, we should fire him. These very basic expectations.

Agreed

Cal Strong! said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

College football isn't based on averages. It is based on dynasties. Unlike pro football, where policies support parity, the NCAA benefits from the same 15 teams winning every year. One of the those, USC, is in the pac-12. In recent years, largely because of Phil Knight and Nike, Oregon has joined the club. There are other pac-12 teams that cycle in and out (Furd and Washington). Furd, a private school has more financial resources to throw into football than Cal does. Washington is a team that Cal has been successful against.

Citing history is not sad sack. If historically it does not work to try pounding a square peg into a round hole, than it is relevant to mention that when someone is trying to do that. You are trying to pound a square peg into a round hole and therefore your expectations of success are ridiculous.

That does not mean that Cal is not open to criticism and that we should not have expectations. Here would be a reasonable set of expectations based on reality:

• Cal should beat UCLA at least 50% of the time. Historically that has not happened.
• We should be able to get a really good starting QB and that QB should be very very good as a returning senior starter. During Cal's very mediocre decade of the 1980, Cal was able to repeatedly land top QBs. All the way up through the Tedford years we had some of the best QBs in the pac-12. But not in the last decade have we done that. Why?
• We should almost never lose to Oregon St.
• We should almost never lose to Arizona
• We should be able to retain good coaches and keep them for over 5 years. That means we need to have a culture that sells Cal to good coaches. Really it is quite the opposite right now. Virtually no coach sees Cal is the end job of his career. It is a 4 or 5 year step to something better. Even Oregon St. has more stability at HC. With a few years of exceptions OSU has made Erickson, Riley and Smith over a span of 3 decades.
• We need an HC that is committed to success on both sides of the ball at the same time, including STs.

These are the type of issues that affect Cal's overall success. I was a season ticket holder for nearly a decade. But I stopped supporting Cal because of these things. And I will not go back because I don't expect Cal to change. Because basically Cal doesn't want to.

---

WSU most disadvantaged team in conference. Weak school. Weak location. Weak recruiting potential. But they recently had 7-2 winning conference record.

This is strong use of history. This show that weaker teams can have winning records. Cal no do this under Dykes or Wilcox. Why? Because there are no strong expectations.

Someone has to win and someone has to lose every game. In order to have winning conference record, you just need to win one more time than you lose. These expectations not "ridiculous." They very basic.

If a coach can't win more than he lose, we should fire him. If he can't have a single winning conference record in 5 years, we should fire him. If he can't beat furd on consistent basis, we should fire him. These very basic expectations.

---

WSU doesn't have to play USC and UCLA every single year. If we had a conference schedule free of those 2, we could probably go 7-2 every once in a while. And, cherry picking is "weak". Of course you can find examples. It does not have to do with expectations. The expectations at WSU are not greater than at Cal. However, I do think it is about leadership and Leach is a better leader than most coaches we've had. Expectations based on results do not represent good leadership. Expectations based on performance does represent good leadership. If we get beat by Nevada even though we played well, that is different than getting beat by Nevada the way we did yesterday. Players should be held accountable for the way they played, not the end result.

You seem to be results oriented not process oriented. So, for you, there is no need to get better if you win. But the process of getting better is ongoing regardless of results. Hiring and firing college coaches because of a bunch of external signposts is ridiculous. Hiring and firing coaches based on how well their team plays makes sense.

I am ready to say that I think Wilcox is not getting it done when it comes to the coaching on offense. And the clock is ticking. Is he as bad as Dykes was with the defense? No. At least Wilcox has had some serviceable offensive performances and at least we are now recruiting decently on offense. We have better depth on OL than Dykes ever had at any defensive position. But Wilcox is showing that he cannot hold his OC accountable and help make the offense better himself. He is completely unable to improve our offense and it is starting to become obvious.

Cal Strong, what relation you to Nevada QB Carson Strong?

heartofthebear said:

---

WSU doesn't have to play USC and UCLA every single year. If we had a conference schedule free of those 2, we could probably go 7-2 every once in a while. And, cherry picking is "weak". Of course you can find examples. It does not have to do with expectations. The expectations at WSU are not greater than at Cal. However, I do think it is about leadership and Leach is a better leader than most coaches we've had. Expectations based on results do not represent good leadership. Expectations based on performance does represent good leadership. If we get beat by Nevada even though we played well, that is different than getting beat by Nevada the way we did yesterday. Players should be held accountable for the way they played, not the end result.

You seem to be results oriented not process oriented. So, for you, there is no need to get better if you win. But the process of getting better is ongoing regardless of results. Hiring and firing college coaches because of a bunch of external signposts is ridiculous. Hiring and firing coaches based on how well their team plays makes sense.

I am ready to say that I think Wilcox is not getting it done when it comes to the coaching on offense. And the clock is ticking. Is he as bad as Dykes was with the defense? No. At least Wilcox has had some serviceable offensive performances and at least we are now recruiting decently on offense. We have better depth on OL than Dykes ever had at any defensive position. But Wilcox is showing that he cannot hold his OC accountable and help make the offense better himself. He is completely unable to improve our offense and it is starting to become obvious.

---

UCLA has not been a scary or dangerous team in decades. They are just another Pac team. WSU played USC during their recent 7-2 year.

stanfurd plays the same conference schedule that we do. They play strong OOC schedule. But they make it to multiple Rose Bowls.

This isn't cherry picking. This is saying there no reason Cal can't perform as well as stanfurd. The main reason we have a football program in the first place is to establish another forum in which we can humiliate stanfurd. Furd stunk for a very long time. Their weak, whiney fans made the same excuses I see here. But then they hired two good head coaches and things turned around fast. There no reason Cal can't do same thing.

Seriously . . . and strongly . . . why can't we expect a coach to beat Nevada after 5 years? Why can't we expect a coach to win one more game than he loses in conference every year?

And why can't we expect to win and keep the damn axe!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone who does not have these expectations WEAK!!!!!!!!

Cal Strong! said:

---

Seriously . . . and strongly . . . why can't we expect a coach to beat Nevada after 5 years? Why can't we expect a coach to win one more game than he loses in conference every year?

And why can't we expect to win and keep the damn axe!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone who does not have these expectations WEAK!!!!!!!!

---

Along the same line, why can't Cal lines, esp DL, play with the fire that Utah's lines do? They always have their hair on fire. What prevents our guys from playing that way? Maybe it's a City of Berkeley ordnance, but we need that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Strong

Rushinbear said:

---

Along the same line, why can't Cal lines, esp DL, play with the fire that Utah's lines do? They always have their hair on fire. What prevents our guys from playing that way? Maybe it's a City of Berkeley ordnance, but we need that.

---

Strong post, Rushinbear! There absolutely no structural obstacle to Cal having better and more aggressive line play. No university administrator, city official, or tree sitter went out and told our guys to play weak. It is just a matter of players and coaches doing what they are supposed to do.

Cal Strong! said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

Along the same line, why can't Cal lines, esp DL, play with the fire that Utah's lines do? They always have their hair on fire. What prevents our guys from playing that way? Maybe it's a City of Berkeley ordnance, but we need that.

---

Strong post, Rushinbear! There absolutely no structural obstacle to Cal having better and more aggressive line play. No university administrator, city official, or tree sitter went out and told our guys to play weak. It is just a matter of players and coaches doing what they are supposed to do.

---

Can you imagine JW yelling at his D line the way Norvell did to his last week? He set the bench on fire..and his players.That and stacking the box shut down our running.

Cal Strong! said:

---

Seriously . . . and strongly . . . why can't we expect a coach to beat Nevada after 5 years? Why can't we expect a coach to win one more game than he loses in conference every year?

And why can't we expect to win and keep the damn axe!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone who does not have these expectations WEAK!!!!!!!!

---

Did you just break character?!?

Agreed though.

We should stop scheduling Nevada.

Nevada is a good team (with a very good QB and receivers) and it was a pretty close loss. Cal Strong (and may other posters here) exhibiting some regional elitist biases!

May I remind everyone that Washington (who some were picking to go undefeated) lost to Montana 13-7. And Washington State lost to Utah State 26-23. And the Furd lost to Kansas State 24-7.

We should take a cue from Oregon who lost 3 of their last 4 games in 2020 and didn't look great against Fresno State but still act like they are world beaters. I guess we have very high standards, which is good. But fan meltdowns (I'm not speaking of you Cal Strong) are unbecoming and counterproductive.

It would be nice to have a head coach meet that criteria. However history is still pertinent. How many past coaches would meet that criteria? I don't know. Maybe someone with time could do an analysis. Did tedford meet it. Snyder was on his way. 3 star players even in this year and excellent recruiters. But are the coaches excellent coaches and are the players good enough. Food for thought

Cal Strong! said:

---

Seriously . . . and strongly . . . why can't we expect a coach to beat Nevada after 5 years? Why can't we expect a coach to win one more game than he loses in conference every year?

And why can't we expect to win and keep the damn axe!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone who does not have these expectations WEAK!!!!!!!!

---

You do realize don't you that changing coaches will further set back the players. The players need about 2 years in a system to be able to accomplish the better aspects of that and become competitive. It is a catch 22 because, if you don't fire ineffective coaches quickly, it slows down the process and keeps the team in mediocrity longer but if you fire them, you still have to wait at least 2 years for results. Some would argue that the reason for the things you complain about is because we did change coaches. We have a relatively new OC and we have brand new position coaches on offense and defense.

To perform well, players need good coaching, but they also need a consistent scheme. With most players only playing about 3 years of college ball, you can really ruin a kid's football career by changing coaches.

So it is something that needs to be handled with nuance and precision.

Wilcox has suffered from a bad OC and probably a second bad OC. If we fire him, it does not mean that we have hired a good OC. It just means we no longer have a good defensive coach. This is what happened with Dykes. We fired Dykes in order to get defense. But then we lost the offense.

We need to stop the merry-go-round and focus on what is important---fixing the offense. I would suggest that we hire a really good OC that has a track record of getting quick results and we pay the price. Tony Franklin, for example, go quick results, although his system is not a system that has long term success in the pac-12 because it compromises the defense. But there are guys out there that can turn an offense around quickly.

If...

• ...it continues to appear that Musgrave is stunting Garbers abilities
• and the Cal offense remains flat
• then we should think about removing Musgrave more sooner than later (whatever that means)
• and Wilcox as well if he fails to remove Musgrave.

But keep in mind that I'm not sure that Wilcox has 100% authority on hiring and firing. And he certainly can't hire coaches that are more expensive than Cal wants to pay.

Ultimately your gripes really go to administrative issues as much as coaching.
If Cal is only budgeting for another Wilcox, another Dykes, another Musgrave etc. etc. etc., then firing them is going to do absolutely nothing to address your issues. And that is what history has shown.

Cal got lucky with JT. That ship has sailed. Before that we had Snyder and Cal drove him out. Before that we had White but he had issues. Those coaching eras made up about 20 years of the last 60. Consistently throughout all of those eras we have had mostly mediocre coaches purchased on a budget. And, if the HC was paid, his assistants weren't. Compare that with the best programs in the pac-12. Furd, USC, UCLA, Oregon & Washington pay for coaches. ASU is good this year but they are at about Cal's level otherwise. Utah got lucky with Wittingham. He is essentially their JT.

We have consistently let the best coaches go in order to "get promoted". The apologists that call themselves moderators are constantly reminding us of this lie---that the better coaches leave because of promotions. They leave because coaching at Cal does not compensate them well enough for the amount of stress they have to endure with this program--which doesn't give them the resources they need to be successful (meaning other good coaches).

To be a good program EVERY coach needs to be great and well compensated, not one, not some, not most but every single one. And they all need to be retained so that the players can have enough continuity to get to the upper levels of the system. Otherwise, they are just bouncing around from one system to another and never developing. That is the problem with Garbers, with the receivers, with the DBs, with Cal.

Rushinbear said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

Along the same line, why can't Cal lines, esp DL, play with the fire that Utah's lines do? They always have their hair on fire. What prevents our guys from playing that way? Maybe it's a City of Berkeley ordnance, but we need that.

---

Strong post, Rushinbear! There absolutely no structural obstacle to Cal having better and more aggressive line play. No university administrator, city official, or tree sitter went out and told our guys to play weak. It is just a matter of players and coaches doing what they are supposed to do.

---

Can you imagine JW yelling at his D line the way Norvell did to his last week? He set the bench on fire..and his players.That and stacking the box shut down our running.

---

Wilcox rarely engages with the players on the sideline. He seems to be in his own world chatting with assistants over the head phone as he struts up and down the sideline. I would love to see him show more emotion and get after players in both a positive and critical manner.

Sather Tower said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

To perform well, players need good coaching, but they also need a consistent scheme. With most players only playing about 3 years of college ball, you can really ruin a kid's football career by changing coaches.

So it is something that needs to be handled with nuance and precision.

Wilcox has suffered from a bad OC and probably a second bad OC. If we fire him, it does not mean that we have hired a good OC. It just means we no longer have a good defensive coach. This is what happened with Dykes. We fired Dykes in order to get defense. But then we lost the offense.

We need to stop the merry-go-round and focus on what is important---fixing the offense.

---

I don't subscribe to this thinking. The problem with the defense under Dykes wasn't the defensive coordinator, it was Dykes. Similarly, the problem with Wilcox isn't the offensive coordinator, it's Wilcox.

If you keep Wilcox, Wilcox will still be the same guy that chained Beau Baldwin and hired Musgrave. He isn't going to suddenly change into a different person that will hire a guy to run a higher powered offense. He will still want to control the ball and be safe in the passing game and that doesn't win at a high level in a major conference anymore.

What you want is an athletic director that you can trust to hire good head coaches and provide them with the resources they need to hire good coaching staffs. Unfortunately, we have an athletic director that hired a search firm that told him to hire a retread low ceiling basketball coach and bad football and basketball coaches. The only fix is to get the right people in those positions and get rid of the academic requirements that serve nobody other than the faculty and their dislike of major intercollegiate sports.

Since athletic directors tend to have the most job security of any athletic department position, we're going to have issues for several years until the money people cut off the spigot for Knowlton and demand change.

---

The irony in all of this is that we are criticizing an offense for being chained precisely following a game where they tried to throw when they should have continued to run. It seems that the problem was not that they were too chained, but they tried too hard to open things up when they shouldn't have. If Wilcox demands his OCs run a ball control offense to help his defense, why didn't he continue to run the ball? He claims he did continue to run the ball, but the stats say he didn't, even though it remained successful in the second half.

So, your theory about Wilcox isn't matched by recent history...I think---you see I missed the entire second half and had to rely on Starkey and the comments here to fill in the blanks. The feed froze right before half time and never unfroze. But, according to what has been reported, Cal failed to run as often as they should of. And Garbers attempted 38 passes. I will try to watch the game on replay.

fat_slice said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

Seriously . . . and strongly . . . why can't we expect a coach to beat Nevada after 5 years? Why can't we expect a coach to win one more game than he loses in conference every year?

And why can't we expect to win and keep the damn axe!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone who does not have these expectations WEAK!!!!!!!!

---

Did you just break character?!?

---

He broke character in the first post when he didn't refer to all of us as Kemosabe.

Cal Strong! said:

---

Cal Strong have been saying for months now that Wilcox no seem competent. This his fifth year, and he can't even beat Nevada. And he never once have winning conference record. And worse yet, he have losing record vs. furd -- he doesn't even understand that the Big Game isn't "just another game." After five years, he does not seem to understand what the expectations are.

So Cal Strong would like to suggest a reasonable set of expectations to which the fans and alumni should hold the head coach and the Athletic administration.

• Winning conference record at least 3 times in first 5 years. This is not unreasonable, as this is just one game better than average in 3 out of the 5 years. That Wilcox has never done this once is illustrative of the expectation problems.

• Win the Big Game 4 out of every 5 years. The entire reason Cal Football exists is to decimate stanfurd. If you can't beat furd, you can't coach here. This is the most important game of the year, and the HC needs to win it or go find another job.

• Make it to Pac-12 Championship game once every 5 years. On average, each team should make it once every six years. So this is just slightly higher expectation than what an "average" coach should be able to achieve.

• If coach does the first three, he should get a five year extension. For the next 5 years, he should have to accomplish all of the above again, plus win the championship game and get us to the Rose Bowl (or whatever is in place that particular year in lieu of the Rose Bowl). Again, the norma distribution in a 12 team league is for each team is to win the league once every 12 years. But I think we should have slightly higher expectations than just "average." So it is reasonable for us to expect to make the Rose Bowl (or its equivalent) once a decade.

Please do not cite the whole weak sad-sack history. Just look at strong arguments here and engage them. If you disagree with these expectations, what is the reason? Why should Cal expect weaker than average, given our strong location, strong facilities, strong academic reputation, etc..?

---

I mashed out a post about how CAL had beaten Stanford 4/5 times(or better) once in 60 years and decided not to submit it. Didn't want to appear unreasonable.

ducktilldeath said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

Cal Strong have been saying for months now that Wilcox no seem competent. This his fifth year, and he can't even beat Nevada. And he never once have winning conference record. And worse yet, he have losing record vs. furd -- he doesn't even understand that the Big Game isn't "just another game." After five years, he does not seem to understand what the expectations are.

So Cal Strong would like to suggest a reasonable set of expectations to which the fans and alumni should hold the head coach and the Athletic administration.

• Winning conference record at least 3 times in first 5 years. This is not unreasonable, as this is just one game better than average in 3 out of the 5 years. That Wilcox has never done this once is illustrative of the expectation problems.

• Win the Big Game 4 out of every 5 years. The entire reason Cal Football exists is to decimate stanfurd. If you can't beat furd, you can't coach here. This is the most important game of the year, and the HC needs to win it or go find another job.

• Make it to Pac-12 Championship game once every 5 years. On average, each team should make it once every six years. So this is just slightly higher expectation than what an "average" coach should be able to achieve.

• If coach does the first three, he should get a five year extension. For the next 5 years, he should have to accomplish all of the above again, plus win the championship game and get us to the Rose Bowl (or whatever is in place that particular year in lieu of the Rose Bowl). Again, the norma distribution in a 12 team league is for each team is to win the league once every 12 years. But I think we should have slightly higher expectations than just "average." So it is reasonable for us to expect to make the Rose Bowl (or its equivalent) once a decade.

Please do not cite the whole weak sad-sack history. Just look at strong arguments here and engage them. If you disagree with these expectations, what is the reason? Why should Cal expect weaker than average, given our strong location, strong facilities, strong academic reputation, etc..?

---

I mashed out a post about how CAL had beaten Stanford 4/5 times(or better) once in 60 years and decided not to submit it. Didn't want to appear unreasonable.

---

But this happen under Tedford. He show that history don't determine future. He just go out there and crush stanfurd almost every year . . . like he supposed to do.

Then history was on Cal's side. But Harbaugh no care about recent history. He just go out and beat Cal . . . like his weak bosses want him to do.

Good coaches no care about history. They just find way to win. They can do it strong academic schools or weak schools.

If a coach can't win at Cal, then we should not be paying him millions per year. Losers can live off $70k and a 20% discount on all Cal athletic gear. Rose Bowl winners deserve $20m bonus.

Sather Tower said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

---

To perform well, players need good coaching, but they also need a consistent scheme. With most players only playing about 3 years of college ball, you can really ruin a kid's football career by changing coaches.

So it is something that needs to be handled with nuance and precision.

Wilcox has suffered from a bad OC and probably a second bad OC. If we fire him, it does not mean that we have hired a good OC. It just means we no longer have a good defensive coach. This is what happened with Dykes. We fired Dykes in order to get defense. But then we lost the offense.

We need to stop the merry-go-round and focus on what is important---fixing the offense.

---

I don't subscribe to this thinking. The problem with the defense under Dykes wasn't the defensive coordinator, it was Dykes. Similarly, the problem with Wilcox isn't the offensive coordinator, it's Wilcox.

If you keep Wilcox, Wilcox will still be the same guy that chained Beau Baldwin and hired Musgrave. He isn't going to suddenly change into a different person that will hire a guy to run a higher powered offense. He will still want to control the ball and be safe in the passing game and that doesn't win at a high level in a major conference anymore.

What you want is an athletic director that you can trust to hire good head coaches and provide them with the resources they need to hire good coaching staffs. Unfortunately, we have an athletic director that hired a search firm that told him to hire a retread low ceiling basketball coach and bad football and basketball coaches. The only fix is to get the right people in those positions and get rid of the academic requirements that serve nobody other than the faculty and their dislike of major intercollegiate sports.

Since athletic directors tend to have the most job security of any athletic department position, we're going to have issues for several years until the money people cut off the spigot for Knowlton and demand change.

---

Knowlton just got an 8 year contract extension. I doubt anyone else in the athletic department even has a contract, much less an 8 year contract. We are stuck with him.

Our best hope is that Musgrave figures out a good offense for us and Wilcox becomes a good HC.

Wilcox just became the first Cal coach in 20 years (since Holmoe) to go 0-2. This is what happens when coaches do not have clear expectations. Meanwhile, his former DC (whom Wilcox recently demoted in favor of his weak bro) just beat Ohio State.

These are strong expectations for the California head coach. For those who disagree with them, what are your expectations?

• Winning conference record at least 3 times in first 5 years. This is not unreasonable, as this is just one game better than average in 3 out of the 5 years. That Wilcox has never done this once is illustrative of the expectation problems.

• Win the Big Game 4 out of every 5 years. The entire reason Cal Football exists is to decimate stanfurd. If you can't beat furd, you can't coach here. This is the most important game of the year, and the HC needs to win it or go find another job.

• Make it to Pac-12 Championship game once every 5 years. On average, each team should make it once every six years. So this is just slightly higher expectation than what an "average" coach should be able to achieve.

• If coach does the first three, he should get a five year extension. For the next 5 years, he should have to accomplish all of the above again, plus win the championship game and get us to the Rose Bowl (or whatever is in place that particular year in lieu of the Rose Bowl). Again, the norma distribution in a 12 team league is for each team is to win the league once every 12 years. But I think we should have slightly higher expectations than just "average." So it is reasonable for us to expect to make the Rose Bowl (or its equivalent) once a decade.

Our Bears beat the spread v TCu

Weak expectations (Cal): just give it a good effort and keep APRs at respectable level.
Strong expectations (usc): If you lose to stanfurd, you're fired.

I will say I appreciate Cal Strong using complete sentences and regular sentence structure here.

The issue with firing Wilcox, or any of our post football coaches, is the buyout. It's again large enough that it absolutely impacts the compensation available for the next hire. At this point, it's better to ride with Wilcox for two more seasons than to hire again on the cheap.

If someone wants to be Cal's Uncle Phil and actually fund the coaching staff like a top 25 team from the start, then it's a different story. Otherwise Cal is selectong from up and comers passed over by programs with money, and from those with past Cal affiliations with hopes that either: A) they will 'do us a solid' with a below market salary, or B) they are underrated nationally but the Cal administration/community believe they are smarter and can see differently due to that past affiliation (yeah somewhat wishful thinking).

ducktilldeath said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

...

---

I mashed out a post about how CAL had beaten Stanford 4/5 times(or better) once in 60 years and decided not to submit it. Didn't want to appear unreasonable.

---

You're absolutely right, it has almost never happened. But since I recall another poster saying that technically correct is the best kind of correct, I thought I'd technically correct you. Here are the Big Games after which you could say that Cal was 4/5 or 5/5 in their last 5 games against Stanford:

2009 (Tedford)
2008 (Tedford)
2007 (Tedford - even though we lost in 2007, we had won the previous 4)
2006 (Tedford)
2005 (Tedford)
1983 (Kapp) (more recent than 60 years - Cal beat Stanford in 1979, 1980, 1982, 1983)

Congrats to your team beating the Buckeyes in their house while missing the best defensive player in the conference if not all of CFB. That was nails.

ducktilldeath said:

---

I mashed out a post about how CAL had beaten Stanford 4/5 times(or better) once in 60 years and decided not to submit it. Didn't want to appear unreasonable.

---

Tedford didn't care about that history, he just went out and did it.

Harbaugh didn't care about Tedford's history, he just went out and won.

joe amos yaks said:

---

Our Bears beat the spread v TCu

---

The spread reflected our loss to Nevada. I do think we are about as good as TCU, better from the player standpoint but we were outcoached. Patterson is definitely good coach, 2x National Coach of the Year. . I envy the Horned Toads' 2011 Rose Bowl win over Wisconsin.