LunchTime said:

---

BadNewsBear1 said:

---

Spend all the NIL money on the buyout. Please.

---

NIL money for NIL is a terrible investment in the program.

We don't have a talent issue. We have a coaching issue.

---

An offensive line would be nice

falseintellect said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

falseintellect said:

---

bluehenbear said:

---

I don't know how the team comes back from this loss. We are emotionally and physically spent and now have to travel to Pitt and play another team that has figured out how to win. It's going to be ugly.

---

We'll grind out 5-6 more wins against a slate of mostly medicore teams and maybe win a bottom tier bowl game for 7-8 win season. THat's a great success for Wilcox and all he really strives for.

---

Where do you see 5-6 wins coming from?

Pitt is quite good. Syracuse also has talent. NC State we probably win. Wake is also good. I see two wins. Stanford and Oregon State. After a game like this, somebody phone Tony Robbins.

---

Depends, if the players lose interest after they realize they are coached by morons we might fall apart. But if the team is still locked in then none of those teams are as good as Miami or as talented as FSU so we can do it. It will be a grind.

---

this team will be physically and emotionally drained going into next week and student interest will plummet. We have a history of entering into losing streaks after emotional losses

dimitrig said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

BadNewsBear1 said:

---

Spend all the NIL money on the buyout. Please.

---

NIL money for NIL is a terrible investment in the program.

We don't have a talent issue. We have a coaching issue.

---

An offensive line would be nice

---

This. Mendoza was getting mauled and probably concussed. One face mask, another uncalled and an egregious uncalled targeting. Does our oline not like Fernando?

I still do not understand what "targeting" is supposed to be. The most inconsistently called rule in football.

DoubtfulBear said:

---

falseintellect said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

falseintellect said:

---

bluehenbear said:

---

I don't know how the team comes back from this loss. We are emotionally and physically spent and now have to travel to Pitt and play another team that has figured out how to win. It's going to be ugly.

---

We'll grind out 5-6 more wins against a slate of mostly medicore teams and maybe win a bottom tier bowl game for 7-8 win season. THat's a great success for Wilcox and all he really strives for.

---

Where do you see 5-6 wins coming from?

Pitt is quite good. Syracuse also has talent. NC State we probably win. Wake is also good. I see two wins. Stanford and Oregon State. After a game like this, somebody phone Tony Robbins.

---

Depends, if the players lose interest after they realize they are coached by morons we might fall apart. But if the team is still locked in then none of those teams are as good as Miami or as talented as FSU so we can do it. It will be a grind.

---

this team will be physically and emotionally drained going into next week and student interest will plummet. We have a history of entering into losing streaks after emotional losses

---

Well, we are already 0-2 and in last place in our new conference.

Cal had only two possessions after the FG (except for the final 25 seconds)

First possession after FG
Incomplete pass to Ott (bad pass by Mendoza)
Ott run for loss of one.
Delay of game
Mendoza sack. Facemask
Thomas run
Thomas run
Mendoza sack
Punt

Second posession
Thomas run for 19
Thomas run for no gain
Thomas run for 3
False start
Mendoza scramble
Punt

Cal was in the red zone twice and had touchdowns both time (Ott run and Rogers run).

bluehenbear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

BadNewsBear1 said:

---

Spend all the NIL money on the buyout. Please.

---

NIL money for NIL is a terrible investment in the program.

We don't have a talent issue. We have a coaching issue.

---

An offensive line would be nice

---

This. Mendoza was getting mauled and probably concussed. One face mask, another uncalled and an egregious uncalled targeting. Does our oline not like Fernando?

---

Our QBs have been running for their lives since Garbers if not all the way back to Goff

falseintellect said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

falseintellect said:

---

bluehenbear said:

---

I don't know how the team comes back from this loss. We are emotionally and physically spent and now have to travel to Pitt and play another team that has figured out how to win. It's going to be ugly.

---

We'll grind out 5-6 more wins against a slate of mostly medicore teams and maybe win a bottom tier bowl game for 7-8 win season. THat's a great success for Wilcox and all he really strives for.

---

Where do you see 5-6 wins coming from?

Pitt is quite good. Syracuse also has talent. NC State we probably win. Wake is also good. I see two wins. Stanford and Oregon State. After a game like this, somebody phone Tony Robbins.

---

Depends, if the players lose interest after they realize they are coached by morons we might fall apart. But if the team is still locked in then none of those teams are as good as Miami or as talented as FSU so we can do it. It will be a grind.

---

Sir, FSU is absolute shyte. I don't know how one "locks in" after tonight. And the fans? Cratered.

bluehenbear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

BadNewsBear1 said:

---

Spend all the NIL money on the buyout. Please.

---

NIL money for NIL is a terrible investment in the program.

We don't have a talent issue. We have a coaching issue.

---

An offensive line would be nice

---

This. Mendoza was getting mauled and probably concussed. One face mask, another uncalled and an egregious uncalled targeting. Does our oline not like Fernando?

---

Mendoza had time when we were throwing off play action on first and second downs. It was the first series and the last quarter when we got conservative putting us in 3Rd and longs with Miami sending everybody….

Miami ran 86 plays - 53 passing, 33 rushing
Cal ran only 49 - 24 passing, 25 rushing. Ott with 7 carries and 3 pass receptions.

Today's game proved there is a lot of desire for Cal to succeed and bring lots of eyeballs to a big media market.

The media wants us to succeed.

The alumni want us to succeed.

The students want us to succeed.

The administration? Not so much.

At least we're not UCLA

ncbears said:

---

Cal had only two possessions after the FG (except for the final 25 seconds)

First possession after FG
Incomplete pass to Ott (bad pass by Mendoza)
Ott run for loss of one.
Delay of game
Mendoza sack. Facemask
Thomas run
Thomas run
Mendoza sack
Punt

Second posession
Thomas run for 19
Thomas run for no gain
Thomas run for 3
False start
Mendoza scramble
Punt

Cal was in the red zone twice and had touchdowns both time (Ott run and Rogers run).

---

Note the terrible penalty in the middle of each series. Same as our downfall against FSU.

dimitrig said:

---

Today's game proved there is a lot of desire for Cal to succeed and bring lots of eyeballs to a big media market.

The media wants us to succeed.

The alumni want us to succeed.

The students want us to succeed.

The administration? Not so much.

At least we're not UCLA

---

UCLA has an excuse. They're in a better league and getting throttled.

dimitrig said:

---

bluehenbear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

BadNewsBear1 said:

---

Spend all the NIL money on the buyout. Please.

---

NIL money for NIL is a terrible investment in the program.

We don't have a talent issue. We have a coaching issue.

---

An offensive line would be nice

---

This. Mendoza was getting mauled and probably concussed. One face mask, another uncalled and an egregious uncalled targeting. Does our oline not like Fernando?

---

Our QBs have been running for their lives since Garbers if not all the way back to Goff

---

We had Top 10 offenses with Goff and Webb getting enough time to break Cal passing records.

Tonight Cam Ward was "running for his life" despite what is supposed to be a great Miami OL. It is why having a QB that can evade the rush, throw on the run and take off running is so important in today's game.

philly1121 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Today's game proved there is a lot of desire for Cal to succeed and bring lots of eyeballs to a big media market.

The media wants us to succeed.

The alumni want us to succeed.

The students want us to succeed.

The administration? Not so much.

At least we're not UCLA

---

UCLA has an excuse. They're in a better league and getting throttled.

---

Yeah, I expected them to lose to tOSU and Michigan, but creamed at home to Indiana?

Indiana is undefeated! 6-0. Next week should be a test against Nebraska.

calumnus said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

bluehenbear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

BadNewsBear1 said:

---

Spend all the NIL money on the buyout. Please.

---

NIL money for NIL is a terrible investment in the program.

We don't have a talent issue. We have a coaching issue.

---

An offensive line would be nice

---

This. Mendoza was getting mauled and probably concussed. One face mask, another uncalled and an egregious uncalled targeting. Does our oline not like Fernando?

---

Our QBs have been running for their lives since Garbers if not all the way back to Goff

---

We had Top 10 offenses with Goff and Webb getting enough time to break Cal passing records.

Tonight Cam Ward was "running for his life" despite what is supposed to be a great Miami OL. It is why having a QB that can evade the rush, throw on the run and take off running is so important in today's game.

---

He wasn't really running for his life in the 4th quarter. Pass rush wasn't getting there anymore.

philly1121 said:

---

Indiana is undefeated! 6-0. Next week should be a test against Nebraska.

---

Indiana hasn't played anyone.

UCLA should be able to spank Indiana at home in football.

Come on.

dimitrig said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

Today's game proved there is a lot of desire for Cal to succeed and bring lots of eyeballs to a big media market.

The media wants us to succeed.

The alumni want us to succeed.

The students want us to succeed.

The administration? Not so much.

At least we're not UCLA

---

UCLA has an excuse. They're in a better league and getting throttled.

---

Yeah, I expected them to lose to tOSU and Michigan, but creamed at home to Indiana?

---

Their last coach quit on them at the worst possible time, had to scramble to find a replacement that so far seems like a goofball, and has a very nasty schedule, they have many more excuses to be awful, we don't.

UCLA is decent. They seem to be in every game up to a point and then lose composure and wilt. You're reaching. Indiana is a good team.

ncbears said:

---

Miami ran 86 plays - 53 passing, 33 rushing
Cal ran only 49 - 24 passing, 25 rushing. Ott with 7 carries and 3 pass receptions.

---

Miami was keying on the run, we had huge success when we threw on early downs. Through 3 quarters, Bloesch was calling a great game. Then when Mendoza came back in early in the 4th te reverted to predictable conservative play calling, with runs and short passes (Mendoza's weakness) instead of continuing with misdirection and throwing downfield (Mendoza's strength).

philly1121 said:

---

UCLA is decent. They seem to be in every game up to a point and then lose composure and wilt. You're reaching. Indiana is a good team.

---

You're missing my point.

Whether Indiana happens to be a good team or not FOR ONCE there is no way a team like UCLA with all the resources they have should be losing AT HOME to a school like Indiana by a large margin.

Indiana was a 3-9 team last year. Their schedule is extremely weak. I would be livid if Cal lost 42-13 to them in Memorial this year.

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

bluehenbear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

BadNewsBear1 said:

---

Spend all the NIL money on the buyout. Please.

---

NIL money for NIL is a terrible investment in the program.

We don't have a talent issue. We have a coaching issue.

---

An offensive line would be nice

---

This. Mendoza was getting mauled and probably concussed. One face mask, another uncalled and an egregious uncalled targeting. Does our oline not like Fernando?

---

Our QBs have been running for their lives since Garbers if not all the way back to Goff

---

We had Top 10 offenses with Goff and Webb getting enough time to break Cal passing records.

Tonight Cam Ward was "running for his life" despite what is supposed to be a great Miami OL. It is why having a QB that can evade the rush, throw on the run and take off running is so important in today's game.

---

He wasn't really running for his life in the 4th quarter. Pass rush wasn't getting there anymore.

---

I meant earlier. In the 4th quarter we were playing not to lose.

philly1121 said:

---

UCLA is decent. They seem to be in every game up to a point and then lose composure and wilt. You're reaching. Indiana is a good team.

---

The bear runts are terrible but there are reasons for that, tonight was inexplicable and could get ugly

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

bluehenbear said:

---

dimitrig said:

---

LunchTime said:

---

BadNewsBear1 said:

---

Spend all the NIL money on the buyout. Please.

---

NIL money for NIL is a terrible investment in the program.

We don't have a talent issue. We have a coaching issue.

---

An offensive line would be nice

---

This. Mendoza was getting mauled and probably concussed. One face mask, another uncalled and an egregious uncalled targeting. Does our oline not like Fernando?

---

Our QBs have been running for their lives since Garbers if not all the way back to Goff

---

We had Top 10 offenses with Goff and Webb getting enough time to break Cal passing records.

Tonight Cam Ward was "running for his life" despite what is supposed to be a great Miami OL. It is why having a QB that can evade the rush, throw on the run and take off running is so important in today's game.

---

He wasn't really running for his life in the 4th quarter. Pass rush wasn't getting there anymore.

---

I meant earlier. In the 4th quarter we were playing not to lose.

---

Didn't seem like we tried to bring extra pressure to speed Ward up, did it? I get that it's a risk, but once he marches down the field once and scores a TD it's time to take more chances.

I agree with the anti-Wilcox sentiment, but I want to describe the outcome of this game in another way, just to get it into the conversation as a perspective for thinking about future hires.

There is very little that our coaches could've done between 7:30pm and 11:30pm tonight, or really in the last two weeks, that would've changed the outcome of this game in a significant way. There are possible worlds where we could've won, but the least likely outcome was that we were going to win this game in a dominant fashion, regardless of what the score was at any given point in the game. If Wilcox truly had the ability to destroy a top-10 team, then he probably would've done it more than once in the eight years that he's been here.

The last two weeks were great. We had a killer gameplan for Miami. We were up by four scores. Limited to a two-week span, we did everything as well as we possibly could've been expected to do it.

When it comes to the second half collapse, there are a lot of different blue prints that a bunch of other teams could've used to win this game if they'd been teleported into our situation. Sitting back, forcing long drives, and killing clock can be effective. Pressuring, forcing mistakes, and getting off the field can be effective. The key is how good you are at either of those things. If we would've pressured more, Miami probably would've beaten our pressure in the long run, because our coaches aren't very good. If we would've been more aggressive on offense at various times, Miami probably would've gotten stops in the long run, because our coaches aren't very good. When you're not very good, you can have an incredible run by knocking your preparation and gameplan out of the park, but over a long enough period of time you will regress to the mean, because there's someone else competing against you who is getting paid millions of dollars to figure out what you're doing. Early in the game you shoot your shot as a gameplanner, but as the game goes on, the overall state of your program takes over. How many things can you stop? If it's not enough, then the other team finds your weaknesses. How many looks can you attack? If it's not enough, the other team figures that out, too. You'd be amazed how rarely an offense is able to run the same play, out of the same look, against the same defense over the course of a game. In most cases we're talking low single digits. Playcalling is a constant state of adjustment and adaptation, and as a result, it depends on dozens of decisions made very quickly, and your team's ability to handle all of those different situations.

It's easy to say "Throw downfield more," but the key is in what route combinations you call, against what specific coverages. You can throw the ball downfield against any coverage, but throwing the ball downfield isn't going to work if you don't make the right call for the coverage that they're running (which requires you to know what coverage they're going to run, or to have a passing gameplan that gives you answers against the set of things that they might be running).

Every team is maximally creative and versatile at the beginning of a game, but as the game goes on their opponents start to eliminate things that are hurting them, one-by-one. Whoever is left with the most resources at the end of a game will see a swing of "momentum" late. That's why good teams always seem to have the momentum.

Being a good football team is the result of thousands of moments and decisions, spread across several seasons of development. If you're a great coach, then you maximize those moments, and your team is equipped to handle more situations. If you're a mediocre coach, then you spin your wheels without getting any benefit out of it. Cal has mediocre coaches, at best. Some of them are smart, in theory. If you give them a bye week, they can come up with some good stuff, but they aren't good enough in comparison to their competition to get more out of those thousands of moments, and as a result, no matter how good their plan is, they'll be left without answers in the long run against opponents that they don't have a clear advantage over. It's not that they don't see what's happening and try to adjust, or that they don't see the same things that you do. It's that their program has less capability because of the hundreds of things that they haven't done or developed as efficiently as their competition.

Terrible play calling in 4th quarter, playing not to lose.

falseintellect said:

---

you aren't a cal fan if you don't already know this game will be decided on the last possession somehow

---

Ugh. Gut punch for the players and students.

Cade Uluave had a major game w 15 tackles. Mendoza only threw 22 passes, Ward 53.

First non-Big Game sell out at Memorial Stadium since 2013 ( Ohio State ). Jake & I were treated to a thrilla, #8 Miami at Cal. What an atmosphere. If you are a casual 🏈 fan with zero emotional ties to Cal or Miami, this was fun to watch. If you’re a Bears backer, you’re… pic.twitter.com/xUYqo1qmCg

— vernkpix (@vernKPIX) October 6, 2024

berk18.2 said:

---

I agree with the anti-Wilcox sentiment, but I want to describe the outcome of this game in another way, just to get it into the conversation as a perspective for thinking about future hires.

There is very little that our coaches could've done between 7:30pm and 11:30pm tonight, or really in the last two weeks, that would've changed the outcome of this game in a significant way. There are possible worlds where we could've won, but the least likely outcome was that we were going to win this game in a dominant fashion, regardless of what the score was at any given point in the game. If Wilcox truly had the ability to destroy a top-10 team, then he probably would've done it more than once in the eight years that he's been here.

The last two weeks were great. We had a killer gameplan for Miami. We were up by four scores. Limited to a two-week span, we did everything as well as we possibly could've been expected to do it.

When it comes to the second half collapse, there are a lot of different blue prints that a bunch of other teams could've used to win this game if they'd been teleported into our situation. Sitting back, forcing long drives, and killing clock can be effective. Pressuring, forcing mistakes, and getting off the field can be effective. The key is how good you are at either of those things. If we would've pressured more, Miami probably would've beaten our pressure in the long run, because our coaches aren't very good. If we would've been more aggressive on offense at various times, Miami probably would've gotten stops in the long run, because our coaches aren't very good. When you're not very good, you can have an incredible run by knocking your preparation and gameplan out of the park, but over a long enough period of time you will regress to the mean, because there's someone else competing against you who is getting paid millions of dollars to figure out what you're doing. Early in the game you shoot your shot as a gameplanner, but as the game goes on, the overall state of your program takes over. How many things can you stop? If it's not enough, then the other team finds your weaknesses. How many looks can you attack? If it's not enough, the other team figures that out, too. You'd be amazed how rarely an offense is able to run the same play, out of the same look, against the same defense over the course of a game. In most cases we're talking low single digits. Playcalling is a constant state of adjustment and adaptation, and as a result, it depends on dozens of decisions made very quickly, and your team's ability to handle all of those different situations.

It's easy to say "Throw downfield more," but the key is in what route combinations you call, against what specific coverages. You can throw the ball downfield against any coverage, but throwing the ball downfield isn't going to work if you don't make the right call for the coverage that they're running (which requires you to know what coverage they're going to run, or to have a passing gameplan that gives you answers against the set of things that they might be running).

Every team is maximally creative and versatile at the beginning of a game, but as the game goes on their opponents start to eliminate things that are hurting them, one-by-one. Whoever is left with the most resources at the end of a game will see a swing of "momentum" late. That's why good teams always seem to have the momentum.

Being a good football team is the result of thousands of moments and decisions, spread across several seasons of development. If you're a great coach, then you maximize those moments, and your team is equipped to handle more situations. If you're a mediocre coach, then you spin your wheels without getting any benefit out of it. Cal has mediocre coaches, at best. Some of them are smart, in theory. If you give them a bye week, they can come up with some good stuff, but they aren't good enough in comparison to their competition to get more out of those thousands of moments, and as a result, no matter how good their plan is, they'll be left without answers in the long run against opponents that they don't have a clear advantage over. It's not that they don't see what's happening and try to adjust, or that they don't see the same things that you do. It's that their program has less capability because of the hundreds of things that they haven't done or developed as efficiently as their competition.

---

Absolutely false. The part about very little our coaches could have done last night. 4th quarter we ran nothing of the misdirection plays that helped up spring running plays and passing plays to our TEs. Zero. We went back to the horrible read option that our OL cannot block. And they've shown they cannot block it all year. On defense we played soft, almost all 2nd half. Those are obvious coaching decisions that cost us this game. The good news: if you wanted Wilcox and staff gone, this will greatly help.

82gradDLSdad said:

---

berk18.2 said:

---

I agree with the anti-Wilcox sentiment, but I want to describe the outcome of this game in another way, just to get it into the conversation as a perspective for thinking about future hires.

There is very little that our coaches could've done between 7:30pm and 11:30pm tonight, or really in the last two weeks, that would've changed the outcome of this game in a significant way. There are possible worlds where we could've won, but the least likely outcome was that we were going to win this game in a dominant fashion, regardless of what the score was at any given point in the game. If Wilcox truly had the ability to destroy a top-10 team, then he probably would've done it more than once in the eight years that he's been here.

The last two weeks were great. We had a killer gameplan for Miami. We were up by four scores. Limited to a two-week span, we did everything as well as we possibly could've been expected to do it.

When it comes to the second half collapse, there are a lot of different blue prints that a bunch of other teams could've used to win this game if they'd been teleported into our situation. Sitting back, forcing long drives, and killing clock can be effective. Pressuring, forcing mistakes, and getting off the field can be effective. The key is how good you are at either of those things. If we would've pressured more, Miami probably would've beaten our pressure in the long run, because our coaches aren't very good. If we would've been more aggressive on offense at various times, Miami probably would've gotten stops in the long run, because our coaches aren't very good. When you're not very good, you can have an incredible run by knocking your preparation and gameplan out of the park, but over a long enough period of time you will regress to the mean, because there's someone else competing against you who is getting paid millions of dollars to figure out what you're doing. Early in the game you shoot your shot as a gameplanner, but as the game goes on, the overall state of your program takes over. How many things can you stop? If it's not enough, then the other team finds your weaknesses. How many looks can you attack? If it's not enough, the other team figures that out, too. You'd be amazed how rarely an offense is able to run the same play, out of the same look, against the same defense over the course of a game. In most cases we're talking low single digits. Playcalling is a constant state of adjustment and adaptation, and as a result, it depends on dozens of decisions made very quickly, and your team's ability to handle all of those different situations.

It's easy to say "Throw downfield more," but the key is in what route combinations you call, against what specific coverages. You can throw the ball downfield against any coverage, but throwing the ball downfield isn't going to work if you don't make the right call for the coverage that they're running (which requires you to know what coverage they're going to run, or to have a passing gameplan that gives you answers against the set of things that they might be running).

Every team is maximally creative and versatile at the beginning of a game, but as the game goes on their opponents start to eliminate things that are hurting them, one-by-one. Whoever is left with the most resources at the end of a game will see a swing of "momentum" late. That's why good teams always seem to have the momentum.

Being a good football team is the result of thousands of moments and decisions, spread across several seasons of development. If you're a great coach, then you maximize those moments, and your team is equipped to handle more situations. If you're a mediocre coach, then you spin your wheels without getting any benefit out of it. Cal has mediocre coaches, at best. Some of them are smart, in theory. If you give them a bye week, they can come up with some good stuff, but they aren't good enough in comparison to their competition to get more out of those thousands of moments, and as a result, no matter how good their plan is, they'll be left without answers in the long run against opponents that they don't have a clear advantage over. It's not that they don't see what's happening and try to adjust, or that they don't see the same things that you do. It's that their program has less capability because of the hundreds of things that they haven't done or developed as efficiently as their competition.

---

Absolutely false. The part about very little our coaches could have done last night. 4th quarter we ran nothing of the misdirection plays that helped up spring running plays and passing plays to our TEs. Zero. We went back to the horrible read option that our OL cannot block. And they've shown they cannot block it all year. On defense we played soft, almost all 2nd half. Those are obvious coaching decisions that cost us this game. The good news: if you wanted Wilcox and staff gone, this will greatly help.

---

We unfortunately can't fire Wilcox apparently because this clown should have been out of here years ago and he's still here ruining Saturdays for us Cal fans.

berk18.2 said:

---

I agree with the anti-Wilcox sentiment, but I want to describe the outcome of this game in another way, just to get it into the conversation as a perspective for thinking about future hires.

There is very little that our coaches could've done between 7:30pm and 11:30pm tonight, or really in the last two weeks, that would've changed the outcome of this game in a significant way. There are possible worlds where we could've won, but the least likely outcome was that we were going to win this game in a dominant fashion, regardless of what the score was at any given point in the game. If Wilcox truly had the ability to destroy a top-10 team, then he probably would've done it more than once in the eight years that he's been here.

The last two weeks were great. We had a killer gameplan for Miami. We were up by four scores. Limited to a two-week span, we did everything as well as we possibly could've been expected to do it.

When it comes to the second half collapse, there are a lot of different blue prints that a bunch of other teams could've used to win this game if they'd been teleported into our situation. Sitting back, forcing long drives, and killing clock can be effective. Pressuring, forcing mistakes, and getting off the field can be effective. The key is how good you are at either of those things. If we would've pressured more, Miami probably would've beaten our pressure in the long run, because our coaches aren't very good. If we would've been more aggressive on offense at various times, Miami probably would've gotten stops in the long run, because our coaches aren't very good. When you're not very good, you can have an incredible run by knocking your preparation and gameplan out of the park, but over a long enough period of time you will regress to the mean, because there's someone else competing against you who is getting paid millions of dollars to figure out what you're doing. Early in the game you shoot your shot as a gameplanner, but as the game goes on, the overall state of your program takes over. How many things can you stop? If it's not enough, then the other team finds your weaknesses. How many looks can you attack? If it's not enough, the other team figures that out, too. You'd be amazed how rarely an offense is able to run the same play, out of the same look, against the same defense over the course of a game. In most cases we're talking low single digits. Playcalling is a constant state of adjustment and adaptation, and as a result, it depends on dozens of decisions made very quickly, and your team's ability to handle all of those different situations.

It's easy to say "Throw downfield more," but the key is in what route combinations you call, against what specific coverages. You can throw the ball downfield against any coverage, but throwing the ball downfield isn't going to work if you don't make the right call for the coverage that they're running (which requires you to know what coverage they're going to run, or to have a passing gameplan that gives you answers against the set of things that they might be running).

Every team is maximally creative and versatile at the beginning of a game, but as the game goes on their opponents start to eliminate things that are hurting them, one-by-one. Whoever is left with the most resources at the end of a game will see a swing of "momentum" late. That's why good teams always seem to have the momentum.

Being a good football team is the result of thousands of moments and decisions, spread across several seasons of development. If you're a great coach, then you maximize those moments, and your team is equipped to handle more situations. If you're a mediocre coach, then you spin your wheels without getting any benefit out of it. Cal has mediocre coaches, at best. Some of them are smart, in theory. If you give them a bye week, they can come up with some good stuff, but they aren't good enough in comparison to their competition to get more out of those thousands of moments, and as a result, no matter how good their plan is, they'll be left without answers in the long run against opponents that they don't have a clear advantage over. It's not that they don't see what's happening and try to adjust, or that they don't see the same things that you do. It's that their program has less capability because of the hundreds of things that they haven't done or developed as efficiently as their competition.

---

This is bull****, we already had a template for how an inferior team beats a much more talented team in Vanderbilt Alabama earlier in the day. Every time Alabama would come back and threaten the lead, Vanderbilt would score again. Taking high risk high reward plays every single time. In contrast, we went back into conservative play calling in the second half, running down the middle and going three and out.

DoubtfulBear said:

---

berk18.2 said:

---

I agree with the anti-Wilcox sentiment, but I want to describe the outcome of this game in another way, just to get it into the conversation as a perspective for thinking about future hires.

There is very little that our coaches could've done between 7:30pm and 11:30pm tonight, or really in the last two weeks, that would've changed the outcome of this game in a significant way. There are possible worlds where we could've won, but the least likely outcome was that we were going to win this game in a dominant fashion, regardless of what the score was at any given point in the game. If Wilcox truly had the ability to destroy a top-10 team, then he probably would've done it more than once in the eight years that he's been here.

The last two weeks were great. We had a killer gameplan for Miami. We were up by four scores. Limited to a two-week span, we did everything as well as we possibly could've been expected to do it.

When it comes to the second half collapse, there are a lot of different blue prints that a bunch of other teams could've used to win this game if they'd been teleported into our situation. Sitting back, forcing long drives, and killing clock can be effective. Pressuring, forcing mistakes, and getting off the field can be effective. The key is how good you are at either of those things. If we would've pressured more, Miami probably would've beaten our pressure in the long run, because our coaches aren't very good. If we would've been more aggressive on offense at various times, Miami probably would've gotten stops in the long run, because our coaches aren't very good. When you're not very good, you can have an incredible run by knocking your preparation and gameplan out of the park, but over a long enough period of time you will regress to the mean, because there's someone else competing against you who is getting paid millions of dollars to figure out what you're doing. Early in the game you shoot your shot as a gameplanner, but as the game goes on, the overall state of your program takes over. How many things can you stop? If it's not enough, then the other team finds your weaknesses. How many looks can you attack? If it's not enough, the other team figures that out, too. You'd be amazed how rarely an offense is able to run the same play, out of the same look, against the same defense over the course of a game. In most cases we're talking low single digits. Playcalling is a constant state of adjustment and adaptation, and as a result, it depends on dozens of decisions made very quickly, and your team's ability to handle all of those different situations.

It's easy to say "Throw downfield more," but the key is in what route combinations you call, against what specific coverages. You can throw the ball downfield against any coverage, but throwing the ball downfield isn't going to work if you don't make the right call for the coverage that they're running (which requires you to know what coverage they're going to run, or to have a passing gameplan that gives you answers against the set of things that they might be running).

Every team is maximally creative and versatile at the beginning of a game, but as the game goes on their opponents start to eliminate things that are hurting them, one-by-one. Whoever is left with the most resources at the end of a game will see a swing of "momentum" late. That's why good teams always seem to have the momentum.

Being a good football team is the result of thousands of moments and decisions, spread across several seasons of development. If you're a great coach, then you maximize those moments, and your team is equipped to handle more situations. If you're a mediocre coach, then you spin your wheels without getting any benefit out of it. Cal has mediocre coaches, at best. Some of them are smart, in theory. If you give them a bye week, they can come up with some good stuff, but they aren't good enough in comparison to their competition to get more out of those thousands of moments, and as a result, no matter how good their plan is, they'll be left without answers in the long run against opponents that they don't have a clear advantage over. It's not that they don't see what's happening and try to adjust, or that they don't see the same things that you do. It's that their program has less capability because of the hundreds of things that they haven't done or developed as efficiently as their competition.

---

This is bull****, we already had a template for how an inferior team beats a much more talented team in Vanderbilt Alabama earlier in the day. Every time Alabama would come back and threaten the lead, Vanderbilt would score again. Taking high risk high reward plays every single time. In contrast, we went back into conservative play calling in the second half, running down the middle and going three and out.

---

Yup. We rushed for a total of 73 yards on 25 carries. Ott got 2 yards on 7 carries. We were winning on misdirection and downfield passes. Around mid way through the third quarter, we almost completely abandoned our winning strategy.

Cal’s Saturday: 16 hours of euphoria, 1 hour of complete heartbreak.#Cal #GoBears @calbears247 pic.twitter.com/iYuNhTSgZB

— Jackson Moore (@JacksonMoore247) October 6, 2024

Go bears pic.twitter.com/ygSHQCFdYl

— Dallas (@Dalmcm) October 6, 2024

82gradDLSdad said:

---

berk18.2 said:

---

I agree with the anti-Wilcox sentiment, but I want to describe the outcome of this game in another way, just to get it into the conversation as a perspective for thinking about future hires.

There is very little that our coaches could've done between 7:30pm and 11:30pm tonight, or really in the last two weeks, that would've changed the outcome of this game in a significant way. There are possible worlds where we could've won, but the least likely outcome was that we were going to win this game in a dominant fashion, regardless of what the score was at any given point in the game. If Wilcox truly had the ability to destroy a top-10 team, then he probably would've done it more than once in the eight years that he's been here.

The last two weeks were great. We had a killer gameplan for Miami. We were up by four scores. Limited to a two-week span, we did everything as well as we possibly could've been expected to do it.

When it comes to the second half collapse, there are a lot of different blue prints that a bunch of other teams could've used to win this game if they'd been teleported into our situation. Sitting back, forcing long drives, and killing clock can be effective. Pressuring, forcing mistakes, and getting off the field can be effective. The key is how good you are at either of those things. If we would've pressured more, Miami probably would've beaten our pressure in the long run, because our coaches aren't very good. If we would've been more aggressive on offense at various times, Miami probably would've gotten stops in the long run, because our coaches aren't very good. When you're not very good, you can have an incredible run by knocking your preparation and gameplan out of the park, but over a long enough period of time you will regress to the mean, because there's someone else competing against you who is getting paid millions of dollars to figure out what you're doing. Early in the game you shoot your shot as a gameplanner, but as the game goes on, the overall state of your program takes over. How many things can you stop? If it's not enough, then the other team finds your weaknesses. How many looks can you attack? If it's not enough, the other team figures that out, too. You'd be amazed how rarely an offense is able to run the same play, out of the same look, against the same defense over the course of a game. In most cases we're talking low single digits. Playcalling is a constant state of adjustment and adaptation, and as a result, it depends on dozens of decisions made very quickly, and your team's ability to handle all of those different situations.

It's easy to say "Throw downfield more," but the key is in what route combinations you call, against what specific coverages. You can throw the ball downfield against any coverage, but throwing the ball downfield isn't going to work if you don't make the right call for the coverage that they're running (which requires you to know what coverage they're going to run, or to have a passing gameplan that gives you answers against the set of things that they might be running).

Every team is maximally creative and versatile at the beginning of a game, but as the game goes on their opponents start to eliminate things that are hurting them, one-by-one. Whoever is left with the most resources at the end of a game will see a swing of "momentum" late. That's why good teams always seem to have the momentum.

Being a good football team is the result of thousands of moments and decisions, spread across several seasons of development. If you're a great coach, then you maximize those moments, and your team is equipped to handle more situations. If you're a mediocre coach, then you spin your wheels without getting any benefit out of it. Cal has mediocre coaches, at best. Some of them are smart, in theory. If you give them a bye week, they can come up with some good stuff, but they aren't good enough in comparison to their competition to get more out of those thousands of moments, and as a result, no matter how good their plan is, they'll be left without answers in the long run against opponents that they don't have a clear advantage over. It's not that they don't see what's happening and try to adjust, or that they don't see the same things that you do. It's that their program has less capability because of the hundreds of things that they haven't done or developed as efficiently as their competition.

---

Absolutely false. The part about very little our coaches could have done last night. 4th quarter we ran nothing of the misdirection plays that helped up spring running plays and passing plays to our TEs. Zero. We went back to the horrible read option that our OL cannot block. And they've shown they cannot block it all year. On defense we played soft, almost all 2nd half. Those are obvious coaching decisions that cost us this game. The good news: if you wanted Wilcox and staff gone, this will greatly help.

---

Are you kidding? The Cal AD and administration probably look at this game and think that Wilcox almost upset a Top 10 team so he deserves an extension.

dimitrig said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

berk18.2 said:

---

I agree with the anti-Wilcox sentiment, but I want to describe the outcome of this game in another way, just to get it into the conversation as a perspective for thinking about future hires.

There is very little that our coaches could've done between 7:30pm and 11:30pm tonight, or really in the last two weeks, that would've changed the outcome of this game in a significant way. There are possible worlds where we could've won, but the least likely outcome was that we were going to win this game in a dominant fashion, regardless of what the score was at any given point in the game. If Wilcox truly had the ability to destroy a top-10 team, then he probably would've done it more than once in the eight years that he's been here.

The last two weeks were great. We had a killer gameplan for Miami. We were up by four scores. Limited to a two-week span, we did everything as well as we possibly could've been expected to do it.

When it comes to the second half collapse, there are a lot of different blue prints that a bunch of other teams could've used to win this game if they'd been teleported into our situation. Sitting back, forcing long drives, and killing clock can be effective. Pressuring, forcing mistakes, and getting off the field can be effective. The key is how good you are at either of those things. If we would've pressured more, Miami probably would've beaten our pressure in the long run, because our coaches aren't very good. If we would've been more aggressive on offense at various times, Miami probably would've gotten stops in the long run, because our coaches aren't very good. When you're not very good, you can have an incredible run by knocking your preparation and gameplan out of the park, but over a long enough period of time you will regress to the mean, because there's someone else competing against you who is getting paid millions of dollars to figure out what you're doing. Early in the game you shoot your shot as a gameplanner, but as the game goes on, the overall state of your program takes over. How many things can you stop? If it's not enough, then the other team finds your weaknesses. How many looks can you attack? If it's not enough, the other team figures that out, too. You'd be amazed how rarely an offense is able to run the same play, out of the same look, against the same defense over the course of a game. In most cases we're talking low single digits. Playcalling is a constant state of adjustment and adaptation, and as a result, it depends on dozens of decisions made very quickly, and your team's ability to handle all of those different situations.

It's easy to say "Throw downfield more," but the key is in what route combinations you call, against what specific coverages. You can throw the ball downfield against any coverage, but throwing the ball downfield isn't going to work if you don't make the right call for the coverage that they're running (which requires you to know what coverage they're going to run, or to have a passing gameplan that gives you answers against the set of things that they might be running).

Every team is maximally creative and versatile at the beginning of a game, but as the game goes on their opponents start to eliminate things that are hurting them, one-by-one. Whoever is left with the most resources at the end of a game will see a swing of "momentum" late. That's why good teams always seem to have the momentum.

Being a good football team is the result of thousands of moments and decisions, spread across several seasons of development. If you're a great coach, then you maximize those moments, and your team is equipped to handle more situations. If you're a mediocre coach, then you spin your wheels without getting any benefit out of it. Cal has mediocre coaches, at best. Some of them are smart, in theory. If you give them a bye week, they can come up with some good stuff, but they aren't good enough in comparison to their competition to get more out of those thousands of moments, and as a result, no matter how good their plan is, they'll be left without answers in the long run against opponents that they don't have a clear advantage over. It's not that they don't see what's happening and try to adjust, or that they don't see the same things that you do. It's that their program has less capability because of the hundreds of things that they haven't done or developed as efficiently as their competition.

---

Absolutely false. The part about very little our coaches could have done last night. 4th quarter we ran nothing of the misdirection plays that helped up spring running plays and passing plays to our TEs. Zero. We went back to the horrible read option that our OL cannot block. And they've shown they cannot block it all year. On defense we played soft, almost all 2nd half. Those are obvious coaching decisions that cost us this game. The good news: if you wanted Wilcox and staff gone, this will greatly help.

---

Are you kidding? The Cal AD and administration probably look at this game and think that Wilcox almost upset a Top 10 team so he deserves an extension.

---

I said it would help, not make it a for certain. Obviously Knowlton is worse because he has his hand on all our sports.