calumnus said:
oski003 said:
calumnus said:
bearsandgiants said:
calumnus said:
Big C said:
calumnus said:
Ccajon2 said:
Seems like should be in the top 10. I'm not sure the owners of the site really care, just in it for whatever ad revenues they can Garner, thus little research. Sonny Cumbie, Dave Aranda and Billy Napier are obvious as the top 3, but I'd have Wilcox in the top 10, at least.
Other coaches of Note: Sonny Sykes #20, Mack Brown #27.
The ranking must take into account: 1) Knowlton 2) the ridiculous contract extension Knowlton gave Wilcox, 3) the poor financial situation Cal is in due to Knowlton and Wilcox 4) the penchant for a large number of Cal fans to make excuses for certain coaches and instead blame the players for 8 years and running.,..
If Wilcox finishes 6-6 and gets to a minor bowl and loses again his defenders on this board will both celebrate and make excuses "we made a bowl and might have won if we had a better OL" and his seat will barely be warm. Unless we can convince Rivera to take the job it's deferred compensation.
Just a guess, but I doubt they're even taking the contract/buyout into account. They're probably thinking, "Cal, they're , like, a .500 team and... they're .500! Wilcox is a great fit for Cal!"
Self-fulfilling expectations. We extended Holmoe too.
Holmoe's team rankings in Sports-Reference.com
1997 #58
1998 #47
1999 #65
2000 #56
2001 #90
Wilcox
2017 #72
2018 #65
2019 #46
2020 #105
2021 #81
2022 #74
2023 #61
2024 #63
Holmoe average #63
Wilcox average #71
Wilcox average with 2020 thrown out #66
Wilcox is at best just as bad as Holmoe, he has just been given twice as long to prove it.
The reasons are all there before our eyes, even if we beat most of the scrubs remaining on our schedule and get to a bowl, that he will lose.
Wilcox has better talent (to work with) than Holmoe did too, in general.
Holmoe actually recruited fairly well as Tedford demonstrated in 2002. It is a great example of the difference good coaching vs bad coaching can make.
And many people on this board also defended Holmoe by denigrating the players, especially the OL. Tedford blew that theory out of the water.
How does Holmoe have a winless season and be ranked #63 and Wilcox have a 3-3 season and be ranked #65? Your posts are so misleading. Holmoe had 12 totals wins in 5 seasons.
Holmoe's 1 win season (not winless) was with the #90 ranked team, not #63. We used to play only 11 games and didn't pay FCS teams every year. That is 14 extra wins against patsies for Wilcox
Stop. Just. Stop.
Here is Holmoe's record:
1997: 3-8, 1-7 in conference
1998: 5-6, 3-5 in conference
1999: 0-7, 0-5 in conference (team was really 4-7 but vacated wins because of cheating)
2000: 3-8, 2-6 in conference
2001: 1-10, 0-8 in conference.
I can't believe you are doubling down on your argument that Wilcox is worse or as bad or even nearly as bad as Holmoe. What are you smoking?