RedlessWardrobe said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

When was the last time we won a game where we were the underdogs. And I mean actual underdogs, not Auburn which was overrated coming into the season

---

It was when we beat favored Auburn at Auburn, who just beat #20 Texas A&M

---

Let me get this straight, when 1-5 Stanford beat #19 Louisville you think it's a fluke and that our quantity of wins are more impressive. But when 1-5 Auburn beats #20 TAMU it's a sign that we have a quality win and therefore a good chance to upset a top 10 team for the first time in Wilcox's pathetic career?

---

Auburn is a decent team. We beat them at Auburn. It was a good win, no matter how much the haters want to hate.
Stanfurd sucks. Thanks.

---

Of course you would think Auburn is a decent team, they are ranked third to last in the SEC just like we are third to last in the ACC. Auburn is going to get crushed by Bama next week and miss out on bowling. The fact that you can even call them a decent team means you are either blind or a troll

---

I officially rate Auburn as "mediocre-to-halfway decent". To beat them on the road was pretty good. Our problem was losing those five damned games that we could have won. I can count: the losses were five times worse than the Auburn win.

Good Big Game win, but we really screwed the pooch this season. I was sooooo unbelievable high when we were up 35-10 over Miami in the third quarter. Then it all came tumbling down.

---

I think yesterday's Big Game was the kind of game Wilcox wants to play every game. He doesn't know how to maintain a lead so he prefers to play for a comeback. That he got lucky yesterday will only push him to continue down this nonsensical path, I fear.

---

Okay, I know I'm probably missing a bit of tongue and cheek rhetoric here, but you don't really believe that do you?

---

In his interview with Mike, JW said that the idea is to get one td per quarter - 28 points - and hold the opponent to three tds. He sounded like he would be satisfied with a 28-21 game. Think about the game management mindset that that represents... and how it explains so much of what we're seeing.

Rushinbear said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

When was the last time we won a game where we were the underdogs. And I mean actual underdogs, not Auburn which was overrated coming into the season

---

It was when we beat favored Auburn at Auburn, who just beat #20 Texas A&M

---

Let me get this straight, when 1-5 Stanford beat #19 Louisville you think it's a fluke and that our quantity of wins are more impressive. But when 1-5 Auburn beats #20 TAMU it's a sign that we have a quality win and therefore a good chance to upset a top 10 team for the first time in Wilcox's pathetic career?

---

Auburn is a decent team. We beat them at Auburn. It was a good win, no matter how much the haters want to hate.
Stanfurd sucks. Thanks.

---

Of course you would think Auburn is a decent team, they are ranked third to last in the SEC just like we are third to last in the ACC. Auburn is going to get crushed by Bama next week and miss out on bowling. The fact that you can even call them a decent team means you are either blind or a troll

---

I officially rate Auburn as "mediocre-to-halfway decent". To beat them on the road was pretty good. Our problem was losing those five damned games that we could have won. I can count: the losses were five times worse than the Auburn win.

Good Big Game win, but we really screwed the pooch this season. I was sooooo unbelievable high when we were up 35-10 over Miami in the third quarter. Then it all came tumbling down.

---

I think yesterday's Big Game was the kind of game Wilcox wants to play every game. He doesn't know how to maintain a lead so he prefers to play for a comeback. That he got lucky yesterday will only push him to continue down this nonsensical path, I fear.

---

Okay, I know I'm probably missing a bit of tongue and cheek rhetoric here, but you don't really believe that do you?

---

In his interview with Mike, JW said that the idea is to get one td per quarter - 28 points - and hold the opponent to three tds. He sounded like he would be satisfied with a 28-21 game. Think about the game management mindset that that represents... and how it explains so much of what we're seeing.

---

I'm constantly reminded of how little I know. You see, my idea would be to get one td per possession.

Rushinbear said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

When was the last time we won a game where we were the underdogs. And I mean actual underdogs, not Auburn which was overrated coming into the season

---

It was when we beat favored Auburn at Auburn, who just beat #20 Texas A&M

---

Let me get this straight, when 1-5 Stanford beat #19 Louisville you think it's a fluke and that our quantity of wins are more impressive. But when 1-5 Auburn beats #20 TAMU it's a sign that we have a quality win and therefore a good chance to upset a top 10 team for the first time in Wilcox's pathetic career?

---

Auburn is a decent team. We beat them at Auburn. It was a good win, no matter how much the haters want to hate.
Stanfurd sucks. Thanks.

---

Of course you would think Auburn is a decent team, they are ranked third to last in the SEC just like we are third to last in the ACC. Auburn is going to get crushed by Bama next week and miss out on bowling. The fact that you can even call them a decent team means you are either blind or a troll

---

I officially rate Auburn as "mediocre-to-halfway decent". To beat them on the road was pretty good. Our problem was losing those five damned games that we could have won. I can count: the losses were five times worse than the Auburn win.

Good Big Game win, but we really screwed the pooch this season. I was sooooo unbelievable high when we were up 35-10 over Miami in the third quarter. Then it all came tumbling down.

---

I think yesterday's Big Game was the kind of game Wilcox wants to play every game. He doesn't know how to maintain a lead so he prefers to play for a comeback. That he got lucky yesterday will only push him to continue down this nonsensical path, I fear.

---

Okay, I know I'm probably missing a bit of tongue and cheek rhetoric here, but you don't really believe that do you?

---

In his interview with Mike, JW said that the idea is to get one td per quarter - 28 points - and hold the opponent to three tds. He sounded like he would be satisfied with a 28-21 game. Think about the game management mindset that that represents... and how it explains so much of what we're seeing.

---

Can you please link the interview or a transcript of?

oski003 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

When was the last time we won a game where we were the underdogs. And I mean actual underdogs, not Auburn which was overrated coming into the season

---

It was when we beat favored Auburn at Auburn, who just beat #20 Texas A&M

---

Let me get this straight, when 1-5 Stanford beat #19 Louisville you think it's a fluke and that our quantity of wins are more impressive. But when 1-5 Auburn beats #20 TAMU it's a sign that we have a quality win and therefore a good chance to upset a top 10 team for the first time in Wilcox's pathetic career?

---

Auburn is a decent team. We beat them at Auburn. It was a good win, no matter how much the haters want to hate.
Stanfurd sucks. Thanks.

---

Of course you would think Auburn is a decent team, they are ranked third to last in the SEC just like we are third to last in the ACC. Auburn is going to get crushed by Bama next week and miss out on bowling. The fact that you can even call them a decent team means you are either blind or a troll

---

I officially rate Auburn as "mediocre-to-halfway decent". To beat them on the road was pretty good. Our problem was losing those five damned games that we could have won. I can count: the losses were five times worse than the Auburn win.

Good Big Game win, but we really screwed the pooch this season. I was sooooo unbelievable high when we were up 35-10 over Miami in the third quarter. Then it all came tumbling down.

---

I think yesterday's Big Game was the kind of game Wilcox wants to play every game. He doesn't know how to maintain a lead so he prefers to play for a comeback. That he got lucky yesterday will only push him to continue down this nonsensical path, I fear.

---

Okay, I know I'm probably missing a bit of tongue and cheek rhetoric here, but you don't really believe that do you?

---

In his interview with Mike, JW said that the idea is to get one td per quarter - 28 points - and hold the opponent to three tds. He sounded like he would be satisfied with a 28-21 game. Think about the game management mindset that that represents... and how it explains so much of what we're seeing.

---

Can you please link the interview or a transcript of?

---

Perhaps BI can do it. It was the Mike Pawlawski (sp) podcast of Cuse wrap up and preview of the BG. He interviewed JW live and it was in that interview that he said it. And, it wasn't just a slip of the tongue thing; he took a few moments to lay it out. I thought, there it is - the JW mindset that underlies it all.

Yah, that's not a HC. That's an accountant or at best a coordinator.

Rushin, I posted the very same concerns in the thread where that podcast is posted. It's troubling. It's not a winner mentality at all, and to me it's clearly why we have struggles. He's conditioning the team to be satisfied with, and strive for, barely winning each game. It's not suited for football. Maybe golf. This is not a gentleman's game.

bearsandgiants said:

---

Rushin, I posted the very same concerns in the thread where that podcast is posted. It's troubling. It's not a winner mentality at all, and to me it's clearly why we have struggles. He's conditioning the team to be satisfied with, and strive for, barely winning each game. It's not suited for football. Maybe golf. This is not a gentleman's game.

---

Comparing Wilcox to a pro golfer's mentality is fightin' words.
Cal golf, 1977.

Anarchistbear said:

---

SMU's big wins are over Duke Louisville and Pitt

So, in the land of mediocrity anyone can get lucky

---

It is the ACC. With good coaching we could be 11-0 right now. The big difference between Cal and SMU is coaching. That's it.

bearsandgiants said:

---

Rushin, I posted the very same concerns in the thread where that podcast is posted. It's troubling. It's not a winner mentality at all, and to me it's clearly why we have struggles. He's conditioning the team to be satisfied with, and strive for, barely winning each game. It's not suited for football. Maybe golf. This is not a gentleman's game.

---

It is said that it takes repeating a message 7 times before a new concept/product/message gets recognized and judged. It won't hurt to keep repeating this one.

I guess SD left SMU in decent spot were two years later they are playing for a conference championship

I remember an old Fresno State Basketball coach, Boyd Grant, known for a strong defense. He was asked about his defense which allowed something like only 50 points a game and how good that was. His comment was something like we need to do better, THEY DID SCORE AFTER ALL. Now that is a defensive minded coach. At that time, Fresno St unofficial name for their arena was Grants Tomb.

oski003 said:

---

CheezIt Bear said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

RedlessWardrobe said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Big C said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

When was the last time we won a game where we were the underdogs. And I mean actual underdogs, not Auburn which was overrated coming into the season

---

It was when we beat favored Auburn at Auburn, who just beat #20 Texas A&M

---

Let me get this straight, when 1-5 Stanford beat #19 Louisville you think it's a fluke and that our quantity of wins are more impressive. But when 1-5 Auburn beats #20 TAMU it's a sign that we have a quality win and therefore a good chance to upset a top 10 team for the first time in Wilcox's pathetic career?

---

Auburn is a decent team. We beat them at Auburn. It was a good win, no matter how much the haters want to hate.
Stanfurd sucks. Thanks.

---

Of course you would think Auburn is a decent team, they are ranked third to last in the SEC just like we are third to last in the ACC. Auburn is going to get crushed by Bama next week and miss out on bowling. The fact that you can even call them a decent team means you are either blind or a troll

---

I officially rate Auburn as "mediocre-to-halfway decent". To beat them on the road was pretty good. Our problem was losing those five damned games that we could have won. I can count: the losses were five times worse than the Auburn win.

Good Big Game win, but we really screwed the pooch this season. I was sooooo unbelievable high when we were up 35-10 over Miami in the third quarter. Then it all came tumbling down.

---

I think yesterday's Big Game was the kind of game Wilcox wants to play every game. He doesn't know how to maintain a lead so he prefers to play for a comeback. That he got lucky yesterday will only push him to continue down this nonsensical path, I fear.

---

Okay, I know I'm probably missing a bit of tongue and cheek rhetoric here, but you don't really believe that do you?

---

In his interview with Mike, JW said that the idea is to get one td per quarter - 28 points - and hold the opponent to three tds. He sounded like he would be satisfied with a 28-21 game. Think about the game management mindset that that represents... and how it explains so much of what we're seeing.

---

Even if you are content to control the clock and not try to run up scores, why is any coach okay with giving up 21 points if you think your team is only capable of scoring 28 on a typical day with a typical pace? Shouldn't the goal be more like 28-7?

Can't fire this loser soon enough.

---

Is that your take on the podcast or is that your take on someone else's take of the podcast?

---

The implications of what JW said are myriad, none of them good (at least within a highly competitive sports environment, or any organized enterprise. imagine telling your researchers that you'll accept their data if their hypothesis is supported 4 times for every 3 times it is not? or if your product passes quality testing 4 times while failing 3 times?).

going4roses said:

---

I guess SD left SMU in decent spot were two years later they are playing for a conference championship

---

Two years after SD left Wilcox/DeRuyter/Sirmon used his players to produce our best defense this century.

The object is to score as many points as possible while minimizing the number of points you give up.

Going deeper, you maximize your points scored per offensive possession and minimize your points given up per defensive possession (ie points per drive). It is an alternating possession game, so without knowing how many possessions both teams will have, trying to predict and play to a total is stupid. Just try to score and keep them from scoring until the game is over.

calumnus said:

---

going4roses said:

---

I guess SD left SMU in decent spot were two years later they are playing for a conference championship

---

Two years after SD left Wilcox/DeRuyter/Sirmon used his players to produce our best defense this century.

---

Sonny, who has taken his team to a national championship game since being fired by Cal, over recruited offensive players, especially wide receivers. As his defenses floundered, he recruited a lot of high 3* defensive players in his last two seasons to right the ship (at the expense now of offensive players). Wilcox and his staff coached the crap out of them, and they became a stellar defense. It would be nice if we could get back to good, balanced recruiting like we had in peak Tedford years.

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

going4roses said:

---

I guess SD left SMU in decent spot were two years later they are playing for a conference championship

---

Two years after SD left Wilcox/DeRuyter/Sirmon used his players to produce our best defense this century.

---

Sonny, who has taken his team to a national championship game since being fired by Cal, over recruited offensive players, especially wide receivers. As his defenses floundered, he recruited a lot of high 3* defensive players in his last two seasons to right the ship (at the expense now of offensive players). Wilcox and his staff coached the crap out of them, and they became a stellar defense. It would be nice if we could get back to good, balanced recruiting like we had in peak Tedford years.

---

The only Cal players that have been drafted since Wilcox has been our coach are Dykes' players already on campus when Wilcox arrived and McMorris, who transferred in from San Diego State after Wilcox failed to recruit him out of high school despite being the younger brother of a Cal player and having good grades.

calumnus said:

---

oski003 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

going4roses said:

---

I guess SD left SMU in decent spot were two years later they are playing for a conference championship

---

Two years after SD left Wilcox/DeRuyter/Sirmon used his players to produce our best defense this century.

---

Sonny, who has taken his team to a national championship game since being fired by Cal, over recruited offensive players, especially wide receivers. As his defenses floundered, he recruited a lot of high 3* defensive players in his last two seasons to right the ship (at the expense now of offensive players). Wilcox and his staff coached the crap out of them, and they became a stellar defense. It would be nice if we could get back to good, balanced recruiting like we had in peak Tedford years.

---

The only Cal players that have been drafted since Wilcox has been our coach are Dykes' players already on campus when Wilcox arrived and McMorris, who transferred in from San Diego State after Wilcox failed to recruit him out of high school despite being the younger brother of a Cal player and having good grades.

---

Okay, hopefully that doesn't hurt our chances against SMU.

DoubtfulBear said:

---

When was the last time we won a game where we were the underdogs. And I mean actual underdogs, not Auburn which was overrated coming into the season

---

I can't be the only person who actually trusts Wilcox teams more when they're playing as underdogs. We have a better shot against SMU given current circumstances compared to if they were a winless team if we look at history.

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

When was the last time we won a game where we were the underdogs. And I mean actual underdogs, not Auburn which was overrated coming into the season

---

I can't be the only person who actually trusts Wilcox teams more when they're playing as underdogs. We have a better shot against SMU given current circumstances compared to if they were a winless team if we look at history.

---

Maybe to beat the spread? In 8 years, 90 games, 42 wins, Wilcox has only 7 wins over FBS teams that finished with a winning record. 1 win in the last 3 years (UCLA last year as Chip quit). Mostly he loses, but when he wins he mostly ekes out wins over bad teams.

I do think we have not yet played to our potential, but SMU in Dallas is not Stanford in front of a packed Memorial Stadium.

calumnus said:

---

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

When was the last time we won a game where we were the underdogs. And I mean actual underdogs, not Auburn which was overrated coming into the season

---

I can't be the only person who actually trusts Wilcox teams more when they're playing as underdogs. We have a better shot against SMU given current circumstances compared to if they were a winless team if we look at history.

---

Maybe to beat the spread? In 8 years, 90 games, 42 wins, Wilcox has only 7 wins over FBS teams that finished with a winning record. 1 win in the last 3 years (UCLA last year as Chip quit). Mostly he loses, but when he wins he mostly ekes out wins over bad teams.

I do think we have not yet played to our potential, but SMU in Dallas is not Stanford in front of a packed Memorial Stadium.

---

I still think it's a higher winning percentage than games against winless teams (excluding the first games of the season).

Most of those losses were in-conference against teams we had played regularly. Even though SMU is in-conference, since this is the first year in the ACC it really feels like one of those classic Wilcox overperforming opportunities.

Mind you, I'm not saying we're likely to win. I'm not confident in that. I'm just saying that I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we pulled one out because it's the kind of game Wilcox weirdly ends winning sometimes and I genuinely felt worse when we were facing winless FSU earlier this year with high expectations.

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

calumnus said:

---

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

When was the last time we won a game where we were the underdogs. And I mean actual underdogs, not Auburn which was overrated coming into the season

---

I can't be the only person who actually trusts Wilcox teams more when they're playing as underdogs. We have a better shot against SMU given current circumstances compared to if they were a winless team if we look at history.

---

Maybe to beat the spread? In 8 years, 90 games, 42 wins, Wilcox has only 7 wins over FBS teams that finished with a winning record. 1 win in the last 3 years (UCLA last year as Chip quit). Mostly he loses, but when he wins he mostly ekes out wins over bad teams.

I do think we have not yet played to our potential, but SMU in Dallas is not Stanford in front of a packed Memorial Stadium.

---

I still think it's a higher winning percentage than games against winless teams (excluding the first games of the season).

Most of those losses were in-conference against teams we had played regularly. Even though SMU is in-conference, since this is the first year in the ACC it really feels like one of those classic Wilcox overperforming opportunities.

Mind you, I'm not saying we're likely to win. I'm not confident in that. I'm just saying that I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we pulled one out because it's the kind of game Wilcox weirdly ends winning sometimes and I genuinely felt worse when we were facing winless FSU earlier this year with high expectations.

---

To your point: our coaches have yet to allow the team to play 4 quarters of our best football, with Mendoza airing it out and with the green light to run. With nothing to lose and coming in as a big underdog, maybe SMU is the game we just try to put up points early and often until the game is over? It would have resulted in a win over Miami and in every loss so far, so who knows?

calumnus said:

---

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

calumnus said:

---

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

When was the last time we won a game where we were the underdogs. And I mean actual underdogs, not Auburn which was overrated coming into the season

---

I can't be the only person who actually trusts Wilcox teams more when they're playing as underdogs. We have a better shot against SMU given current circumstances compared to if they were a winless team if we look at history.

---

Maybe to beat the spread? In 8 years, 90 games, 42 wins, Wilcox has only 7 wins over FBS teams that finished with a winning record. 1 win in the last 3 years (UCLA last year as Chip quit). Mostly he loses, but when he wins he mostly ekes out wins over bad teams.

I do think we have not yet played to our potential, but SMU in Dallas is not Stanford in front of a packed Memorial Stadium.

---

I still think it's a higher winning percentage than games against winless teams (excluding the first games of the season).

Most of those losses were in-conference against teams we had played regularly. Even though SMU is in-conference, since this is the first year in the ACC it really feels like one of those classic Wilcox overperforming opportunities.

Mind you, I'm not saying we're likely to win. I'm not confident in that. I'm just saying that I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we pulled one out because it's the kind of game Wilcox weirdly ends winning sometimes and I genuinely felt worse when we were facing winless FSU earlier this year with high expectations.

---

To your point: our coaches have yet to allow the team to play 4 quarters of our best football, with Mendoza airing it out and with the green light to run. With nothing to lose and coming in as a big underdog, maybe SMU is the game we just try to put up points early and often until the game is over? It would have resulted in a win over Miami and in every loss so far, so who knows?

---

Wilcox incorrectly trusts his defense to be able to protect the few leads he gets. And he does this in the worst possible way: play passive. God, looking at these posts of his prior record are depressing. And it's depressing we have an AD who seems oblivious to the facts. Or maybe he just knows the financials are dictating all so he's just riding it out.

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

When was the last time we won a game where we were the underdogs. And I mean actual underdogs, not Auburn which was overrated coming into the season

---

I can't be the only person who actually trusts Wilcox teams more when they're playing as underdogs. We have a better shot against SMU given current circumstances compared to if they were a winless team if we look at history.

---

So many comedians on this board. Tell me another funny joke

DoubtfulBear said:

---

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

When was the last time we won a game where we were the underdogs. And I mean actual underdogs, not Auburn which was overrated coming into the season

---

I can't be the only person who actually trusts Wilcox teams more when they're playing as underdogs. We have a better shot against SMU given current circumstances compared to if they were a winless team if we look at history.

---

So many comedians on this board. Tell me another funny joke

---

Some Cal fans thought we could play Alabama in Bowl game.

southseasbear said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

When was the last time we won a game where we were the underdogs. And I mean actual underdogs, not Auburn which was overrated coming into the season

---

I can't be the only person who actually trusts Wilcox teams more when they're playing as underdogs. We have a better shot against SMU given current circumstances compared to if they were a winless team if we look at history.

---

So many comedians on this board. Tell me another funny joke

---

Some Cal fans thought we could play Alabama in Bowl game.

---

Us matching up against Alabama in a bowl game would've had nothing to do with our record or how good we are.

All it would've taken was for USC not to be bowl eligible and we would've had a pretty decent shot at it.

ducky23 said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

When was the last time we won a game where we were the underdogs. And I mean actual underdogs, not Auburn which was overrated coming into the season

---

I can't be the only person who actually trusts Wilcox teams more when they're playing as underdogs. We have a better shot against SMU given current circumstances compared to if they were a winless team if we look at history.

---

So many comedians on this board. Tell me another funny joke

---

Some Cal fans thought we could play Alabama in Bowl game.

---

Us matching up against Alabama in a bowl game would've had nothing to do with our record or how good we are.

All it would've taken was for USC not to be bowl eligible and we would've had a pretty decent shot at it.

---

The result would be laughable.