Shocky1 said:

---

southseas, ok my apologies re: ur intellect as ur knowledge of capitalization/punctuation is clearly ELITE!!

shocky plays at a summer club in flagstaff (the best golf course in arizona) & he can tell u that nau's #1 career path for their grads is in hospitality

so from shocky's perspective kai gave up a potential haas biz ad degree & a future opportunity to venture capital finance a silicon valley start up or become a bro of wall street in order to become the weekend shift manager at the buffalo wild wings at the chandler fashion square mall

but yeah employees get 20% discounts on the mayonnaise ranchero wings or something

---

I would not say my knowledge of capitalizatoin is "elite," but at least it's at 6th grade level. I wonder how you could have made through Cal with a degree without a basic understanding of these elements. Maybe you never did. I don't know, and I don't care.

Regadring your claim that Milner gave up a "future opportunity to venture capital fiance a silicon valley start up or become a bro of wall street..." [SIC], I know this is difficult for you to comprehend, but perhaps that is not his interest. Thank goodness, not everyone is like you.

ok, u might be rite but do u really think kai is looking forward to working the wednesday nite late shift at buffalo wild wings by the chandler fashion square mall before going home to dad dwayne's place instead of living in soho or atherton??

DaveT said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

This hire needs to understand that they will essentially be the head coach elect.

---

Which is why we may be able to attract a decent OC if we give them some assurances of control and autonomy. You're a hero if the team does well, and you may get a HC shot if it does poorly (provided the offense improves).

---

Assuming Mendoza stays they have some pieces to work with. But Mendoza is a good enough QB that some OC at a G5 program would be fine with taking a shot with Mendoza and the skill players. He would have to trust that the collective will be able to recruit an OL. And even though Cal does not pay at the high end of the market for an OC it would be a certain pay raise for a G5 OC. And a chance to showcase their offense in a higher caliber league.

But you need to let any OC choose his staff. If Wilcox is hell bent on keeping the other staffers it could hurt the next OC. You cannot have position coaches that are untouchable.

calumnus said:

---

concernedparent said:

---

Shocky1 said:

---

concerned, did u watch every second of cal football in person this season like shocky?

the bears did NOT run a "ton" of misdirection which is why opponents stacked the interior box for predictable run schemes which significantly contributed to a preseason heisman candidate rushing for 2 yards per carry this season & the replacement of the current offensive coordinator

---

2 jet sweeps a game is a "ton" for a play that we clearly cannot execute.

---

EXACTLY! We treat misdirections like it is a trick play. Twice a game.

And it was added in about the 9th game with Mickey Mathews running it, instead of maybe early on playing the Jet there? You need to have the defense take the threat seriously. Maybe have a blocking TE on that side too?

---

I've never felt like those jet sweeps particularly fooled anyone. Most of the time I can tell it's coming.

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

A new OC won't make any difference as long as Wilcox is still head coach.

---

No good OC would want to come here. They would have to deal with Wilcox meddling and would be the first on the chopping block since there is no chance that Wilcox is fired

---

Wilcox gets criticized on this site for both
1) being a head coach who only focuses on defenses and leaves his OC to be on his own; and
2) meddling with the offense.

Which one is true?

---

Here is what is true:

1. The offense is not good enough
2. Wilcox is responsible for it.

You won't argue against this, because you can't win that argument. So you are reframing the argument in a way that you can't lose. It is nonsensical and has nothing to do with whether we should keep Wilcox, but you can't lose it.

Instead of the question being - is Wilcox performance acceptable? You are demanding that his detractors all get in a room an come to a uniform consensus as to exactly what football strategy Wilcox should employ to improve, and if they can't do that, then the criticism isn't valid. Further, you are being disingenuous even in that, because frankly I don't see a groundswell of people saying Wilcox should inject himself more in the offense. If you say someone has said that, fine, but it is extremely few.

In any case, it is not possible for Wilcox detractors to fulfill your criteria.

1. You can't get 100 people to agree on anything.
2. There are a wide variety of people here. Some are brilliant. Some are idiots. Everything in between
3. Football is complicated. If I ask the top 10 football coaches in America how Wilcox should fix the offense, I'm going to get 10 different answers.

And we are not deciding whether this board, as a consensus, would be a better football coach than Wilcox. No one here should be hired to replace Wilcox. Certainly we should not get everyone on this board in a room and hire them all as joint coaches and have them all vote on every football decision.

How about you tell us how you think what Wilcox is doing will lead to more success? And then we'll have everyone that supports Wilcox do the same. And if there is any difference in your responses, we'll say "Well, you say Wilcox does A, and that guy says B, which is it?"

Wilcox is paid several million dollars to do a job. No one here is paid a penny. The question isn't whether any of us knows how to fix it. It certainly isn't whether we all agree how to fix it. The question is whether Wilcox can fix it.

If your argument is that BearInsider as a collective doesn't know how to fix the football program, you win. We don't. That is an irrelevant question. We are not the alternative.

The relevant questions are whether the football program is performing in an acceptable manner and if not, is Wilcox the right guy to make it perform in an acceptable manner.

I would love to hear your arguments for either proposition.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

A new OC won't make any difference as long as Wilcox is still head coach.

---

No good OC would want to come here. They would have to deal with Wilcox meddling and would be the first on the chopping block since there is no chance that Wilcox is fired

---

Wilcox gets criticized on this site for both
1) being a head coach who only focuses on defenses and leaves his OC to be on his own; and
2) meddling with the offense.

Which one is true?

---

Here is what is true:

1. The offense is not good enough
2. Wilcox is responsible for it.

You won't argue against this, because you can't win that argument. So you are reframing the argument in a way that you can't lose. It is nonsensical and has nothing to do with whether we should keep Wilcox, but you can't lose it.

Instead of the question being - is Wilcox performance acceptable? You are demanding that his detractors all get in a room an come to a uniform consensus as to exactly what football strategy Wilcox should employ to improve, and if they can't do that, then the criticism isn't valid. Further, you are being disingenuous even in that, because frankly I don't see a groundswell of people saying Wilcox should inject himself more in the offense. If you say someone has said that, fine, but it is extremely few.

In any case, it is not possible for Wilcox detractors to fulfill your criteria.

1. You can't get 100 people to agree on anything.
2. There are a wide variety of people here. Some are brilliant. Some are idiots. Everything in between
3. Football is complicated. If I ask the top 10 football coaches in America how Wilcox should fix the offense, I'm going to get 10 different answers.

And we are not deciding whether this board, as a consensus, would be a better football coach than Wilcox. No one here should be hired to replace Wilcox. Certainly we should not get everyone on this board in a room and hire them all as joint coaches and have them all vote on every football decision.

How about you tell us how you think what Wilcox is doing will lead to more success? And then we'll have everyone that supports Wilcox do the same. And if there is any difference in your responses, we'll say "Well, you say Wilcox does A, and that guy says B, which is it?"

Wilcox is paid several million dollars to do a job. No one here is paid a penny. The question isn't whether any of us knows how to fix it. It certainly isn't whether we all agree how to fix it. The question is whether Wilcox can fix it.

If your argument is that BearInsider as a collective doesn't know how to fix the football program, you win. We don't. That is an irrelevant question. We are not the alternative.

The relevant questions are whether the football program is performing in an acceptable manner and if not, is Wilcox the right guy to make it perform in an acceptable manner.

I would love to hear your arguments for either proposition.

---

The thing is that oski003 doesn't even think Wilcox is doing well. He set a benchmark before the season that we needed to reach at least 8 wins this year (bowl included) or else it was time to make a change. Wilcox has already failed to meet that bar.

He just likes to be That Guy and point out inconsistencies in the "majority" opinion. It's his kink.

sycasey said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

A new OC won't make any difference as long as Wilcox is still head coach.

---

No good OC would want to come here. They would have to deal with Wilcox meddling and would be the first on the chopping block since there is no chance that Wilcox is fired

---

Wilcox gets criticized on this site for both
1) being a head coach who only focuses on defenses and leaves his OC to be on his own; and
2) meddling with the offense.

Which one is true?

---

Here is what is true:

1. The offense is not good enough
2. Wilcox is responsible for it.

You won't argue against this, because you can't win that argument. So you are reframing the argument in a way that you can't lose. It is nonsensical and has nothing to do with whether we should keep Wilcox, but you can't lose it.

Instead of the question being - is Wilcox performance acceptable? You are demanding that his detractors all get in a room an come to a uniform consensus as to exactly what football strategy Wilcox should employ to improve, and if they can't do that, then the criticism isn't valid. Further, you are being disingenuous even in that, because frankly I don't see a groundswell of people saying Wilcox should inject himself more in the offense. If you say someone has said that, fine, but it is extremely few.

In any case, it is not possible for Wilcox detractors to fulfill your criteria.

1. You can't get 100 people to agree on anything.
2. There are a wide variety of people here. Some are brilliant. Some are idiots. Everything in between
3. Football is complicated. If I ask the top 10 football coaches in America how Wilcox should fix the offense, I'm going to get 10 different answers.

And we are not deciding whether this board, as a consensus, would be a better football coach than Wilcox. No one here should be hired to replace Wilcox. Certainly we should not get everyone on this board in a room and hire them all as joint coaches and have them all vote on every football decision.

How about you tell us how you think what Wilcox is doing will lead to more success? And then we'll have everyone that supports Wilcox do the same. And if there is any difference in your responses, we'll say "Well, you say Wilcox does A, and that guy says B, which is it?"

Wilcox is paid several million dollars to do a job. No one here is paid a penny. The question isn't whether any of us knows how to fix it. It certainly isn't whether we all agree how to fix it. The question is whether Wilcox can fix it.

If your argument is that BearInsider as a collective doesn't know how to fix the football program, you win. We don't. That is an irrelevant question. We are not the alternative.

The relevant questions are whether the football program is performing in an acceptable manner and if not, is Wilcox the right guy to make it perform in an acceptable manner.

I would love to hear your arguments for either proposition.

---

The thing is that oski003 doesn't even think Wilcox is doing well. He set a benchmark before the season that we needed to reach at least 8 wins this year (bowl included) or else it was time to make a change. Wilcox has already failed to meet that bar.

He just likes to be That Guy and point out inconsistencies in the "majority" opinion. It's his kink.

---

Not really. I just don't like crazy exaggerations of how poor his performance is. I believe that coaching at Cal is hard, and, if our goal is 9+ win seasons, Wilcox isn't the guy who will lead us there. I want a team with 9+ wins, and I certainly hope the University culture can foster winning by accepting buying him out for 15 million while finding a good coach and coordinators at millions per year while our donors pay our players millions of year. I fear that UC professors and administrators don't accept this. With excellent coaching and an s&c program that doesn't result in half our offense being injured, we would have only lost 2-3 games this year.

We seem to have a distinct lack of "cooking". We've run the same plays against all the teams we've played and they if they don't work the coaches blame "lack of execution". I mean how many RPOs with Ott up the middle for 0-2 yds did we see every game he was in?

The only adjustment I can recall was us finally going after the DBs in the second half of the Big Game. Not sure why that wasn't in the first half if we knew that was their weakness.

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

A new OC won't make any difference as long as Wilcox is still head coach.

---

No good OC would want to come here. They would have to deal with Wilcox meddling and would be the first on the chopping block since there is no chance that Wilcox is fired

---

Wilcox gets criticized on this site for both
1) being a head coach who only focuses on defenses and leaves his OC to be on his own; and
2) meddling with the offense.

Which one is true?

---

Here is what is true:

1. The offense is not good enough
2. Wilcox is responsible for it.

You won't argue against this, because you can't win that argument. So you are reframing the argument in a way that you can't lose. It is nonsensical and has nothing to do with whether we should keep Wilcox, but you can't lose it.

Instead of the question being - is Wilcox performance acceptable? You are demanding that his detractors all get in a room an come to a uniform consensus as to exactly what football strategy Wilcox should employ to improve, and if they can't do that, then the criticism isn't valid. Further, you are being disingenuous even in that, because frankly I don't see a groundswell of people saying Wilcox should inject himself more in the offense. If you say someone has said that, fine, but it is extremely few.

In any case, it is not possible for Wilcox detractors to fulfill your criteria.

1. You can't get 100 people to agree on anything.
2. There are a wide variety of people here. Some are brilliant. Some are idiots. Everything in between
3. Football is complicated. If I ask the top 10 football coaches in America how Wilcox should fix the offense, I'm going to get 10 different answers.

And we are not deciding whether this board, as a consensus, would be a better football coach than Wilcox. No one here should be hired to replace Wilcox. Certainly we should not get everyone on this board in a room and hire them all as joint coaches and have them all vote on every football decision.

How about you tell us how you think what Wilcox is doing will lead to more success? And then we'll have everyone that supports Wilcox do the same. And if there is any difference in your responses, we'll say "Well, you say Wilcox does A, and that guy says B, which is it?"

Wilcox is paid several million dollars to do a job. No one here is paid a penny. The question isn't whether any of us knows how to fix it. It certainly isn't whether we all agree how to fix it. The question is whether Wilcox can fix it.

If your argument is that BearInsider as a collective doesn't know how to fix the football program, you win. We don't. That is an irrelevant question. We are not the alternative.

The relevant questions are whether the football program is performing in an acceptable manner and if not, is Wilcox the right guy to make it perform in an acceptable manner.

I would love to hear your arguments for either proposition.

---

The thing is that oski003 doesn't even think Wilcox is doing well. He set a benchmark before the season that we needed to reach at least 8 wins this year (bowl included) or else it was time to make a change. Wilcox has already failed to meet that bar.

He just likes to be That Guy and point out inconsistencies in the "majority" opinion. It's his kink.

---

Not really. I just don't like crazy exaggerations of how poor his performance is. I believe that coaching at Cal is hard, and, if our goal is 9+ win seasons, Wilcox isn't the guy who will lead us there. I want a team with 9+ wins, and I certainly hope the University culture can foster winning by accepting buying him out for 15 million while finding a good coach and coordinators at millions per year while our donors pay our players millions of year. I fear that UC professors and administrators don't accept this. With excellent coaching and an s&c program that doesn't result in half our offense being injured, we would have only lost 2-3 games this year.

---

A 23-43 conference record is not a crazy exaggeration.

BadNewsBear1 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

A new OC won't make any difference as long as Wilcox is still head coach.

---

No good OC would want to come here. They would have to deal with Wilcox meddling and would be the first on the chopping block since there is no chance that Wilcox is fired

---

Wilcox gets criticized on this site for both
1) being a head coach who only focuses on defenses and leaves his OC to be on his own; and
2) meddling with the offense.

Which one is true?

---

Here is what is true:

1. The offense is not good enough
2. Wilcox is responsible for it.

You won't argue against this, because you can't win that argument. So you are reframing the argument in a way that you can't lose. It is nonsensical and has nothing to do with whether we should keep Wilcox, but you can't lose it.

Instead of the question being - is Wilcox performance acceptable? You are demanding that his detractors all get in a room an come to a uniform consensus as to exactly what football strategy Wilcox should employ to improve, and if they can't do that, then the criticism isn't valid. Further, you are being disingenuous even in that, because frankly I don't see a groundswell of people saying Wilcox should inject himself more in the offense. If you say someone has said that, fine, but it is extremely few.

In any case, it is not possible for Wilcox detractors to fulfill your criteria.

1. You can't get 100 people to agree on anything.
2. There are a wide variety of people here. Some are brilliant. Some are idiots. Everything in between
3. Football is complicated. If I ask the top 10 football coaches in America how Wilcox should fix the offense, I'm going to get 10 different answers.

And we are not deciding whether this board, as a consensus, would be a better football coach than Wilcox. No one here should be hired to replace Wilcox. Certainly we should not get everyone on this board in a room and hire them all as joint coaches and have them all vote on every football decision.

How about you tell us how you think what Wilcox is doing will lead to more success? And then we'll have everyone that supports Wilcox do the same. And if there is any difference in your responses, we'll say "Well, you say Wilcox does A, and that guy says B, which is it?"

Wilcox is paid several million dollars to do a job. No one here is paid a penny. The question isn't whether any of us knows how to fix it. It certainly isn't whether we all agree how to fix it. The question is whether Wilcox can fix it.

If your argument is that BearInsider as a collective doesn't know how to fix the football program, you win. We don't. That is an irrelevant question. We are not the alternative.

The relevant questions are whether the football program is performing in an acceptable manner and if not, is Wilcox the right guy to make it perform in an acceptable manner.

I would love to hear your arguments for either proposition.

---

The thing is that oski003 doesn't even think Wilcox is doing well. He set a benchmark before the season that we needed to reach at least 8 wins this year (bowl included) or else it was time to make a change. Wilcox has already failed to meet that bar.

He just likes to be That Guy and point out inconsistencies in the "majority" opinion. It's his kink.

---

Not really. I just don't like crazy exaggerations of how poor his performance is. I believe that coaching at Cal is hard, and, if our goal is 9+ win seasons, Wilcox isn't the guy who will lead us there. I want a team with 9+ wins, and I certainly hope the University culture can foster winning by accepting buying him out for 15 million while finding a good coach and coordinators at millions per year while our donors pay our players millions of year. I fear that UC professors and administrators don't accept this. With excellent coaching and an s&c program that doesn't result in half our offense being injured, we would have only lost 2-3 games this year.

---

A 23-43 conference record is not a crazy exaggeration.

---

It is unfortunately in line with how Cal football overall has been the last 50 years, despite 9 separate head coaches in the time period. Tedford's first few seasons almost broke the cycle.

Shocky1 said:

---

ok, u might be rite but do u really think kai is looking forward to working the wednesday nite late shift at buffalo wild wings by the chandler fashion square mall before going home to dad dwayne's place instead of living in soho or atherton??

---

Here's the thing, Shocky. I love that you love Cal and proclaim all of its virtues. Your arguments are extremely valid. If I were in Kai's shoes, I wouldn't make that decision. Especially because he isn't improving his chances of having a football career. At that point you are just saying it is more important to you to have fun playing football for a few years. But you only live once and if that is what is important to him it is his life. As an aside, I would say that for the most part, Cal students who would make that decision were unlikely to end up living in Soho or Atherton. That isn't a criticism. Cal isn't a guarantee. If your priority is to play football, go hiking, take Bob Ross tutorials, teach yoga, you aren't going to live in Atherton (unless you marry into it) Cal degree or not. No judgment from me. Everyone has to live their best life, not mine. If he wanted to live in Atherton, he made the wrong decision.

I absolutely love the guys that like you love all that Cal has to offer. Those are guys I can root for. And maybe we all need to decide whether what we want is to root for those guys or maximize winning. I'm not sure we can do both.

The problem for Cal is that generally the guys that make the best football players are guys who eat, drink, sleep and breathe football. Guys that, yeah, will say they will give up an elite education to further their football career because for them the elite education is a nice to have and the football is a must have. That isn't me. The elite education was the must have for me. But I suck at football. I absolutely love the guys that use their talent at football to get a Cal education. That's what I would have done if given the opportunity. The difficulty is, while a lot of them can be great football players, on average those aren't the best players. Yelling at them for not valuing the same things we value doesn't really help. Showing them that we can deliver on what they value is what helps.

If your kid was a brilliant student who wanted to go into business, and instead of having a top business school, Cal's business school was bizarrely bad compared to the rest of the campus, you would tell your kid to go to a good business school somewhere else. Because it doesn't matter how good the rest of the campus is. And overall, in that hypothetical Cal may pull in a brilliant business student or two because they love the rest of Cal, but the students at the business school would be on par with the business school. Take "business school" out of the preceding and replace it with "football program".

bluehenbear said:

---

We seem to have a distinct lack of "cooking". We've run the same plays against all the teams we've played and they if they don't work the coaches blame "lack of execution". I mean how many RPOs with Ott up the middle for 0-2 yds did we see every game he was in?

The only adjustment I can recall was us finally going after the DBs in the second half of the Big Game. Not sure why that wasn't in the first half if we knew that was their weakness.

---

Hence the reason, and the incredulity, of my post.

6956, you make a lotta cogent points & your right elite athletes are very focused on their potential nfl development and getting PAID in the nfl

that's the struggle that must be in some sense

but here's the deal, kai never wanted to leave berkeley as he was getting close to getting accepted into the haas biz school, this young man is so very likable with his enthusiasm & positive attitude

unfortunately kai gotta meddling little league dad (runs a fb development biz here in zony) dwayne who i visited with extensively pregame at the tuscon covid fiasco who later made playing demands upon spav which didn't end well as milner's son then transferred to northern arizona where he's a back up earring a kinda marketplace worthless degree here in the desert

kai NEVER had a choice, his delusional dad thought his son wuz gonna play in the national football league someday...the whole thing is sad to me, kai is probably not gonna realize all his (not his dad's) dreams in life but ima rooting for him!!

so that running back room that wuz angry about not getting carries resulted in damien moore to fresno state/lamar, chris street to utah tech & ashton hayes to nevada...they gave up a berkeley degree for nothing, dr harry edwards would expound upon how black young men chase athletic dreams when they should be USING sports to get the best possible education which is actually how the vast majority of highly successful people on planet earth get ahead

and gpas are the strongest metric of future academic success in berkeley, it's not perfect but it's a reliable indicator of a incoming student's probability of earning a life changing degree from the #1 ranked public university in the world

oski003 said:

---

BadNewsBear1 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

A new OC won't make any difference as long as Wilcox is still head coach.

---

No good OC would want to come here. They would have to deal with Wilcox meddling and would be the first on the chopping block since there is no chance that Wilcox is fired

---

Wilcox gets criticized on this site for both
1) being a head coach who only focuses on defenses and leaves his OC to be on his own; and
2) meddling with the offense.

Which one is true?

---

Here is what is true:

1. The offense is not good enough
2. Wilcox is responsible for it.

You won't argue against this, because you can't win that argument. So you are reframing the argument in a way that you can't lose. It is nonsensical and has nothing to do with whether we should keep Wilcox, but you can't lose it.

Instead of the question being - is Wilcox performance acceptable? You are demanding that his detractors all get in a room an come to a uniform consensus as to exactly what football strategy Wilcox should employ to improve, and if they can't do that, then the criticism isn't valid. Further, you are being disingenuous even in that, because frankly I don't see a groundswell of people saying Wilcox should inject himself more in the offense. If you say someone has said that, fine, but it is extremely few.

In any case, it is not possible for Wilcox detractors to fulfill your criteria.

1. You can't get 100 people to agree on anything.
2. There are a wide variety of people here. Some are brilliant. Some are idiots. Everything in between
3. Football is complicated. If I ask the top 10 football coaches in America how Wilcox should fix the offense, I'm going to get 10 different answers.

And we are not deciding whether this board, as a consensus, would be a better football coach than Wilcox. No one here should be hired to replace Wilcox. Certainly we should not get everyone on this board in a room and hire them all as joint coaches and have them all vote on every football decision.

How about you tell us how you think what Wilcox is doing will lead to more success? And then we'll have everyone that supports Wilcox do the same. And if there is any difference in your responses, we'll say "Well, you say Wilcox does A, and that guy says B, which is it?"

Wilcox is paid several million dollars to do a job. No one here is paid a penny. The question isn't whether any of us knows how to fix it. It certainly isn't whether we all agree how to fix it. The question is whether Wilcox can fix it.

If your argument is that BearInsider as a collective doesn't know how to fix the football program, you win. We don't. That is an irrelevant question. We are not the alternative.

The relevant questions are whether the football program is performing in an acceptable manner and if not, is Wilcox the right guy to make it perform in an acceptable manner.

I would love to hear your arguments for either proposition.

---

The thing is that oski003 doesn't even think Wilcox is doing well. He set a benchmark before the season that we needed to reach at least 8 wins this year (bowl included) or else it was time to make a change. Wilcox has already failed to meet that bar.

He just likes to be That Guy and point out inconsistencies in the "majority" opinion. It's his kink.

---

Not really. I just don't like crazy exaggerations of how poor his performance is. I believe that coaching at Cal is hard, and, if our goal is 9+ win seasons, Wilcox isn't the guy who will lead us there. I want a team with 9+ wins, and I certainly hope the University culture can foster winning by accepting buying him out for 15 million while finding a good coach and coordinators at millions per year while our donors pay our players millions of year. I fear that UC professors and administrators don't accept this. With excellent coaching and an s&c program that doesn't result in half our offense being injured, we would have only lost 2-3 games this year.

---

A 23-43 conference record is not a crazy exaggeration.

---

It is unfortunately in line with how Cal football overall has been the last 50 years, despite 9 separate head coaches in the time period. Tedford's first few seasons almost broke the cycle.

---

So because Tom Holmoe, Joe Kapp, really sucked and Sonny Dykes had one horrific year, we shouldn't expect better?

Wilcox has the 6th best conference record among Cal coaches in the last 50 years, barely edging out Keith Gilbertson by .005%. His conference record is worse than Roger Theder's who we fired after 4 years with pretty much unanimous feeling that he sucked. Dykes first year sunk him, but after that he was better than Wilcox. Wilcox has only substantially outperformed Kapp and Holmoe. If you can't hit the top 5 among the cast of characters he is competing with...

Look, firing Wilcox doesn't cure everything. Cal has like 100 things it needs to do, one of which is firing Wilcox. The fact that they won't do the other 99 doesn't mean they shouldn't do the one thing. I'm 100% with you if you say a lot more needs to be done. Cal fans need to stop look at changing the coach as a panacea. But 23-43 is unacceptable. That is not a crazy exaggeration.

bluehenbear said:

---

We seem to have a distinct lack of "cooking". We've run the same plays against all the teams we've played and they if they don't work the coaches blame "lack of execution". I mean how many RPOs with Ott up the middle for 0-2 yds did we see every game he was in?

---

A better variety of running plays is needed. But we can't ignore the fact that good teams successfully run between the tackles, and that the #1 reason they do so is that their O-line recruiting is far better than Cal's.

The only way to avoid running between the tackles is to go full-Leach with roster construction, which requires both a surplus of quality receivers (including pass-catching RBs) and QBs who play the position at a high level and are willing to play the way Leach's system demands (i.e., consistently make two-second decisions that lead to completed passes).

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BadNewsBear1 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

A new OC won't make any difference as long as Wilcox is still head coach.

---

No good OC would want to come here. They would have to deal with Wilcox meddling and would be the first on the chopping block since there is no chance that Wilcox is fired

---

Wilcox gets criticized on this site for both
1) being a head coach who only focuses on defenses and leaves his OC to be on his own; and
2) meddling with the offense.

Which one is true?

---

Here is what is true:

1. The offense is not good enough
2. Wilcox is responsible for it.

You won't argue against this, because you can't win that argument. So you are reframing the argument in a way that you can't lose. It is nonsensical and has nothing to do with whether we should keep Wilcox, but you can't lose it.

Instead of the question being - is Wilcox performance acceptable? You are demanding that his detractors all get in a room an come to a uniform consensus as to exactly what football strategy Wilcox should employ to improve, and if they can't do that, then the criticism isn't valid. Further, you are being disingenuous even in that, because frankly I don't see a groundswell of people saying Wilcox should inject himself more in the offense. If you say someone has said that, fine, but it is extremely few.

In any case, it is not possible for Wilcox detractors to fulfill your criteria.

1. You can't get 100 people to agree on anything.
2. There are a wide variety of people here. Some are brilliant. Some are idiots. Everything in between
3. Football is complicated. If I ask the top 10 football coaches in America how Wilcox should fix the offense, I'm going to get 10 different answers.

And we are not deciding whether this board, as a consensus, would be a better football coach than Wilcox. No one here should be hired to replace Wilcox. Certainly we should not get everyone on this board in a room and hire them all as joint coaches and have them all vote on every football decision.

How about you tell us how you think what Wilcox is doing will lead to more success? And then we'll have everyone that supports Wilcox do the same. And if there is any difference in your responses, we'll say "Well, you say Wilcox does A, and that guy says B, which is it?"

Wilcox is paid several million dollars to do a job. No one here is paid a penny. The question isn't whether any of us knows how to fix it. It certainly isn't whether we all agree how to fix it. The question is whether Wilcox can fix it.

If your argument is that BearInsider as a collective doesn't know how to fix the football program, you win. We don't. That is an irrelevant question. We are not the alternative.

The relevant questions are whether the football program is performing in an acceptable manner and if not, is Wilcox the right guy to make it perform in an acceptable manner.

I would love to hear your arguments for either proposition.

---

The thing is that oski003 doesn't even think Wilcox is doing well. He set a benchmark before the season that we needed to reach at least 8 wins this year (bowl included) or else it was time to make a change. Wilcox has already failed to meet that bar.

He just likes to be That Guy and point out inconsistencies in the "majority" opinion. It's his kink.

---

Not really. I just don't like crazy exaggerations of how poor his performance is. I believe that coaching at Cal is hard, and, if our goal is 9+ win seasons, Wilcox isn't the guy who will lead us there. I want a team with 9+ wins, and I certainly hope the University culture can foster winning by accepting buying him out for 15 million while finding a good coach and coordinators at millions per year while our donors pay our players millions of year. I fear that UC professors and administrators don't accept this. With excellent coaching and an s&c program that doesn't result in half our offense being injured, we would have only lost 2-3 games this year.

---

A 23-43 conference record is not a crazy exaggeration.

---

It is unfortunately in line with how Cal football overall has been the last 50 years, despite 9 separate head coaches in the time period. Tedford's first few seasons almost broke the cycle.

---

So because Tom Holmoe, Joe Kapp, really sucked and Sonny Dykes had one horrific year, we shouldn't expect better?

Wilcox has the 6th best conference record among Cal coaches in the last 50 years, barely edging out Keith Gilbertson by .005%. His conference record is worse than Roger Theder's who we fired after 4 years with pretty much unanimous feeling that he sucked. Dykes first year sunk him, but after that he was better than Wilcox. Wilcox has only substantially outperformed Kapp and Holmoe. If you can't hit the top 5 among the cast of characters he is competing with...

Look, firing Wilcox doesn't cure everything. Cal has like 100 things it needs to do, one of which is firing Wilcox. The fact that they won't do the other 99 doesn't mean they shouldn't do the one thing. I'm 100% with you if you say a lot more needs to be done. Cal fans need to stop look at changing the coach as a panacea. But 23-43 is unacceptable. That is not a crazy exaggeration.

---

I literally stated this above, so the premise of your post has already been addressed contrary to your argument.

"I certainly hope the University culture can foster winning by accepting buying him out for 15 million while finding a good coach and coordinators at millions per year while our donors pay our players millions of year. I fear that UC professors and administrators don't accept this. With excellent coaching and an s&c program that doesn't result in half our offense being injured, we would have only lost 2-3 games this year."

BearSD said:

---

bluehenbear said:

---

We seem to have a distinct lack of "cooking". We've run the same plays against all the teams we've played and they if they don't work the coaches blame "lack of execution". I mean how many RPOs with Ott up the middle for 0-2 yds did we see every game he was in?

---

The only way to avoid running between the tackles is to go full-Leach with roster construction, which requires both a surplus of quality receivers (including pass-catching RBs) and QBs who play the position at a high level and are willing to play the way Leach's system demands (i.e., consistently make two-second decisions that lead to completed passes).

---

Well we had that this year. We didn't have a star WR but we were deep with competent guys including two very good pass catching TEs. Ott could not run between the tackles but he's still a very good pass catcher/blocker.

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BadNewsBear1 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

A new OC won't make any difference as long as Wilcox is still head coach.

---

No good OC would want to come here. They would have to deal with Wilcox meddling and would be the first on the chopping block since there is no chance that Wilcox is fired

---

Wilcox gets criticized on this site for both
1) being a head coach who only focuses on defenses and leaves his OC to be on his own; and
2) meddling with the offense.

Which one is true?

---

Here is what is true:

1. The offense is not good enough
2. Wilcox is responsible for it.

You won't argue against this, because you can't win that argument. So you are reframing the argument in a way that you can't lose. It is nonsensical and has nothing to do with whether we should keep Wilcox, but you can't lose it.

Instead of the question being - is Wilcox performance acceptable? You are demanding that his detractors all get in a room an come to a uniform consensus as to exactly what football strategy Wilcox should employ to improve, and if they can't do that, then the criticism isn't valid. Further, you are being disingenuous even in that, because frankly I don't see a groundswell of people saying Wilcox should inject himself more in the offense. If you say someone has said that, fine, but it is extremely few.

In any case, it is not possible for Wilcox detractors to fulfill your criteria.

1. You can't get 100 people to agree on anything.
2. There are a wide variety of people here. Some are brilliant. Some are idiots. Everything in between
3. Football is complicated. If I ask the top 10 football coaches in America how Wilcox should fix the offense, I'm going to get 10 different answers.

And we are not deciding whether this board, as a consensus, would be a better football coach than Wilcox. No one here should be hired to replace Wilcox. Certainly we should not get everyone on this board in a room and hire them all as joint coaches and have them all vote on every football decision.

How about you tell us how you think what Wilcox is doing will lead to more success? And then we'll have everyone that supports Wilcox do the same. And if there is any difference in your responses, we'll say "Well, you say Wilcox does A, and that guy says B, which is it?"

Wilcox is paid several million dollars to do a job. No one here is paid a penny. The question isn't whether any of us knows how to fix it. It certainly isn't whether we all agree how to fix it. The question is whether Wilcox can fix it.

If your argument is that BearInsider as a collective doesn't know how to fix the football program, you win. We don't. That is an irrelevant question. We are not the alternative.

The relevant questions are whether the football program is performing in an acceptable manner and if not, is Wilcox the right guy to make it perform in an acceptable manner.

I would love to hear your arguments for either proposition.

---

The thing is that oski003 doesn't even think Wilcox is doing well. He set a benchmark before the season that we needed to reach at least 8 wins this year (bowl included) or else it was time to make a change. Wilcox has already failed to meet that bar.

He just likes to be That Guy and point out inconsistencies in the "majority" opinion. It's his kink.

---

Not really. I just don't like crazy exaggerations of how poor his performance is. I believe that coaching at Cal is hard, and, if our goal is 9+ win seasons, Wilcox isn't the guy who will lead us there. I want a team with 9+ wins, and I certainly hope the University culture can foster winning by accepting buying him out for 15 million while finding a good coach and coordinators at millions per year while our donors pay our players millions of year. I fear that UC professors and administrators don't accept this. With excellent coaching and an s&c program that doesn't result in half our offense being injured, we would have only lost 2-3 games this year.

---

A 23-43 conference record is not a crazy exaggeration.

---

It is unfortunately in line with how Cal football overall has been the last 50 years, despite 9 separate head coaches in the time period. Tedford's first few seasons almost broke the cycle.

---

So because Tom Holmoe, Joe Kapp, really sucked and Sonny Dykes had one horrific year, we shouldn't expect better?

Wilcox has the 6th best conference record among Cal coaches in the last 50 years, barely edging out Keith Gilbertson by .005%. His conference record is worse than Roger Theder's who we fired after 4 years with pretty much unanimous feeling that he sucked. Dykes first year sunk him, but after that he was better than Wilcox. Wilcox has only substantially outperformed Kapp and Holmoe. If you can't hit the top 5 among the cast of characters he is competing with...

Look, firing Wilcox doesn't cure everything. Cal has like 100 things it needs to do, one of which is firing Wilcox. The fact that they won't do the other 99 doesn't mean they shouldn't do the one thing. I'm 100% with you if you say a lot more needs to be done. Cal fans need to stop look at changing the coach as a panacea. But 23-43 is unacceptable. That is not a crazy exaggeration.

---

I literally stated this above, so the premise of your post has already been addressed contrary to your argument.

"I certainly hope the University culture can foster winning by accepting buying him out for 15 million while finding a good coach and coordinators at millions per year while our donors pay our players millions of year. I fear that UC professors and administrators don't accept this. With excellent coaching and an s&c program that doesn't result in half our offense being injured, we would have only lost 2-3 games this year."

---

That is fine, man, but what is your point in arguing with everyone who says he needs to go? You can't basically argue against every criticism for weeks with mostly misleading points and then say "despite 100 posts to the contrary, I want him fired".

Your argument about Jet's ypc is significantly misleading. Your argument that Cal's 50 year record makes criticisms against Wilcox exaggerated is misleading. I guess since they don't even convince you, you know that.

If someone attacks him personally, that is just wrong. He seems like a good guy who is doing his best. However, pretty much every football argument says he should not be coaching next year. I fully get that major donors might not step up to the plate - I wouldn't if I were them. But I'm not going to pretend that he is okay because we are stuck with him.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BadNewsBear1 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

A new OC won't make any difference as long as Wilcox is still head coach.

---

No good OC would want to come here. They would have to deal with Wilcox meddling and would be the first on the chopping block since there is no chance that Wilcox is fired

---

Wilcox gets criticized on this site for both
1) being a head coach who only focuses on defenses and leaves his OC to be on his own; and
2) meddling with the offense.

Which one is true?

---

Here is what is true:

1. The offense is not good enough
2. Wilcox is responsible for it.

You won't argue against this, because you can't win that argument. So you are reframing the argument in a way that you can't lose. It is nonsensical and has nothing to do with whether we should keep Wilcox, but you can't lose it.

Instead of the question being - is Wilcox performance acceptable? You are demanding that his detractors all get in a room an come to a uniform consensus as to exactly what football strategy Wilcox should employ to improve, and if they can't do that, then the criticism isn't valid. Further, you are being disingenuous even in that, because frankly I don't see a groundswell of people saying Wilcox should inject himself more in the offense. If you say someone has said that, fine, but it is extremely few.

In any case, it is not possible for Wilcox detractors to fulfill your criteria.

1. You can't get 100 people to agree on anything.
2. There are a wide variety of people here. Some are brilliant. Some are idiots. Everything in between
3. Football is complicated. If I ask the top 10 football coaches in America how Wilcox should fix the offense, I'm going to get 10 different answers.

And we are not deciding whether this board, as a consensus, would be a better football coach than Wilcox. No one here should be hired to replace Wilcox. Certainly we should not get everyone on this board in a room and hire them all as joint coaches and have them all vote on every football decision.

How about you tell us how you think what Wilcox is doing will lead to more success? And then we'll have everyone that supports Wilcox do the same. And if there is any difference in your responses, we'll say "Well, you say Wilcox does A, and that guy says B, which is it?"

Wilcox is paid several million dollars to do a job. No one here is paid a penny. The question isn't whether any of us knows how to fix it. It certainly isn't whether we all agree how to fix it. The question is whether Wilcox can fix it.

If your argument is that BearInsider as a collective doesn't know how to fix the football program, you win. We don't. That is an irrelevant question. We are not the alternative.

The relevant questions are whether the football program is performing in an acceptable manner and if not, is Wilcox the right guy to make it perform in an acceptable manner.

I would love to hear your arguments for either proposition.

---

The thing is that oski003 doesn't even think Wilcox is doing well. He set a benchmark before the season that we needed to reach at least 8 wins this year (bowl included) or else it was time to make a change. Wilcox has already failed to meet that bar.

He just likes to be That Guy and point out inconsistencies in the "majority" opinion. It's his kink.

---

Not really. I just don't like crazy exaggerations of how poor his performance is. I believe that coaching at Cal is hard, and, if our goal is 9+ win seasons, Wilcox isn't the guy who will lead us there. I want a team with 9+ wins, and I certainly hope the University culture can foster winning by accepting buying him out for 15 million while finding a good coach and coordinators at millions per year while our donors pay our players millions of year. I fear that UC professors and administrators don't accept this. With excellent coaching and an s&c program that doesn't result in half our offense being injured, we would have only lost 2-3 games this year.

---

A 23-43 conference record is not a crazy exaggeration.

---

It is unfortunately in line with how Cal football overall has been the last 50 years, despite 9 separate head coaches in the time period. Tedford's first few seasons almost broke the cycle.

---

So because Tom Holmoe, Joe Kapp, really sucked and Sonny Dykes had one horrific year, we shouldn't expect better?

Wilcox has the 6th best conference record among Cal coaches in the last 50 years, barely edging out Keith Gilbertson by .005%. His conference record is worse than Roger Theder's who we fired after 4 years with pretty much unanimous feeling that he sucked. Dykes first year sunk him, but after that he was better than Wilcox. Wilcox has only substantially outperformed Kapp and Holmoe. If you can't hit the top 5 among the cast of characters he is competing with...

Look, firing Wilcox doesn't cure everything. Cal has like 100 things it needs to do, one of which is firing Wilcox. The fact that they won't do the other 99 doesn't mean they shouldn't do the one thing. I'm 100% with you if you say a lot more needs to be done. Cal fans need to stop look at changing the coach as a panacea. But 23-43 is unacceptable. That is not a crazy exaggeration.

---

I see the passage of time is helping you come to appreciate the Sonny Dykes Era!

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BadNewsBear1 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

A new OC won't make any difference as long as Wilcox is still head coach.

---

No good OC would want to come here. They would have to deal with Wilcox meddling and would be the first on the chopping block since there is no chance that Wilcox is fired

---

Wilcox gets criticized on this site for both
1) being a head coach who only focuses on defenses and leaves his OC to be on his own; and
2) meddling with the offense.

Which one is true?

---

Here is what is true:

1. The offense is not good enough
2. Wilcox is responsible for it.

You won't argue against this, because you can't win that argument. So you are reframing the argument in a way that you can't lose. It is nonsensical and has nothing to do with whether we should keep Wilcox, but you can't lose it.

Instead of the question being - is Wilcox performance acceptable? You are demanding that his detractors all get in a room an come to a uniform consensus as to exactly what football strategy Wilcox should employ to improve, and if they can't do that, then the criticism isn't valid. Further, you are being disingenuous even in that, because frankly I don't see a groundswell of people saying Wilcox should inject himself more in the offense. If you say someone has said that, fine, but it is extremely few.

In any case, it is not possible for Wilcox detractors to fulfill your criteria.

1. You can't get 100 people to agree on anything.
2. There are a wide variety of people here. Some are brilliant. Some are idiots. Everything in between
3. Football is complicated. If I ask the top 10 football coaches in America how Wilcox should fix the offense, I'm going to get 10 different answers.

And we are not deciding whether this board, as a consensus, would be a better football coach than Wilcox. No one here should be hired to replace Wilcox. Certainly we should not get everyone on this board in a room and hire them all as joint coaches and have them all vote on every football decision.

How about you tell us how you think what Wilcox is doing will lead to more success? And then we'll have everyone that supports Wilcox do the same. And if there is any difference in your responses, we'll say "Well, you say Wilcox does A, and that guy says B, which is it?"

Wilcox is paid several million dollars to do a job. No one here is paid a penny. The question isn't whether any of us knows how to fix it. It certainly isn't whether we all agree how to fix it. The question is whether Wilcox can fix it.

If your argument is that BearInsider as a collective doesn't know how to fix the football program, you win. We don't. That is an irrelevant question. We are not the alternative.

The relevant questions are whether the football program is performing in an acceptable manner and if not, is Wilcox the right guy to make it perform in an acceptable manner.

I would love to hear your arguments for either proposition.

---

The thing is that oski003 doesn't even think Wilcox is doing well. He set a benchmark before the season that we needed to reach at least 8 wins this year (bowl included) or else it was time to make a change. Wilcox has already failed to meet that bar.

He just likes to be That Guy and point out inconsistencies in the "majority" opinion. It's his kink.

---

Not really. I just don't like crazy exaggerations of how poor his performance is. I believe that coaching at Cal is hard, and, if our goal is 9+ win seasons, Wilcox isn't the guy who will lead us there. I want a team with 9+ wins, and I certainly hope the University culture can foster winning by accepting buying him out for 15 million while finding a good coach and coordinators at millions per year while our donors pay our players millions of year. I fear that UC professors and administrators don't accept this. With excellent coaching and an s&c program that doesn't result in half our offense being injured, we would have only lost 2-3 games this year.

---

A 23-43 conference record is not a crazy exaggeration.

---

It is unfortunately in line with how Cal football overall has been the last 50 years, despite 9 separate head coaches in the time period. Tedford's first few seasons almost broke the cycle.

---

So because Tom Holmoe, Joe Kapp, really sucked and Sonny Dykes had one horrific year, we shouldn't expect better?

Wilcox has the 6th best conference record among Cal coaches in the last 50 years, barely edging out Keith Gilbertson by .005%. His conference record is worse than Roger Theder's who we fired after 4 years with pretty much unanimous feeling that he sucked. Dykes first year sunk him, but after that he was better than Wilcox. Wilcox has only substantially outperformed Kapp and Holmoe. If you can't hit the top 5 among the cast of characters he is competing with...

Look, firing Wilcox doesn't cure everything. Cal has like 100 things it needs to do, one of which is firing Wilcox. The fact that they won't do the other 99 doesn't mean they shouldn't do the one thing. I'm 100% with you if you say a lot more needs to be done. Cal fans need to stop look at changing the coach as a panacea. But 23-43 is unacceptable. That is not a crazy exaggeration.

---

I literally stated this above, so the premise of your post has already been addressed contrary to your argument.

"I certainly hope the University culture can foster winning by accepting buying him out for 15 million while finding a good coach and coordinators at millions per year while our donors pay our players millions of year. I fear that UC professors and administrators don't accept this. With excellent coaching and an s&c program that doesn't result in half our offense being injured, we would have only lost 2-3 games this year."

---

That is fine, man, but what is your point in arguing with everyone who says he needs to go? You can't basically argue against every criticism for weeks with mostly misleading points and then say "despite 100 posts to the contrary, I want him fired".

Your argument about Jet's ypc is significantly misleading. Your argument that Cal's 50 year record makes criticisms against Wilcox exaggerated is misleading. I guess since they don't even convince you, you know that.

If someone attacks him personally, that is just wrong. He seems like a good guy who is doing his best. However, pretty much every football argument says he should not be coaching next year. I fully get that major donors might not step up to the plate - I wouldn't if I were them. But I'm not going to pretend that he is okay because we are stuck with him.

---

If we pay the 15 million dollar buyout to replace him, I hope we offer the next coach more resources than we offered Wilcox. This means lots of money for coaches and other support staff as well as more field use. The University needs to understand that football is big business and we need to play in it. We can't have hour long lines to get into the stadium. We can't have poor publicity. We can't rely on private individuals to promote the team. We need to act more like a private school than a bungling bureacracy. How do Ohio State, Penn St. and Michigan doing it? Why did Sandy fail here but succeed at Penn? We should fire Wilcox because we want better than 6-6 and are willing to make changes to get that. We can't merely pretend he is horrible because he is not.

Big C said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BadNewsBear1 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

A new OC won't make any difference as long as Wilcox is still head coach.

---

No good OC would want to come here. They would have to deal with Wilcox meddling and would be the first on the chopping block since there is no chance that Wilcox is fired

---

Wilcox gets criticized on this site for both
1) being a head coach who only focuses on defenses and leaves his OC to be on his own; and
2) meddling with the offense.

Which one is true?

---

Here is what is true:

1. The offense is not good enough
2. Wilcox is responsible for it.

You won't argue against this, because you can't win that argument. So you are reframing the argument in a way that you can't lose. It is nonsensical and has nothing to do with whether we should keep Wilcox, but you can't lose it.

Instead of the question being - is Wilcox performance acceptable? You are demanding that his detractors all get in a room an come to a uniform consensus as to exactly what football strategy Wilcox should employ to improve, and if they can't do that, then the criticism isn't valid. Further, you are being disingenuous even in that, because frankly I don't see a groundswell of people saying Wilcox should inject himself more in the offense. If you say someone has said that, fine, but it is extremely few.

In any case, it is not possible for Wilcox detractors to fulfill your criteria.

1. You can't get 100 people to agree on anything.
2. There are a wide variety of people here. Some are brilliant. Some are idiots. Everything in between
3. Football is complicated. If I ask the top 10 football coaches in America how Wilcox should fix the offense, I'm going to get 10 different answers.

And we are not deciding whether this board, as a consensus, would be a better football coach than Wilcox. No one here should be hired to replace Wilcox. Certainly we should not get everyone on this board in a room and hire them all as joint coaches and have them all vote on every football decision.

How about you tell us how you think what Wilcox is doing will lead to more success? And then we'll have everyone that supports Wilcox do the same. And if there is any difference in your responses, we'll say "Well, you say Wilcox does A, and that guy says B, which is it?"

Wilcox is paid several million dollars to do a job. No one here is paid a penny. The question isn't whether any of us knows how to fix it. It certainly isn't whether we all agree how to fix it. The question is whether Wilcox can fix it.

If your argument is that BearInsider as a collective doesn't know how to fix the football program, you win. We don't. That is an irrelevant question. We are not the alternative.

The relevant questions are whether the football program is performing in an acceptable manner and if not, is Wilcox the right guy to make it perform in an acceptable manner.

I would love to hear your arguments for either proposition.

---

The thing is that oski003 doesn't even think Wilcox is doing well. He set a benchmark before the season that we needed to reach at least 8 wins this year (bowl included) or else it was time to make a change. Wilcox has already failed to meet that bar.

He just likes to be That Guy and point out inconsistencies in the "majority" opinion. It's his kink.

---

Not really. I just don't like crazy exaggerations of how poor his performance is. I believe that coaching at Cal is hard, and, if our goal is 9+ win seasons, Wilcox isn't the guy who will lead us there. I want a team with 9+ wins, and I certainly hope the University culture can foster winning by accepting buying him out for 15 million while finding a good coach and coordinators at millions per year while our donors pay our players millions of year. I fear that UC professors and administrators don't accept this. With excellent coaching and an s&c program that doesn't result in half our offense being injured, we would have only lost 2-3 games this year.

---

A 23-43 conference record is not a crazy exaggeration.

---

It is unfortunately in line with how Cal football overall has been the last 50 years, despite 9 separate head coaches in the time period. Tedford's first few seasons almost broke the cycle.

---

So because Tom Holmoe, Joe Kapp, really sucked and Sonny Dykes had one horrific year, we shouldn't expect better?

Wilcox has the 6th best conference record among Cal coaches in the last 50 years, barely edging out Keith Gilbertson by .005%. His conference record is worse than Roger Theder's who we fired after 4 years with pretty much unanimous feeling that he sucked. Dykes first year sunk him, but after that he was better than Wilcox. Wilcox has only substantially outperformed Kapp and Holmoe. If you can't hit the top 5 among the cast of characters he is competing with...

Look, firing Wilcox doesn't cure everything. Cal has like 100 things it needs to do, one of which is firing Wilcox. The fact that they won't do the other 99 doesn't mean they shouldn't do the one thing. I'm 100% with you if you say a lot more needs to be done. Cal fans need to stop look at changing the coach as a panacea. But 23-43 is unacceptable. That is not a crazy exaggeration.

---

I see the passage of time is helping you come to appreciate the Sonny Dykes Era!

---

Only you can get away with that BigC.

Dykes is a better football coach than Wilcox in the same sense that Justin Vedder was better than his backup. If that amounts to appreciation, call me guilty.

But to set the record straight, I think Dykes was terrible at Cal. Given two very awful things that happened off the field in the strength and conditioning program on his watch, the likes of which have not happened on Wilcox' watch, I'd take Wilcox' somewhat worse record if I was unfortunate enough for those to be my choices.

Big C said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BadNewsBear1 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

A new OC won't make any difference as long as Wilcox is still head coach.

---

No good OC would want to come here. They would have to deal with Wilcox meddling and would be the first on the chopping block since there is no chance that Wilcox is fired

---

Wilcox gets criticized on this site for both
1) being a head coach who only focuses on defenses and leaves his OC to be on his own; and
2) meddling with the offense.

Which one is true?

---

Here is what is true:

1. The offense is not good enough
2. Wilcox is responsible for it.

You won't argue against this, because you can't win that argument. So you are reframing the argument in a way that you can't lose. It is nonsensical and has nothing to do with whether we should keep Wilcox, but you can't lose it.

Instead of the question being - is Wilcox performance acceptable? You are demanding that his detractors all get in a room an come to a uniform consensus as to exactly what football strategy Wilcox should employ to improve, and if they can't do that, then the criticism isn't valid. Further, you are being disingenuous even in that, because frankly I don't see a groundswell of people saying Wilcox should inject himself more in the offense. If you say someone has said that, fine, but it is extremely few.

In any case, it is not possible for Wilcox detractors to fulfill your criteria.

1. You can't get 100 people to agree on anything.
2. There are a wide variety of people here. Some are brilliant. Some are idiots. Everything in between
3. Football is complicated. If I ask the top 10 football coaches in America how Wilcox should fix the offense, I'm going to get 10 different answers.

And we are not deciding whether this board, as a consensus, would be a better football coach than Wilcox. No one here should be hired to replace Wilcox. Certainly we should not get everyone on this board in a room and hire them all as joint coaches and have them all vote on every football decision.

How about you tell us how you think what Wilcox is doing will lead to more success? And then we'll have everyone that supports Wilcox do the same. And if there is any difference in your responses, we'll say "Well, you say Wilcox does A, and that guy says B, which is it?"

Wilcox is paid several million dollars to do a job. No one here is paid a penny. The question isn't whether any of us knows how to fix it. It certainly isn't whether we all agree how to fix it. The question is whether Wilcox can fix it.

If your argument is that BearInsider as a collective doesn't know how to fix the football program, you win. We don't. That is an irrelevant question. We are not the alternative.

The relevant questions are whether the football program is performing in an acceptable manner and if not, is Wilcox the right guy to make it perform in an acceptable manner.

I would love to hear your arguments for either proposition.

---

The thing is that oski003 doesn't even think Wilcox is doing well. He set a benchmark before the season that we needed to reach at least 8 wins this year (bowl included) or else it was time to make a change. Wilcox has already failed to meet that bar.

He just likes to be That Guy and point out inconsistencies in the "majority" opinion. It's his kink.

---

Not really. I just don't like crazy exaggerations of how poor his performance is. I believe that coaching at Cal is hard, and, if our goal is 9+ win seasons, Wilcox isn't the guy who will lead us there. I want a team with 9+ wins, and I certainly hope the University culture can foster winning by accepting buying him out for 15 million while finding a good coach and coordinators at millions per year while our donors pay our players millions of year. I fear that UC professors and administrators don't accept this. With excellent coaching and an s&c program that doesn't result in half our offense being injured, we would have only lost 2-3 games this year.

---

A 23-43 conference record is not a crazy exaggeration.

---

It is unfortunately in line with how Cal football overall has been the last 50 years, despite 9 separate head coaches in the time period. Tedford's first few seasons almost broke the cycle.

---

So because Tom Holmoe, Joe Kapp, really sucked and Sonny Dykes had one horrific year, we shouldn't expect better?

Wilcox has the 6th best conference record among Cal coaches in the last 50 years, barely edging out Keith Gilbertson by .005%. His conference record is worse than Roger Theder's who we fired after 4 years with pretty much unanimous feeling that he sucked. Dykes first year sunk him, but after that he was better than Wilcox. Wilcox has only substantially outperformed Kapp and Holmoe. If you can't hit the top 5 among the cast of characters he is competing with...

Look, firing Wilcox doesn't cure everything. Cal has like 100 things it needs to do, one of which is firing Wilcox. The fact that they won't do the other 99 doesn't mean they shouldn't do the one thing. I'm 100% with you if you say a lot more needs to be done. Cal fans need to stop look at changing the coach as a panacea. But 23-43 is unacceptable. That is not a crazy exaggeration.

---

I see the passage of time is helping you come to appreciate the Sonny Dykes Era!

---

Dykes wasn't good enough either, but at this point it seems like his ceiling was slightly higher than Wilcox's. His 8-5 was achieved against a tougher schedule. The only thing that complicates that in my mind is that Wilcox (in the early seasons) would occasionally upset a top 20 team, while Dykes never did. The last time he did that was in 2019, though, so it hardly seems worth drawing that distinction anymore.

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BadNewsBear1 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

A new OC won't make any difference as long as Wilcox is still head coach.

---

No good OC would want to come here. They would have to deal with Wilcox meddling and would be the first on the chopping block since there is no chance that Wilcox is fired

---

Wilcox gets criticized on this site for both
1) being a head coach who only focuses on defenses and leaves his OC to be on his own; and
2) meddling with the offense.

Which one is true?

---

Here is what is true:

1. The offense is not good enough
2. Wilcox is responsible for it.

You won't argue against this, because you can't win that argument. So you are reframing the argument in a way that you can't lose. It is nonsensical and has nothing to do with whether we should keep Wilcox, but you can't lose it.

Instead of the question being - is Wilcox performance acceptable? You are demanding that his detractors all get in a room an come to a uniform consensus as to exactly what football strategy Wilcox should employ to improve, and if they can't do that, then the criticism isn't valid. Further, you are being disingenuous even in that, because frankly I don't see a groundswell of people saying Wilcox should inject himself more in the offense. If you say someone has said that, fine, but it is extremely few.

In any case, it is not possible for Wilcox detractors to fulfill your criteria.

1. You can't get 100 people to agree on anything.
2. There are a wide variety of people here. Some are brilliant. Some are idiots. Everything in between
3. Football is complicated. If I ask the top 10 football coaches in America how Wilcox should fix the offense, I'm going to get 10 different answers.

And we are not deciding whether this board, as a consensus, would be a better football coach than Wilcox. No one here should be hired to replace Wilcox. Certainly we should not get everyone on this board in a room and hire them all as joint coaches and have them all vote on every football decision.

How about you tell us how you think what Wilcox is doing will lead to more success? And then we'll have everyone that supports Wilcox do the same. And if there is any difference in your responses, we'll say "Well, you say Wilcox does A, and that guy says B, which is it?"

Wilcox is paid several million dollars to do a job. No one here is paid a penny. The question isn't whether any of us knows how to fix it. It certainly isn't whether we all agree how to fix it. The question is whether Wilcox can fix it.

If your argument is that BearInsider as a collective doesn't know how to fix the football program, you win. We don't. That is an irrelevant question. We are not the alternative.

The relevant questions are whether the football program is performing in an acceptable manner and if not, is Wilcox the right guy to make it perform in an acceptable manner.

I would love to hear your arguments for either proposition.

---

The thing is that oski003 doesn't even think Wilcox is doing well. He set a benchmark before the season that we needed to reach at least 8 wins this year (bowl included) or else it was time to make a change. Wilcox has already failed to meet that bar.

He just likes to be That Guy and point out inconsistencies in the "majority" opinion. It's his kink.

---

Not really. I just don't like crazy exaggerations of how poor his performance is. I believe that coaching at Cal is hard, and, if our goal is 9+ win seasons, Wilcox isn't the guy who will lead us there. I want a team with 9+ wins, and I certainly hope the University culture can foster winning by accepting buying him out for 15 million while finding a good coach and coordinators at millions per year while our donors pay our players millions of year. I fear that UC professors and administrators don't accept this. With excellent coaching and an s&c program that doesn't result in half our offense being injured, we would have only lost 2-3 games this year.

---

A 23-43 conference record is not a crazy exaggeration.

---

It is unfortunately in line with how Cal football overall has been the last 50 years, despite 9 separate head coaches in the time period. Tedford's first few seasons almost broke the cycle.

---

So because Tom Holmoe, Joe Kapp, really sucked and Sonny Dykes had one horrific year, we shouldn't expect better?

Wilcox has the 6th best conference record among Cal coaches in the last 50 years, barely edging out Keith Gilbertson by .005%. His conference record is worse than Roger Theder's who we fired after 4 years with pretty much unanimous feeling that he sucked. Dykes first year sunk him, but after that he was better than Wilcox. Wilcox has only substantially outperformed Kapp and Holmoe. If you can't hit the top 5 among the cast of characters he is competing with...

Look, firing Wilcox doesn't cure everything. Cal has like 100 things it needs to do, one of which is firing Wilcox. The fact that they won't do the other 99 doesn't mean they shouldn't do the one thing. I'm 100% with you if you say a lot more needs to be done. Cal fans need to stop look at changing the coach as a panacea. But 23-43 is unacceptable. That is not a crazy exaggeration.

---

I literally stated this above, so the premise of your post has already been addressed contrary to your argument.

"I certainly hope the University culture can foster winning by accepting buying him out for 15 million while finding a good coach and coordinators at millions per year while our donors pay our players millions of year. I fear that UC professors and administrators don't accept this. With excellent coaching and an s&c program that doesn't result in half our offense being injured, we would have only lost 2-3 games this year."

---

That is fine, man, but what is your point in arguing with everyone who says he needs to go? You can't basically argue against every criticism for weeks with mostly misleading points and then say "despite 100 posts to the contrary, I want him fired".

Your argument about Jet's ypc is significantly misleading. Your argument that Cal's 50 year record makes criticisms against Wilcox exaggerated is misleading. I guess since they don't even convince you, you know that.

If someone attacks him personally, that is just wrong. He seems like a good guy who is doing his best. However, pretty much every football argument says he should not be coaching next year. I fully get that major donors might not step up to the plate - I wouldn't if I were them. But I'm not going to pretend that he is okay because we are stuck with him.

---

If we pay the 15 million dollar buyout to replace him, I hope we offer the next coach more resources than we offered Wilcox. This means lots of money for coaches and other support staff as well as more field use. The University needs to understand that football is big business and we need to play in it. We can't have hour long lines to get into the stadium. We can't have poor publicity. We can't rely on private individuals to promote the team. We need to act more like a private school than a bungling bureacracy. How do Ohio State, Penn St. and Michigan doing it? Why did Sandy fail here but succeed at Penn? We should fire Wilcox because we want better than 6-6 and are willing to make changes to get that. We can't merely pretend he is horrible because he is not.

---

But Wilcox IS a horrible coach. Unless you think it's ok to have a head coach whose philosophy is 1 td per quarter while keeping the other team to 3 td's total. That sort of mentality is incomprehensible and embarrassing.

And, if he's a good guy, how to explain his involvement in the Tosh recruitment outrage? And the question of evidence for the UO "offers" before he got extended?

Rushinbear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BadNewsBear1 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

A new OC won't make any difference as long as Wilcox is still head coach.

---

No good OC would want to come here. They would have to deal with Wilcox meddling and would be the first on the chopping block since there is no chance that Wilcox is fired

---

Wilcox gets criticized on this site for both
1) being a head coach who only focuses on defenses and leaves his OC to be on his own; and
2) meddling with the offense.

Which one is true?

---

Here is what is true:

1. The offense is not good enough
2. Wilcox is responsible for it.

You won't argue against this, because you can't win that argument. So you are reframing the argument in a way that you can't lose. It is nonsensical and has nothing to do with whether we should keep Wilcox, but you can't lose it.

Instead of the question being - is Wilcox performance acceptable? You are demanding that his detractors all get in a room an come to a uniform consensus as to exactly what football strategy Wilcox should employ to improve, and if they can't do that, then the criticism isn't valid. Further, you are being disingenuous even in that, because frankly I don't see a groundswell of people saying Wilcox should inject himself more in the offense. If you say someone has said that, fine, but it is extremely few.

In any case, it is not possible for Wilcox detractors to fulfill your criteria.

1. You can't get 100 people to agree on anything.
2. There are a wide variety of people here. Some are brilliant. Some are idiots. Everything in between
3. Football is complicated. If I ask the top 10 football coaches in America how Wilcox should fix the offense, I'm going to get 10 different answers.

And we are not deciding whether this board, as a consensus, would be a better football coach than Wilcox. No one here should be hired to replace Wilcox. Certainly we should not get everyone on this board in a room and hire them all as joint coaches and have them all vote on every football decision.

How about you tell us how you think what Wilcox is doing will lead to more success? And then we'll have everyone that supports Wilcox do the same. And if there is any difference in your responses, we'll say "Well, you say Wilcox does A, and that guy says B, which is it?"

Wilcox is paid several million dollars to do a job. No one here is paid a penny. The question isn't whether any of us knows how to fix it. It certainly isn't whether we all agree how to fix it. The question is whether Wilcox can fix it.

If your argument is that BearInsider as a collective doesn't know how to fix the football program, you win. We don't. That is an irrelevant question. We are not the alternative.

The relevant questions are whether the football program is performing in an acceptable manner and if not, is Wilcox the right guy to make it perform in an acceptable manner.

I would love to hear your arguments for either proposition.

---

The thing is that oski003 doesn't even think Wilcox is doing well. He set a benchmark before the season that we needed to reach at least 8 wins this year (bowl included) or else it was time to make a change. Wilcox has already failed to meet that bar.

He just likes to be That Guy and point out inconsistencies in the "majority" opinion. It's his kink.

---

Not really. I just don't like crazy exaggerations of how poor his performance is. I believe that coaching at Cal is hard, and, if our goal is 9+ win seasons, Wilcox isn't the guy who will lead us there. I want a team with 9+ wins, and I certainly hope the University culture can foster winning by accepting buying him out for 15 million while finding a good coach and coordinators at millions per year while our donors pay our players millions of year. I fear that UC professors and administrators don't accept this. With excellent coaching and an s&c program that doesn't result in half our offense being injured, we would have only lost 2-3 games this year.

---

A 23-43 conference record is not a crazy exaggeration.

---

It is unfortunately in line with how Cal football overall has been the last 50 years, despite 9 separate head coaches in the time period. Tedford's first few seasons almost broke the cycle.

---

So because Tom Holmoe, Joe Kapp, really sucked and Sonny Dykes had one horrific year, we shouldn't expect better?

Wilcox has the 6th best conference record among Cal coaches in the last 50 years, barely edging out Keith Gilbertson by .005%. His conference record is worse than Roger Theder's who we fired after 4 years with pretty much unanimous feeling that he sucked. Dykes first year sunk him, but after that he was better than Wilcox. Wilcox has only substantially outperformed Kapp and Holmoe. If you can't hit the top 5 among the cast of characters he is competing with...

Look, firing Wilcox doesn't cure everything. Cal has like 100 things it needs to do, one of which is firing Wilcox. The fact that they won't do the other 99 doesn't mean they shouldn't do the one thing. I'm 100% with you if you say a lot more needs to be done. Cal fans need to stop look at changing the coach as a panacea. But 23-43 is unacceptable. That is not a crazy exaggeration.

---

I literally stated this above, so the premise of your post has already been addressed contrary to your argument.

"I certainly hope the University culture can foster winning by accepting buying him out for 15 million while finding a good coach and coordinators at millions per year while our donors pay our players millions of year. I fear that UC professors and administrators don't accept this. With excellent coaching and an s&c program that doesn't result in half our offense being injured, we would have only lost 2-3 games this year."

---

That is fine, man, but what is your point in arguing with everyone who says he needs to go? You can't basically argue against every criticism for weeks with mostly misleading points and then say "despite 100 posts to the contrary, I want him fired".

Your argument about Jet's ypc is significantly misleading. Your argument that Cal's 50 year record makes criticisms against Wilcox exaggerated is misleading. I guess since they don't even convince you, you know that.

If someone attacks him personally, that is just wrong. He seems like a good guy who is doing his best. However, pretty much every football argument says he should not be coaching next year. I fully get that major donors might not step up to the plate - I wouldn't if I were them. But I'm not going to pretend that he is okay because we are stuck with him.

---

If we pay the 15 million dollar buyout to replace him, I hope we offer the next coach more resources than we offered Wilcox. This means lots of money for coaches and other support staff as well as more field use. The University needs to understand that football is big business and we need to play in it. We can't have hour long lines to get into the stadium. We can't have poor publicity. We can't rely on private individuals to promote the team. We need to act more like a private school than a bungling bureacracy. How do Ohio State, Penn St. and Michigan doing it? Why did Sandy fail here but succeed at Penn? We should fire Wilcox because we want better than 6-6 and are willing to make changes to get that. We can't merely pretend he is horrible because he is not.

---

But Wilcox IS a horrible coach. Unless you think it's ok to have a head coach whose philosophy is 1 td per quarter while keeping the other team to 3 td's total. That sort of mentality is incomprehensible and embarrassing.

And, if he's a good guy, how to explain his involvement in the Tosh recruitment outrage? And the question of evidence for the UO "offers" before he got extended?

---

It is just your speculation on the last two points. As for the 1 TD per quarter, can you please post the video or the transcript? Thank you in advance.

oski003 said:

---

If we pay the 15 million dollar buyout to replace him, I hope we offer the next coach more resources than we offered Wilcox. This means lots of money for coaches and other support staff as well as more field use. The University needs to understand that football is big business and we need to play in it. We can't have hour long lines to get into the stadium. We can't have poor publicity. We can't rely on private individuals to promote the team. We need to act more like a private school than a bungling bureacracy. How do Ohio State, Penn St. and Michigan doing it? Why did Sandy fail here but succeed at Penn? We should fire Wilcox because we want better than 6-6 and are willing to make changes to get that. We can't merely pretend he is horrible because he is not.

---

He is not horrible but he is mediocre, which should never be acceptable at Cal.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BadNewsBear1 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

A new OC won't make any difference as long as Wilcox is still head coach.

---

No good OC would want to come here. They would have to deal with Wilcox meddling and would be the first on the chopping block since there is no chance that Wilcox is fired

---

Wilcox gets criticized on this site for both
1) being a head coach who only focuses on defenses and leaves his OC to be on his own; and
2) meddling with the offense.

Which one is true?

---

Here is what is true:

1. The offense is not good enough
2. Wilcox is responsible for it.

You won't argue against this, because you can't win that argument. So you are reframing the argument in a way that you can't lose. It is nonsensical and has nothing to do with whether we should keep Wilcox, but you can't lose it.

Instead of the question being - is Wilcox performance acceptable? You are demanding that his detractors all get in a room an come to a uniform consensus as to exactly what football strategy Wilcox should employ to improve, and if they can't do that, then the criticism isn't valid. Further, you are being disingenuous even in that, because frankly I don't see a groundswell of people saying Wilcox should inject himself more in the offense. If you say someone has said that, fine, but it is extremely few.

In any case, it is not possible for Wilcox detractors to fulfill your criteria.

1. You can't get 100 people to agree on anything.
2. There are a wide variety of people here. Some are brilliant. Some are idiots. Everything in between
3. Football is complicated. If I ask the top 10 football coaches in America how Wilcox should fix the offense, I'm going to get 10 different answers.

And we are not deciding whether this board, as a consensus, would be a better football coach than Wilcox. No one here should be hired to replace Wilcox. Certainly we should not get everyone on this board in a room and hire them all as joint coaches and have them all vote on every football decision.

How about you tell us how you think what Wilcox is doing will lead to more success? And then we'll have everyone that supports Wilcox do the same. And if there is any difference in your responses, we'll say "Well, you say Wilcox does A, and that guy says B, which is it?"

Wilcox is paid several million dollars to do a job. No one here is paid a penny. The question isn't whether any of us knows how to fix it. It certainly isn't whether we all agree how to fix it. The question is whether Wilcox can fix it.

If your argument is that BearInsider as a collective doesn't know how to fix the football program, you win. We don't. That is an irrelevant question. We are not the alternative.

The relevant questions are whether the football program is performing in an acceptable manner and if not, is Wilcox the right guy to make it perform in an acceptable manner.

I would love to hear your arguments for either proposition.

---

The thing is that oski003 doesn't even think Wilcox is doing well. He set a benchmark before the season that we needed to reach at least 8 wins this year (bowl included) or else it was time to make a change. Wilcox has already failed to meet that bar.

He just likes to be That Guy and point out inconsistencies in the "majority" opinion. It's his kink.

---

Not really. I just don't like crazy exaggerations of how poor his performance is. I believe that coaching at Cal is hard, and, if our goal is 9+ win seasons, Wilcox isn't the guy who will lead us there. I want a team with 9+ wins, and I certainly hope the University culture can foster winning by accepting buying him out for 15 million while finding a good coach and coordinators at millions per year while our donors pay our players millions of year. I fear that UC professors and administrators don't accept this. With excellent coaching and an s&c program that doesn't result in half our offense being injured, we would have only lost 2-3 games this year.

---

A 23-43 conference record is not a crazy exaggeration.

---

It is unfortunately in line with how Cal football overall has been the last 50 years, despite 9 separate head coaches in the time period. Tedford's first few seasons almost broke the cycle.

---

So because Tom Holmoe, Joe Kapp, really sucked and Sonny Dykes had one horrific year, we shouldn't expect better?

Wilcox has the 6th best conference record among Cal coaches in the last 50 years, barely edging out Keith Gilbertson by .005%. His conference record is worse than Roger Theder's who we fired after 4 years with pretty much unanimous feeling that he sucked. Dykes first year sunk him, but after that he was better than Wilcox. Wilcox has only substantially outperformed Kapp and Holmoe. If you can't hit the top 5 among the cast of characters he is competing with...

Look, firing Wilcox doesn't cure everything. Cal has like 100 things it needs to do, one of which is firing Wilcox. The fact that they won't do the other 99 doesn't mean they shouldn't do the one thing. I'm 100% with you if you say a lot more needs to be done. Cal fans need to stop look at changing the coach as a panacea. But 23-43 is unacceptable. That is not a crazy exaggeration.

---

I literally stated this above, so the premise of your post has already been addressed contrary to your argument.

"I certainly hope the University culture can foster winning by accepting buying him out for 15 million while finding a good coach and coordinators at millions per year while our donors pay our players millions of year. I fear that UC professors and administrators don't accept this. With excellent coaching and an s&c program that doesn't result in half our offense being injured, we would have only lost 2-3 games this year."

---

That is fine, man, but what is your point in arguing with everyone who says he needs to go? You can't basically argue against every criticism for weeks with mostly misleading points and then say "despite 100 posts to the contrary, I want him fired".

Your argument about Jet's ypc is significantly misleading. Your argument that Cal's 50 year record makes criticisms against Wilcox exaggerated is misleading. I guess since they don't even convince you, you know that.

If someone attacks him personally, that is just wrong. He seems like a good guy who is doing his best. However, pretty much every football argument says he should not be coaching next year. I fully get that major donors might not step up to the plate - I wouldn't if I were them. But I'm not going to pretend that he is okay because we are stuck with him.

---

I'm going to add to this that we are stuck with Wilcox because of a mindblowingly stupid decision to extend his contract in a ridiculous manner and essentially commit to him for 5 years. This is a mistake that Cal has made over and over and over and over again. And most recently they immediately extended Madsen for no reason. Which is not me saying I don't like Madsen, but we didn't have enough evidence that he is the guy and we had no reason to jump to extend him. Extensions are for winners. We keep putting ourselves in this situation. Lyons didn't do it, but he should hear loud and clear that people are upset with Wilcox until he is finally gone so that maybe he realizes that the decision of his predecessors to lock us in to Wilcox for so long was brutal and he breaks that cycle.

southseasbear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

If we pay the 15 million dollar buyout to replace him, I hope we offer the next coach more resources than we offered Wilcox. This means lots of money for coaches and other support staff as well as more field use. The University needs to understand that football is big business and we need to play in it. We can't have hour long lines to get into the stadium. We can't have poor publicity. We can't rely on private individuals to promote the team. We need to act more like a private school than a bungling bureacracy. How do Ohio State, Penn St. and Michigan doing it? Why did Sandy fail here but succeed at Penn? We should fire Wilcox because we want better than 6-6 and are willing to make changes to get that. We can't merely pretend he is horrible because he is not.

---

He is not horrible but he is mediocre, which should never be acceptable at Cal.

---

Not to argue semantics, but mediocre means middle. Mediocre would be .500 record in conference. He isn't mediocre. He may not be horrible, but he is on the line between horrible and well below average.

I do not think people understand how easy our schedule was this year and how much of a missed opportunity this year was.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

If we pay the 15 million dollar buyout to replace him, I hope we offer the next coach more resources than we offered Wilcox. This means lots of money for coaches and other support staff as well as more field use. The University needs to understand that football is big business and we need to play in it. We can't have hour long lines to get into the stadium. We can't have poor publicity. We can't rely on private individuals to promote the team. We need to act more like a private school than a bungling bureacracy. How do Ohio State, Penn St. and Michigan doing it? Why did Sandy fail here but succeed at Penn? We should fire Wilcox because we want better than 6-6 and are willing to make changes to get that. We can't merely pretend he is horrible because he is not.

---

He is not horrible but he is mediocre, which should never be acceptable at Cal.

---

Not to argue semantics, but mediocre means middle. Mediocre would be .500 record in conference. He isn't mediocre. He may not be horrible, but he is on the line between horrible and well below average.

I do not think people understand how easy our schedule was this year and how much of a missed opportunity this year was.

---

I can't argue with that.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

If we pay the 15 million dollar buyout to replace him, I hope we offer the next coach more resources than we offered Wilcox. This means lots of money for coaches and other support staff as well as more field use. The University needs to understand that football is big business and we need to play in it. We can't have hour long lines to get into the stadium. We can't have poor publicity. We can't rely on private individuals to promote the team. We need to act more like a private school than a bungling bureacracy. How do Ohio State, Penn St. and Michigan doing it? Why did Sandy fail here but succeed at Penn? We should fire Wilcox because we want better than 6-6 and are willing to make changes to get that. We can't merely pretend he is horrible because he is not.

---

He is not horrible but he is mediocre, which should never be acceptable at Cal.

---

Not to argue semantics, but mediocre means middle. Mediocre would be .500 record in conference. He isn't mediocre. He may not be horrible, but he is on the line between horrible and well below average.

I do not think people understand how easy our schedule was this year and how much of a missed opportunity this year was.

---

Wilcox is horrible, pure and simple. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either totally delusional or doesn't follow Cal football very closely.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

If we pay the 15 million dollar buyout to replace him, I hope we offer the next coach more resources than we offered Wilcox. This means lots of money for coaches and other support staff as well as more field use. The University needs to understand that football is big business and we need to play in it. We can't have hour long lines to get into the stadium. We can't have poor publicity. We can't rely on private individuals to promote the team. We need to act more like a private school than a bungling bureacracy. How do Ohio State, Penn St. and Michigan doing it? Why did Sandy fail here but succeed at Penn? We should fire Wilcox because we want better than 6-6 and are willing to make changes to get that. We can't merely pretend he is horrible because he is not.

---

He is not horrible but he is mediocre, which should never be acceptable at Cal.

---

Not to argue semantics, but mediocre means middle. Mediocre would be .500 record in conference. He isn't mediocre. He may not be horrible, but he is on the line between horrible and well below average.

I do not think people understand how easy our schedule was this year and how much of a missed opportunity this year was.

---

100% This season was set up on a platter and it was critical opportunity to save the program. Instead Wilcox squandered it with his lazy non-search for an OC and then going conservative with leads.

oski003 said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BadNewsBear1 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

A new OC won't make any difference as long as Wilcox is still head coach.

---

No good OC would want to come here. They would have to deal with Wilcox meddling and would be the first on the chopping block since there is no chance that Wilcox is fired

---

Wilcox gets criticized on this site for both
1) being a head coach who only focuses on defenses and leaves his OC to be on his own; and
2) meddling with the offense.

Which one is true?

---

Here is what is true:

1. The offense is not good enough
2. Wilcox is responsible for it.

You won't argue against this, because you can't win that argument. So you are reframing the argument in a way that you can't lose. It is nonsensical and has nothing to do with whether we should keep Wilcox, but you can't lose it.

Instead of the question being - is Wilcox performance acceptable? You are demanding that his detractors all get in a room an come to a uniform consensus as to exactly what football strategy Wilcox should employ to improve, and if they can't do that, then the criticism isn't valid. Further, you are being disingenuous even in that, because frankly I don't see a groundswell of people saying Wilcox should inject himself more in the offense. If you say someone has said that, fine, but it is extremely few.

In any case, it is not possible for Wilcox detractors to fulfill your criteria.

1. You can't get 100 people to agree on anything.
2. There are a wide variety of people here. Some are brilliant. Some are idiots. Everything in between
3. Football is complicated. If I ask the top 10 football coaches in America how Wilcox should fix the offense, I'm going to get 10 different answers.

And we are not deciding whether this board, as a consensus, would be a better football coach than Wilcox. No one here should be hired to replace Wilcox. Certainly we should not get everyone on this board in a room and hire them all as joint coaches and have them all vote on every football decision.

How about you tell us how you think what Wilcox is doing will lead to more success? And then we'll have everyone that supports Wilcox do the same. And if there is any difference in your responses, we'll say "Well, you say Wilcox does A, and that guy says B, which is it?"

Wilcox is paid several million dollars to do a job. No one here is paid a penny. The question isn't whether any of us knows how to fix it. It certainly isn't whether we all agree how to fix it. The question is whether Wilcox can fix it.

If your argument is that BearInsider as a collective doesn't know how to fix the football program, you win. We don't. That is an irrelevant question. We are not the alternative.

The relevant questions are whether the football program is performing in an acceptable manner and if not, is Wilcox the right guy to make it perform in an acceptable manner.

I would love to hear your arguments for either proposition.

---

The thing is that oski003 doesn't even think Wilcox is doing well. He set a benchmark before the season that we needed to reach at least 8 wins this year (bowl included) or else it was time to make a change. Wilcox has already failed to meet that bar.

He just likes to be That Guy and point out inconsistencies in the "majority" opinion. It's his kink.

---

Not really. I just don't like crazy exaggerations of how poor his performance is. I believe that coaching at Cal is hard, and, if our goal is 9+ win seasons, Wilcox isn't the guy who will lead us there. I want a team with 9+ wins, and I certainly hope the University culture can foster winning by accepting buying him out for 15 million while finding a good coach and coordinators at millions per year while our donors pay our players millions of year. I fear that UC professors and administrators don't accept this. With excellent coaching and an s&c program that doesn't result in half our offense being injured, we would have only lost 2-3 games this year.

---

A 23-43 conference record is not a crazy exaggeration.

---

It is unfortunately in line with how Cal football overall has been the last 50 years, despite 9 separate head coaches in the time period. Tedford's first few seasons almost broke the cycle.

---

So because Tom Holmoe, Joe Kapp, really sucked and Sonny Dykes had one horrific year, we shouldn't expect better?

Wilcox has the 6th best conference record among Cal coaches in the last 50 years, barely edging out Keith Gilbertson by .005%. His conference record is worse than Roger Theder's who we fired after 4 years with pretty much unanimous feeling that he sucked. Dykes first year sunk him, but after that he was better than Wilcox. Wilcox has only substantially outperformed Kapp and Holmoe. If you can't hit the top 5 among the cast of characters he is competing with...

Look, firing Wilcox doesn't cure everything. Cal has like 100 things it needs to do, one of which is firing Wilcox. The fact that they won't do the other 99 doesn't mean they shouldn't do the one thing. I'm 100% with you if you say a lot more needs to be done. Cal fans need to stop look at changing the coach as a panacea. But 23-43 is unacceptable. That is not a crazy exaggeration.

---

I literally stated this above, so the premise of your post has already been addressed contrary to your argument.

"I certainly hope the University culture can foster winning by accepting buying him out for 15 million while finding a good coach and coordinators at millions per year while our donors pay our players millions of year. I fear that UC professors and administrators don't accept this. With excellent coaching and an s&c program that doesn't result in half our offense being injured, we would have only lost 2-3 games this year."

---

That is fine, man, but what is your point in arguing with everyone who says he needs to go? You can't basically argue against every criticism for weeks with mostly misleading points and then say "despite 100 posts to the contrary, I want him fired".

Your argument about Jet's ypc is significantly misleading. Your argument that Cal's 50 year record makes criticisms against Wilcox exaggerated is misleading. I guess since they don't even convince you, you know that.

If someone attacks him personally, that is just wrong. He seems like a good guy who is doing his best. However, pretty much every football argument says he should not be coaching next year. I fully get that major donors might not step up to the plate - I wouldn't if I were them. But I'm not going to pretend that he is okay because we are stuck with him.

---

If we pay the 15 million dollar buyout to replace him, I hope we offer the next coach more resources than we offered Wilcox. This means lots of money for coaches and other support staff as well as more field use. The University needs to understand that football is big business and we need to play in it. We can't have hour long lines to get into the stadium. We can't have poor publicity. We can't rely on private individuals to promote the team. We need to act more like a private school than a bungling bureacracy. How do Ohio State, Penn St. and Michigan doing it? Why did Sandy fail here but succeed at Penn? We should fire Wilcox because we want better than 6-6 and are willing to make changes to get that. We can't merely pretend he is horrible because he is not.

---

But Wilcox IS a horrible coach. Unless you think it's ok to have a head coach whose philosophy is 1 td per quarter while keeping the other team to 3 td's total. That sort of mentality is incomprehensible and embarrassing.

And, if he's a good guy, how to explain his involvement in the Tosh recruitment outrage? And the question of evidence for the UO "offers" before he got extended?

---

It is just your speculation on the last two points. As for the 1 TD per quarter, can you please post the video or the transcript? Thank you in advance.

---

he said it, even expounded on it in an interview on Paw's podcast that reviewed Cuse and previewed SMU.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Big C said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BadNewsBear1 said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Golden One said:

---

A new OC won't make any difference as long as Wilcox is still head coach.

---

No good OC would want to come here. They would have to deal with Wilcox meddling and would be the first on the chopping block since there is no chance that Wilcox is fired

---

Wilcox gets criticized on this site for both
1) being a head coach who only focuses on defenses and leaves his OC to be on his own; and
2) meddling with the offense.

Which one is true?

---

Here is what is true:

1. The offense is not good enough
2. Wilcox is responsible for it.

You won't argue against this, because you can't win that argument. So you are reframing the argument in a way that you can't lose. It is nonsensical and has nothing to do with whether we should keep Wilcox, but you can't lose it.

Instead of the question being - is Wilcox performance acceptable? You are demanding that his detractors all get in a room an come to a uniform consensus as to exactly what football strategy Wilcox should employ to improve, and if they can't do that, then the criticism isn't valid. Further, you are being disingenuous even in that, because frankly I don't see a groundswell of people saying Wilcox should inject himself more in the offense. If you say someone has said that, fine, but it is extremely few.

In any case, it is not possible for Wilcox detractors to fulfill your criteria.

1. You can't get 100 people to agree on anything.
2. There are a wide variety of people here. Some are brilliant. Some are idiots. Everything in between
3. Football is complicated. If I ask the top 10 football coaches in America how Wilcox should fix the offense, I'm going to get 10 different answers.

And we are not deciding whether this board, as a consensus, would be a better football coach than Wilcox. No one here should be hired to replace Wilcox. Certainly we should not get everyone on this board in a room and hire them all as joint coaches and have them all vote on every football decision.

How about you tell us how you think what Wilcox is doing will lead to more success? And then we'll have everyone that supports Wilcox do the same. And if there is any difference in your responses, we'll say "Well, you say Wilcox does A, and that guy says B, which is it?"

Wilcox is paid several million dollars to do a job. No one here is paid a penny. The question isn't whether any of us knows how to fix it. It certainly isn't whether we all agree how to fix it. The question is whether Wilcox can fix it.

If your argument is that BearInsider as a collective doesn't know how to fix the football program, you win. We don't. That is an irrelevant question. We are not the alternative.

The relevant questions are whether the football program is performing in an acceptable manner and if not, is Wilcox the right guy to make it perform in an acceptable manner.

I would love to hear your arguments for either proposition.

---

The thing is that oski003 doesn't even think Wilcox is doing well. He set a benchmark before the season that we needed to reach at least 8 wins this year (bowl included) or else it was time to make a change. Wilcox has already failed to meet that bar.

He just likes to be That Guy and point out inconsistencies in the "majority" opinion. It's his kink.

---

Not really. I just don't like crazy exaggerations of how poor his performance is. I believe that coaching at Cal is hard, and, if our goal is 9+ win seasons, Wilcox isn't the guy who will lead us there. I want a team with 9+ wins, and I certainly hope the University culture can foster winning by accepting buying him out for 15 million while finding a good coach and coordinators at millions per year while our donors pay our players millions of year. I fear that UC professors and administrators don't accept this. With excellent coaching and an s&c program that doesn't result in half our offense being injured, we would have only lost 2-3 games this year.

---

A 23-43 conference record is not a crazy exaggeration.

---

It is unfortunately in line with how Cal football overall has been the last 50 years, despite 9 separate head coaches in the time period. Tedford's first few seasons almost broke the cycle.

---

So because Tom Holmoe, Joe Kapp, really sucked and Sonny Dykes had one horrific year, we shouldn't expect better?

Wilcox has the 6th best conference record among Cal coaches in the last 50 years, barely edging out Keith Gilbertson by .005%. His conference record is worse than Roger Theder's who we fired after 4 years with pretty much unanimous feeling that he sucked. Dykes first year sunk him, but after that he was better than Wilcox. Wilcox has only substantially outperformed Kapp and Holmoe. If you can't hit the top 5 among the cast of characters he is competing with...

Look, firing Wilcox doesn't cure everything. Cal has like 100 things it needs to do, one of which is firing Wilcox. The fact that they won't do the other 99 doesn't mean they shouldn't do the one thing. I'm 100% with you if you say a lot more needs to be done. Cal fans need to stop look at changing the coach as a panacea. But 23-43 is unacceptable. That is not a crazy exaggeration.

---

I see the passage of time is helping you come to appreciate the Sonny Dykes Era!

---

Only you can get away with that BigC.

Dykes is a better football coach than Wilcox in the same sense that Justin Vedder was better than his backup. If that amounts to appreciation, call me guilty.

But to set the record straight, I think Dykes was terrible at Cal. Given two very awful things that happened off the field in the strength and conditioning program on his watch, the likes of which have not happened on Wilcox' watch, I'd take Wilcox' somewhat worse record if I was unfortunate enough for those to be my choices.

---

I feel privileged. And just messin' with you a little bit (as I'm sure you know).

This hasn't been a very fun week to be a Cal football fan... so far. I feel like we're making personnel changes out of the logical sequence in which they should occur because we're sorta hemmed in. December has become the most important and crazy month of the college football season. Reminds me of when I used to work retail.

calumnus said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

If we pay the 15 million dollar buyout to replace him, I hope we offer the next coach more resources than we offered Wilcox. This means lots of money for coaches and other support staff as well as more field use. The University needs to understand that football is big business and we need to play in it. We can't have hour long lines to get into the stadium. We can't have poor publicity. We can't rely on private individuals to promote the team. We need to act more like a private school than a bungling bureacracy. How do Ohio State, Penn St. and Michigan doing it? Why did Sandy fail here but succeed at Penn? We should fire Wilcox because we want better than 6-6 and are willing to make changes to get that. We can't merely pretend he is horrible because he is not.

---

He is not horrible but he is mediocre, which should never be acceptable at Cal.

---

Not to argue semantics, but mediocre means middle. Mediocre would be .500 record in conference. He isn't mediocre. He may not be horrible, but he is on the line between horrible and well below average.

I do not think people understand how easy our schedule was this year and how much of a missed opportunity this year was.

---

100% This season was set up on a platter and it was critical opportunity to save the program. Instead Wilcox squandered it with his lazy non-search for an OC and then going conservative with leads.

---

The four-game losing streak was devastating. Here are our opponents this season, top-to-bottom, according to their current national ranking by the Athletic:

SMU . . . . . . 8
Miami . . . . 13
Syracuse . . 20
Pitt . . . . . . . 45
NC State . . 58
Auburn. . . . 60
Wake . . . . . 84
Oregon St . 89
Furd . . . . . . 95
Florida St . 105
SDS . . . . . .126
Davis . . . . . NR

Basically three good teams, three mediocre teams and six crap teams. If we had just beaten every team we played that was ranked lower than 50th, we'd be 8-4. What a lost opportunity, especially when you consider the highs of GameDay, the Calgorithm, etc.

What might have been...

Big C said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

If we pay the 15 million dollar buyout to replace him, I hope we offer the next coach more resources than we offered Wilcox. This means lots of money for coaches and other support staff as well as more field use. The University needs to understand that football is big business and we need to play in it. We can't have hour long lines to get into the stadium. We can't have poor publicity. We can't rely on private individuals to promote the team. We need to act more like a private school than a bungling bureacracy. How do Ohio State, Penn St. and Michigan doing it? Why did Sandy fail here but succeed at Penn? We should fire Wilcox because we want better than 6-6 and are willing to make changes to get that. We can't merely pretend he is horrible because he is not.

---

He is not horrible but he is mediocre, which should never be acceptable at Cal.

---

Not to argue semantics, but mediocre means middle. Mediocre would be .500 record in conference. He isn't mediocre. He may not be horrible, but he is on the line between horrible and well below average.

I do not think people understand how easy our schedule was this year and how much of a missed opportunity this year was.

---

100% This season was set up on a platter and it was critical opportunity to save the program. Instead Wilcox squandered it with his lazy non-search for an OC and then going conservative with leads.

---

The four-game losing streak was devastating. Here are opponents this season, top-to-bottom, according to their current national ranking by the Athletic:

SMU . . . . . . 8
Miami . . . . 13
Syracuse . . 20
Pitt . . . . . . . 45
NC State . . 58
Auburn. . . . 60
Wake . . . . . 84
Oregon St . 89
Furd . . . . . . 95
Florida St . 105
SDS . . . . . .126
Davis . . . . . NR

Basically three good teams, three mediocre teams and six crap teams. If we had just beaten every team we played that was ranked lower than 50th, we'd be 8-4. What a lost opportunity, especially when you consider the highs of GameDay, the Calgorithm, etc.

What might have been...

---

Moreover we were beating Miami, Pitt and NC State until the coaches went turtle. Win those games and we are ranked far higher and they lower.

Furthermore, win those games and we are a confident team playing Syracuse in front of a packed CMS (instead of flat in front of an empty stadium) then our big final bowl like matchup with SMU with the ACC Championship Game on the line.

Sure, we eventually get exposed, but the national publicity with the Calgorithm, ESPN hype would be next level for us, give us a HUGE boost in recruiting the portal and NIL donations and set us up for a great 2025 run.

All squandered by not recognizing what we are and just let Fernando keep throwing downfield in the 4th quarter and staying with aggressive defense when thst is what built the lead on the first place.

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

If we pay the 15 million dollar buyout to replace him, I hope we offer the next coach more resources than we offered Wilcox. This means lots of money for coaches and other support staff as well as more field use. The University needs to understand that football is big business and we need to play in it. We can't have hour long lines to get into the stadium. We can't have poor publicity. We can't rely on private individuals to promote the team. We need to act more like a private school than a bungling bureacracy. How do Ohio State, Penn St. and Michigan doing it? Why did Sandy fail here but succeed at Penn? We should fire Wilcox because we want better than 6-6 and are willing to make changes to get that. We can't merely pretend he is horrible because he is not.

---

He is not horrible but he is mediocre, which should never be acceptable at Cal.

---

Not to argue semantics, but mediocre means middle. Mediocre would be .500 record in conference. He isn't mediocre. He may not be horrible, but he is on the line between horrible and well below average.

I do not think people understand how easy our schedule was this year and how much of a missed opportunity this year was.

---

100% This season was set up on a platter and it was critical opportunity to save the program. Instead Wilcox squandered it with his lazy non-search for an OC and then going conservative with leads.

---

The four-game losing streak was devastating. Here are opponents this season, top-to-bottom, according to their current national ranking by the Athletic:

SMU . . . . . . 8
Miami . . . . 13
Syracuse . . 20
Pitt . . . . . . . 45
NC State . . 58
Auburn. . . . 60
Wake . . . . . 84
Oregon St . 89
Furd . . . . . . 95
Florida St . 105
SDS . . . . . .126
Davis . . . . . NR

Basically three good teams, three mediocre teams and six crap teams. If we had just beaten every team we played that was ranked lower than 50th, we'd be 8-4. What a lost opportunity, especially when you consider the highs of GameDay, the Calgorithm, etc.

What might have been...

---

Moreover we were beating Miami, Pitt and NC State until the coaches went turtle. Win those games and we are ranked far higher and they lower.

Furthermore, win those games and we are a confident team playing Syracuse in front of a packed CMS then our big final bowl like matchup with SMU with the ACC Championship Game on the line.

---

Wilcox coaches with fear and fear of making mistakes. That infects the whole team.