golden sloth said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Strykur said:

---

bring back DeRuyter, plug and play.

---

DeRuyter seems like a fit not only because he's been here on staff but also because, as noted above, this could be a short-term gig if our Bears have another losing conference record in 2025. This situation may not be right for an up and coming coach looking for his first job as a DC.

---

Didn't he get fired from his last two jobs? Are we overvaluing what he did 7 years ago?

---

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Strykur said:

---

bring back DeRuyter, plug and play.

---

DeRuyter seems like a fit not only because he's been here on staff but also because, as noted above, this could be a short-term gig if our Bears have another losing conference record in 2025. This situation may not be right for an up and coming coach looking for his first job as a DC.

---

Didn't he get fired from his last two jobs? Are we overvaluing what he did 7 years ago?

---

As far as I know he didn't get fired from Oregon. He very well might have been but it would've been moreso a product of Cristobal leaving Oregon to go to Miami and Lanning bringing in new guys. He wasn't phenomenal in his last season at Oregon but it wasn't a travesty either with Oregon finishing "58th in the country in total defense (370.8 yards per game)" and "also 60th in scoring defense, allowing 25.5 points per game."

It was certainly better than how the defense at Texas Tech was doing when he got fired. "Through the regular season, Texas Tech ranks second-to-last (132nd out of 133) in passing defense, giving up 305.3 yards per game, which is a program worst since the 2019 season. Texas Tech's scoring defense (34.5 points allowed per game) is the worst since 2020 and second-worst since 2016. The Red Raiders are also 123rd nationally in total defense, surrendering 451.9 yards per game, which is the most since 2019."

---

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

BearSD said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

BearSD said:

---

Strykur said:

---

bring back DeRuyter, plug and play.

---

DeRuyter seems like a fit not only because he's been here on staff but also because, as noted above, this could be a short-term gig if our Bears have another losing conference record in 2025. This situation may not be right for an up and coming coach looking for his first job as a DC.

---

Yep we have another Wilcoxesque year we are in lame duck zone.

---

Just looking at the 2025 schedule, and looking at who would likely be favored to win each game if odds were set today, winning every game as a favorite and losing every game as an underdog would lead to a 6-6 season, 3-5 in conference.

That's what candidates for the DC job will see, and that's why IMO we are likely to see the job go to someone like DeRuyter and not an up and coming assistant who won't want to risk his first DC job being one-and-done.

---

Wait, didn't I read on BI that the 2025 schedule was so easy that we would win 9-10 games?

---

No, what was said is the 2024 and 2025 schedules are the easiest in (probably) our history and set up for 10 win seasons with a reasonably good team and good coaching and it is imperative that we seize this opportunity if Cal football is going to survive.

Last year Wilcox squandered at least 4 games in the 4th quarter that we were winning, the most important was Miami on Game Day. Florida State was terrible. Win those and the team is ranked, has confidence playing in front of big crowds at CMS, we win 10 or more and maybe it is even us instead of SMU last year?

This years' schedule is a similar opportunity as last year, but if we play like last year and Wilcox again squanders a bunch of games we could win, we will have results like last year.

---

golden sloth said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

No, what was said is the 2024 and 2025 schedules are the easiest in (probably) our history and set up for 10 win seasons

---

Perhaps you think this roster has so much talent that it is "set up" to win 10 games this year, but the consensus around CFB is that this roster has 6-6 or 7-5 talent.

Look at P4 teams that are generally projected to win 10 games in 2025. Go position by position through any of those rosters and try to convince us that Cal's roster is equal.

---

The "consensus" last year was that SMU had G5 talent and would finish below us.

---

No. Cal was picked to finish 10th in the preseason poll. SMU was picked to finish 7th, and SMU was in the "others receiving votes" category in the preseason AP poll. They would have been ranked 29th if that poll went past 25.

You seem to be thinking that our Bears "would have" won 10 games, when what you really mean is that they could have won 10 if everything had gone right for Cal in every game and lots of things had gone wrong for the opponents. But that has never been the case. And if you start by wiping out Cal's coaching mistakes and bad breaks, you'd have to wipe out the opponents' as well. Opposing coaches also make mistakes, and opposing teams get bad breaks or dubious officials' calls that go against them. The Miami game is a good example. Their defensive coaching in the first half was poor. They let Mendoza roll right unpressured and throw for 10 or 15 yards over and over again. Then their QB threw a bad pass for a pick-six at the start of the 3rd quarter. Take away the pick-six and have Miami play defense in the first half as well as they did in the second, and Cal might have had 14 points at the end of the 3rd quarter instead of 35, and we wouldn't be talking about Cal blowing a big lead in the 4th quarter. Wake Forest also played very questionable defense against the Bears.

And, again using Miami as an example, when you stockpile talent like they have, the talent can often (not always) overcome their coaching mistakes, player mistakes, and bad breaks. Miami won 10 last season, but if we put them in your "everything goes right for us" scenario, they had enough talent to win all of their games. Their talent wins 10 games even with the coach screwing up sometimes and other times with the QB losing a close game with a crucial fumble. Cal could only muster 10 wins in a miracle scenario like yours where almost every break goes their way and neither coaching nor player mistakes cost them any games. But every team has bad breaks and almost every year loses at least a game or two they "could have" won if only a kicker had made a makeable FG or a QB didn't fumble in the 4th quarter. That's why every year there are only two or three teams out of 130 with fewer than two losses.

Quote:

---

Moreover, if our talent level isn't good enough, that is due to Wilcox and his staff being the poorest recruiters I have seen at Cal.

---

I cannot say for sure they are the poorest recruiters, because I have been a Cal fan for a long time and I remember other coaches whose recruiting was bad. But for sure the recruiting is behind that of the teams at the top of the ACC, and the results reflect that.

---

I would say it shouldn't take 'everything going right' for Cal to hang on to a 25 point second half lead, to not rely on last second field goal attempts when you don't have a dedicated coach for special teams, or to beat a team that had zero other FBS wins (for what feels like the fifth season in a row). Wilcox had his opportunities, he has squandered them, it is in the best interest of Cal football to move on as soon as possible.

---

concernedparent said:

---

BearSD said:

---

golden sloth said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

No, what was said is the 2024 and 2025 schedules are the easiest in (probably) our history and set up for 10 win seasons

---

Perhaps you think this roster has so much talent that it is "set up" to win 10 games this year, but the consensus around CFB is that this roster has 6-6 or 7-5 talent.

Look at P4 teams that are generally projected to win 10 games in 2025. Go position by position through any of those rosters and try to convince us that Cal's roster is equal.

---

The "consensus" last year was that SMU had G5 talent and would finish below us.

---

No. Cal was picked to finish 10th in the preseason poll. SMU was picked to finish 7th, and SMU was in the "others receiving votes" category in the preseason AP poll. They would have been ranked 29th if that poll went past 25.

You seem to be thinking that our Bears "would have" won 10 games, when what you really mean is that they could have won 10 if everything had gone right for Cal in every game and lots of things had gone wrong for the opponents. But that has never been the case. And if you start by wiping out Cal's coaching mistakes and bad breaks, you'd have to wipe out the opponents' as well. Opposing coaches also make mistakes, and opposing teams get bad breaks or dubious officials' calls that go against them. The Miami game is a good example. Their defensive coaching in the first half was poor. They let Mendoza roll right unpressured and throw for 10 or 15 yards over and over again. Then their QB threw a bad pass for a pick-six at the start of the 3rd quarter. Take away the pick-six and have Miami play defense in the first half as well as they did in the second, and Cal might have had 14 points at the end of the 3rd quarter instead of 35, and we wouldn't be talking about Cal blowing a big lead in the 4th quarter. Wake Forest also played very questionable defense against the Bears.

And, again using Miami as an example, when you stockpile talent like they have, the talent can often (not always) overcome their coaching mistakes, player mistakes, and bad breaks. Miami won 10 last season, but if we put them in your "everything goes right for us" scenario, they had enough talent to win all of their games. Their talent wins 10 games even with the coach screwing up sometimes and other times with the QB losing a close game with a crucial fumble. Cal could only muster 10 wins in a miracle scenario like yours where almost every break goes their way and neither coaching nor player mistakes cost them any games. But every team has bad breaks and almost every year loses at least a game or two they "could have" won if only a kicker had made a makeable FG or a QB didn't fumble in the 4th quarter. That's why every year there are only two or three teams out of 130 with fewer than two losses.

Quote:

---

Moreover, if our talent level isn't good enough, that is due to Wilcox and his staff being the poorest recruiters I have seen at Cal.

---

I cannot say for sure they are the poorest recruiters, because I have been a Cal fan for a long time and I remember other coaches whose recruiting was bad. But for sure the recruiting is behind that of the teams at the top of the ACC, and the results reflect that.

---

I would say it shouldn't take 'everything going right' for Cal to hang on to a 25 point second half lead, to not rely on last second field goal attempts when you don't have a dedicated coach for special teams, or to beat a team that had zero other FBS wins (for what feels like the fifth season in a row). Wilcox had his opportunities, he has squandered them, it is in the best interest of Cal football to move on as soon as possible.

---

He has had enough chances. But the next HC and staff will have to recruit a helluva lot better, or their results won't be much different. No team will consistently finish in the top third of the conference with recruiting classes ranked in the bottom third.

---

Last year was maybe the first time under Wilcox where I thought our talent at most positions was generally on par or superior to our conference competition. It was a coaching disaster class though, and the kind of roster building we had is not sustainable. Our best players were transfers, or homegrown walk-ons and lightly recruited players (Mendoza, Endries, Grizzell, Jet, Uluave, Woodson) who way outperformed their high school rankings.

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD said:

---

calumnus said:

---

No, what was said is the 2024 and 2025 schedules are the easiest in (probably) our history and set up for 10 win seasons

---

Perhaps you think this roster has so much talent that it is "set up" to win 10 games this year, but the consensus around CFB is that this roster has 6-6 or 7-5 talent.

Look at P4 teams that are generally projected to win 10 games in 2025. Go position by position through any of those rosters and try to convince us that Cal's roster is equal.

---

The "consensus" last year was that SMU had G5 talent and would finish below us. The "consensus" was that Cal had two top 20 transfer classes.

Moreover, the consensus is that Wilcox promoting Bloesch to OC (and having him cover OL too) was a mistake. Wilcox fired him after all. Now you blame the players not being good enough?

You cannot deny that Florida State, Miami, Pitt, and NC State we're all winnable, that we were in fact winning those games. If we had we would have been 9-0 and ranked with Syracuse coming to CMS. Instead of playing in front of an empty stadium, we are a confident team playing in front of a full CMS on national television. Instead of losing by 8, I think we win and we head to Dallas 11-0 for our big matchup with SMU, but at worse we head to Dallas 10-1. Fernando doesn't sit out that one. Again, even if we lose we are still 10-2. But if we beat Syracuse and SMU…. It was an unprecedented opportunity.

It was squandered by Wilcox making Bloesch OC and then squandering 4 leads by going conservative. Taking away our program's growing momentum and Game Day energy. Moreover, if our talent level isn't good enough, that is due to Wilcox and his staff being the poorest recruiters I have seen at Cal. However, if we win the games we could have won with the players we had/have, if we were a "hot" team on the rise, playing regularly on ESPN, then our recruiting would undoubtedly be ALOT better.

We squandered an opportunity to do that last year. We have another opportunity this year, but if we don't start seizing these opportunities there won't be any.

---