calumnus said:
BearSD said:
Only have to win at least 3 conference games to finish higher than 15th. I think our Bears will do that; but of course there are many negabears here who will strongly disagree.
We went 2-6 and finished #14 last year, so yeah, finishing better than #15 shouldn't be too hard.
The outside "experts" look at our #14 finish last year and the fact we lost our emerging star QB, our star RB (all our RBs), our star WRs,stsrting TE and most of our great defense and predict we'll do worse, but what some of us know is that we had a great team last year, a team good enough to win 10 and challenge for the ACC championship last year but for repeated coaching blunders. Thus, even if our talent is likely not quite as good, with better coaching (Rivera, Harsin, Rolovich) developing a better scheme and pushing Wilcox to make smart in game decisions plus another easy schedule, we should be able to finish in the top half of the ACC (maybe #7?).
I don't see how this reasoning makes sense.
1. We did not win 10 and challenge for the ACC championship. Had we had a good enough team to do that, we would have. You are what your record says.
2. The "we almost won a lot more games" analysis is fools' gold and lead to the "Let the Big Bear Eat" phenomena in Holmoe's last year after people convinced themselves that if we cleaned up turnovers and such we would have won more in his second to last year. You cannot simply attribute all close games as potential wins. What about potential losses? We beat Stanford and Auburn by one score. We could have easily lost those games. So if we were good enough to win 10, we were also bad enough to potentially go 4-8 and 1-7 in conference. Good teams win close games. We didn't.
3. But then your argument cuts itself off at the knees. How is it relevant that "some of us know that we had a great team last year"? (we didn't, by the way). We don't have that team anymore. As you said. QB gone. RBs gone. WR's gone. Star TE gone. (losing Jet, Mendoza and Endries is huge). We lost our one proven QB, all of our RB's with meaningful production, and 9 of our top 10 receivers. Basically all of our offensive production gone. Most of our defense gone. Had we kept everyone, I could almost get there with you, but we kept almost no one. So even if you think we were a hard luck, shouldabeen 10 win team last year none of that is here. I ask you how are our results last year even relevant at this point? The relevant question is how the current talent will fare, and frankly we have no way of knowing.
4. You are essentially doing the same depth of analysis that earned the "experts" air quotes from you. Instead of saying we were a 6 win team (we were) that lost all of its top players, you are saying we were a 10 win team (we weren't) whose talent is "not quite as good" (can't know that) and coaching is better so somehow that formula comes out to top half.
5. On coaching - Rivera is not coaching. Regarding Harsin and Rolovich - I've been down the big name coaches is going to save the lousy head coach strategy before (Al Borges anyone?). Balance of the probabilities I'd say points to coaching being somewhat improved. I don't think that is a guarantee. Also, coaching isn't magic and X's and O's isn't everything. Development counts for a lot (Snyder didn't get results until year 4). This might not be a year 1 thing. Plus, Wilcox is still running the show.
6. Generally, what "experts" look at is how good you were, what you lost, what you gained, but they also look at how many question marks you have and how well your program generally fills question marks. If you are Alabama and you have 3 question marks on offense and 3 on defense, experts are generally going to say "that isn't that many question marks and generally the next guy is as good as the last, so we aren't concerned." If you are Cal and you have 22 question marks and you have a poor record of replacing top players with guys who walk in and don't miss a beat, you get a #15 prediction, which is honestly fair. When Cal loses the amount of experienced, quality talent we lost this offseason, balance of the probabilities is that we simply can't come close to backfilling that with guys who can come in and match that production day 1. We didn't have a recruiting year that on paper people are jazzed about. Based on the available information, I think the most logical prediction is that we are going to take a pretty big hit on available, experienced, starting talent for this year. Now, as is generally the case, available information on recruiting is very imperfect, so we could be a lot better. We could be a lot worse.
7. The difference between cellar and middle of the conference will be heavily impacted by how well one of the QB's steps into the job. If someone comes in and plays really great, we could raise or ceiling. If they don't prove to be ready this year, that floor could get really low.
I can't criticize the "experts'" prediction here. If I were coming at it from a place of neutrality, I could see landing there. My gut tells me that a baseline, average Cal team generally wins 2-3 games in this conference and as such, I'd peg us at more like 12-14, and I have a hard time fathoming 15 because it would be a disaster.
But if I have to pick between a prediction of 15th and 7th, and put money on my pick, that isn't a close question. Wilcox has had 8 seasons and has had losing conference records in 8 of them. Cal has had losing conference records the last 15 straight years. While people hoped that changing to what they perceived as an easier conference would change our fortunes, our conference record last year is our 12th best in those 15 tries. I don't see the argument that the likely result is that we are poised to have our best year in 16 years, years that included having Jared Goff. Frankly, we don't even know who are main starters are going to be or where our production is coming from. If I were to say predict the future, we beat Duke and Virginia because players A, B, and C, lead us to victory, you could not predict with confidence who A, B, and C might be. There are a ton of question marks out there, not just at Cal, but everywhere, so everything is possible and we can hope for a lot. Predict though? No, I'm not predicting Cal, with almost no returning production and without a recruiting class studded with All Americans, is about to have its best year since 2009. I know, 7th place doesn't seem that extraordinary, but it would be for us.
