calumnus said:

---

JeffMcd said:

---

I hope we're open to starting JKS at game 1. He should have a fully legitimate opportunity thru Fall camp.

Nothing like game-time to hone a QB, our weakest part of schedule is the first two games, JKS has a massively higher ceiling than Brown. His early development will give us a chance against SMU,

Interesting to note that many sites rank Brown (as the presumptive Cal starter) at the bottom of the ACC QB list. Like 14 of 17 ish.

With a lower tier QB our chances of winning Louisville, SMU, VT, UNC, Minnesota, Duke are very low.

Start the true Freshmen. Let him throw deep play action behind a much improved OL. Score in the red zone with an aggressive OC and a top quartile kicker.

During the Willcox era, other than the one Spavital season, our O strategy has been conservative and ineffective.

Cal should take some risk and in a 50/50 or close ranking after fall camp - start JKS in an attempt to create a ranked 40 or better CFB total offense. It should be Jaron's to lose.

"No risk = no reward."

Another year with a 75 to 110 ranked offense is a disaster. That's another 6 win season, at best.

---

Cal's offense ranking under Wilcox:
2017 #71
2018 #116
2019 #112
2020 #111
2021 #96
2022 #96
2023 #43
2024 #90

Wilcox's teams average #92.5 on offense, worse even than Holmoe (#87.8).

Thus, I would be shocked if our offense is better than #75 this year. Other than the first year (#71, so barely) with Baldwin and players that remained from Dykes, the only time we were significantly better than #75 was 2022 (#43) with Spavital, but he got pushed out. Wilcox really prefers plodding offenses and "winning with defense" (though mostly ends up losing).

I think Harsin is promising a grind it out offense which is part of why all our skill position players departed. Harsin's offense at Auburn was #68 his first year, but that was with third year starter and future first round draft pick Bo Nix at QB. Once his skill position players departed his second year he had the #86 offense.

I think we can expect a lot of close, low scoring games. By design,

---

No coach at any level should be designing an offense to have lots of close, low scoring games.

ducktilldeath said:

---

calumnus said:

---

JeffMcd said:

---

I hope we're open to starting JKS at game 1. He should have a fully legitimate opportunity thru Fall camp.

Nothing like game-time to hone a QB, our weakest part of schedule is the first two games, JKS has a massively higher ceiling than Brown. His early development will give us a chance against SMU,

Interesting to note that many sites rank Brown (as the presumptive Cal starter) at the bottom of the ACC QB list. Like 14 of 17 ish.

With a lower tier QB our chances of winning Louisville, SMU, VT, UNC, Minnesota, Duke are very low.

Start the true Freshmen. Let him throw deep play action behind a much improved OL. Score in the red zone with an aggressive OC and a top quartile kicker.

During the Willcox era, other than the one Spavital season, our O strategy has been conservative and ineffective.

Cal should take some risk and in a 50/50 or close ranking after fall camp - start JKS in an attempt to create a ranked 40 or better CFB total offense. It should be Jaron's to lose.

"No risk = no reward."

Another year with a 75 to 110 ranked offense is a disaster. That's another 6 win season, at best.

---

Cal's offense ranking under Wilcox:
2017 #71
2018 #116
2019 #112
2020 #111
2021 #96
2022 #96
2023 #43
2024 #90

Wilcox's teams average #92.5 on offense, worse even than Holmoe (#87.8).

Thus, I would be shocked if our offense is better than #75 this year. Other than the first year (#71, so barely) with Baldwin and players that remained from Dykes, the only time we were significantly better than #75 was 2022 (#43) with Spavital, but he got pushed out. Wilcox really prefers plodding offenses and "winning with defense" (though mostly ends up losing).

I think Harsin is promising a grind it out offense which is part of why all our skill position players departed. Harsin's offense at Auburn was #68 his first year, but that was with third year starter and future first round draft pick Bo Nix at QB. Once his skill position players departed his second year he had the #86 offense.

I think we can expect a lot of close, low scoring games. By design,

---

No coach at any level should be designing an offense to have lots of close, low scoring games.

---

I agree, but many people point to Wilcox's greatest season, 2019 as the goal. Wilcox went 8-5 despite being #116 in the nation in scoring and #120 in the nation in yards per play.

In Eugene against your #13 ranked Ducks with Herbert at QB, Cal took an early 7 point lead on our first drive with UCLA transfer Devon Modster at QB and held Oregon scoreless until giving up a FG midway through the third quarter and only gave up the lead with Oregon's first TD at the end of the third quarter. Then gave up another TD in the 4th, losing by 10. Cal RBs Christopher Brooks and DeShawn Collins combined for 49 yards on 19 carries (almost 2.6 yards per carry). Many Cal fans love that kind of game because they can say "If only we had Garbers!"

What about the expression - "the best defense is a good offense…" ??

I'm at a loss for why designing a low impact, low scoring, low productivity offense is a goal…..I don't think this has been intentional by Wicox. As evidenced by his first two OC picks - Baldwin and Musgrave - he doesn't get the joke. Carl's poor offense was never planned.

JeffMcd said:

---

What about the expression - "the best defense is a good offense…" ??

I'm at a loss for why designing a low impact, low scoring, low productivity offense is a goal…..I don't think this has been intentional by Wicox. As evidenced by his first two OC picks - Baldwin and Musgrave - he doesn't get the joke. Carl's poor offense was never planned.

---

I think it was part of the conflict he had with Spavital (despite Ott leading the PAC-12 in rushing) and one of the reasons he pushed him out and elevated Bloesch. Then last year when it became obvious Mendoza passing downfield was our best offense, giving us 4th quarter leads, we then put on the brakes, stop throwing downfield and try to "grind out a win" and when that failed we would try it again, and again, and again, and again. It might have been Bloesch, but from Wilcox's post games it sounded like it came from him..

ducktilldeath said:

---

calumnus said:

---

JeffMcd said:

---

I hope we're open to starting JKS at game 1. He should have a fully legitimate opportunity thru Fall camp.

Nothing like game-time to hone a QB, our weakest part of schedule is the first two games, JKS has a massively higher ceiling than Brown. His early development will give us a chance against SMU,

Interesting to note that many sites rank Brown (as the presumptive Cal starter) at the bottom of the ACC QB list. Like 14 of 17 ish.

With a lower tier QB our chances of winning Louisville, SMU, VT, UNC, Minnesota, Duke are very low.

Start the true Freshmen. Let him throw deep play action behind a much improved OL. Score in the red zone with an aggressive OC and a top quartile kicker.

During the Willcox era, other than the one Spavital season, our O strategy has been conservative and ineffective.

Cal should take some risk and in a 50/50 or close ranking after fall camp - start JKS in an attempt to create a ranked 40 or better CFB total offense. It should be Jaron's to lose.

"No risk = no reward."

Another year with a 75 to 110 ranked offense is a disaster. That's another 6 win season, at best.

---

Cal's offense ranking under Wilcox:
2017 #71
2018 #116
2019 #112
2020 #111
2021 #96
2022 #96
2023 #43
2024 #90

Wilcox's teams average #92.5 on offense, worse even than Holmoe (#87.8).

Thus, I would be shocked if our offense is better than #75 this year. Other than the first year (#71, so barely) with Baldwin and players that remained from Dykes, the only time we were significantly better than #75 was 2022 (#43) with Spavital, but he got pushed out. Wilcox really prefers plodding offenses and "winning with defense" (though mostly ends up losing).

I think Harsin is promising a grind it out offense which is part of why all our skill position players departed. Harsin's offense at Auburn was #68 his first year, but that was with third year starter and future first round draft pick Bo Nix at QB. Once his skill position players departed his second year he had the #86 offense.

I think we can expect a lot of close, low scoring games. By design,

---

No coach at any level should be designing an offense to have lots of close, low scoring games.

---

I'm not so sure about that. 'Power running oriented' and strictly 'grind it out' are not necessarily the same. Harsin's offenses have traditionally been high-scoring offenses, even though he has featured a power running game.

Pittstop said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

calumnus said:

---

JeffMcd said:

---

I hope we're open to starting JKS at game 1. He should have a fully legitimate opportunity thru Fall camp.

Nothing like game-time to hone a QB, our weakest part of schedule is the first two games, JKS has a massively higher ceiling than Brown. His early development will give us a chance against SMU,

Interesting to note that many sites rank Brown (as the presumptive Cal starter) at the bottom of the ACC QB list. Like 14 of 17 ish.

With a lower tier QB our chances of winning Louisville, SMU, VT, UNC, Minnesota, Duke are very low.

Start the true Freshmen. Let him throw deep play action behind a much improved OL. Score in the red zone with an aggressive OC and a top quartile kicker.

During the Willcox era, other than the one Spavital season, our O strategy has been conservative and ineffective.

Cal should take some risk and in a 50/50 or close ranking after fall camp - start JKS in an attempt to create a ranked 40 or better CFB total offense. It should be Jaron's to lose.

"No risk = no reward."

Another year with a 75 to 110 ranked offense is a disaster. That's another 6 win season, at best.

---

Cal's offense ranking under Wilcox:
2017 #71
2018 #116
2019 #112
2020 #111
2021 #96
2022 #96
2023 #43
2024 #90

Wilcox's teams average #92.5 on offense, worse even than Holmoe (#87.8).

Thus, I would be shocked if our offense is better than #75 this year. Other than the first year (#71, so barely) with Baldwin and players that remained from Dykes, the only time we were significantly better than #75 was 2022 (#43) with Spavital, but he got pushed out. Wilcox really prefers plodding offenses and "winning with defense" (though mostly ends up losing).

I think Harsin is promising a grind it out offense which is part of why all our skill position players departed. Harsin's offense at Auburn was #68 his first year, but that was with third year starter and future first round draft pick Bo Nix at QB. Once his skill position players departed his second year he had the #86 offense.

I think we can expect a lot of close, low scoring games. By design,

---

No coach at any level should be designing an offense to have lots of close, low scoring games.

---

I'm not so sure about that 'power running oriented' and strictly 'grind it out' are not necessarily the same. Harsin's offenses have traditionally been high-scoring offenses, even though he has featured a power running game.

---

Baldwin's offense at Eastern Washington was traditionally high scoring too, but was very low scoring at Cal. While Harsin's offenses at Boise State were high scoring, his offenses at Auburn were very low scoring.

However, the issue is also that indications are that Wilcox prefers more conservative, generally lower scoring offenses and pushed out Spavital, the OC of his one relatively high scoring offense and pushed Bloesch to have Mendoza stop throwing downfield and be more conservative with 4th quarter leads. It is a mindset reflecting the head coach's preferences as much as anything else.

calumnus said:

---

Pittstop said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

calumnus said:

---

JeffMcd said:

---

I hope we're open to starting JKS at game 1. He should have a fully legitimate opportunity thru Fall camp.

Nothing like game-time to hone a QB, our weakest part of schedule is the first two games, JKS has a massively higher ceiling than Brown. His early development will give us a chance against SMU,

Interesting to note that many sites rank Brown (as the presumptive Cal starter) at the bottom of the ACC QB list. Like 14 of 17 ish.

With a lower tier QB our chances of winning Louisville, SMU, VT, UNC, Minnesota, Duke are very low.

Start the true Freshmen. Let him throw deep play action behind a much improved OL. Score in the red zone with an aggressive OC and a top quartile kicker.

During the Willcox era, other than the one Spavital season, our O strategy has been conservative and ineffective.

Cal should take some risk and in a 50/50 or close ranking after fall camp - start JKS in an attempt to create a ranked 40 or better CFB total offense. It should be Jaron's to lose.

"No risk = no reward."

Another year with a 75 to 110 ranked offense is a disaster. That's another 6 win season, at best.

---

Cal's offense ranking under Wilcox:
2017 #71
2018 #116
2019 #112
2020 #111
2021 #96
2022 #96
2023 #43
2024 #90

Wilcox's teams average #92.5 on offense, worse even than Holmoe (#87.8).

Thus, I would be shocked if our offense is better than #75 this year. Other than the first year (#71, so barely) with Baldwin and players that remained from Dykes, the only time we were significantly better than #75 was 2022 (#43) with Spavital, but he got pushed out. Wilcox really prefers plodding offenses and "winning with defense" (though mostly ends up losing).

I think Harsin is promising a grind it out offense which is part of why all our skill position players departed. Harsin's offense at Auburn was #68 his first year, but that was with third year starter and future first round draft pick Bo Nix at QB. Once his skill position players departed his second year he had the #86 offense.

I think we can expect a lot of close, low scoring games. By design,

---

No coach at any level should be designing an offense to have lots of close, low scoring games.

---

I'm not so sure about that 'power running oriented' and strictly 'grind it out' are not necessarily the same. Harsin's offenses have traditionally been high-scoring offenses, even though he has featured a power running game.

---

Baldwin's offense at Eastern Washington was traditionally high scoring too, but was very low scoring at Cal. While Harsin's offenses at Boise State were high scoring, his offenses at Auburn were very low scoring.

However, the issue is also that indications are that Wilcox prefers more conservative, generally lower scoring offenses and pushed out Spavital, the OC of his one relatively high scoring offense and pushed Bloesch to have Mendoza stop throwing downfield and be more conservative with 4th quarter leads. It is a mindset reflecting the head coach's preferences as much as anything else.

---

You can think of it as JW's preferences if you like. I think it is a function of his passivity. He doesn't like to run up the score on an opponent because he wants to be friends with the opponent coaches. And, he doesn't want to defend big win to the press and admin. I don't think it's in his nature.

He has heard about it from his detractors And, by God, he's gonna show them that he is a good coach...without taking risks (the long pass freaks him out). He's just made that way.

calumnus said:

---

Pittstop said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

calumnus said:

---

JeffMcd said:

---

I hope we're open to starting JKS at game 1. He should have a fully legitimate opportunity thru Fall camp.

Nothing like game-time to hone a QB, our weakest part of schedule is the first two games, JKS has a massively higher ceiling than Brown. His early development will give us a chance against SMU,

Interesting to note that many sites rank Brown (as the presumptive Cal starter) at the bottom of the ACC QB list. Like 14 of 17 ish.

With a lower tier QB our chances of winning Louisville, SMU, VT, UNC, Minnesota, Duke are very low.

Start the true Freshmen. Let him throw deep play action behind a much improved OL. Score in the red zone with an aggressive OC and a top quartile kicker.

During the Willcox era, other than the one Spavital season, our O strategy has been conservative and ineffective.

Cal should take some risk and in a 50/50 or close ranking after fall camp - start JKS in an attempt to create a ranked 40 or better CFB total offense. It should be Jaron's to lose.

"No risk = no reward."

Another year with a 75 to 110 ranked offense is a disaster. That's another 6 win season, at best.

---

Cal's offense ranking under Wilcox:
2017 #71
2018 #116
2019 #112
2020 #111
2021 #96
2022 #96
2023 #43
2024 #90

Wilcox's teams average #92.5 on offense, worse even than Holmoe (#87.8).

Thus, I would be shocked if our offense is better than #75 this year. Other than the first year (#71, so barely) with Baldwin and players that remained from Dykes, the only time we were significantly better than #75 was 2022 (#43) with Spavital, but he got pushed out. Wilcox really prefers plodding offenses and "winning with defense" (though mostly ends up losing).

I think Harsin is promising a grind it out offense which is part of why all our skill position players departed. Harsin's offense at Auburn was #68 his first year, but that was with third year starter and future first round draft pick Bo Nix at QB. Once his skill position players departed his second year he had the #86 offense.

I think we can expect a lot of close, low scoring games. By design,

---

No coach at any level should be designing an offense to have lots of close, low scoring games.

---

I'm not so sure about that 'power running oriented' and strictly 'grind it out' are not necessarily the same. Harsin's offenses have traditionally been high-scoring offenses, even though he has featured a power running game.

---

Baldwin's offense at Eastern Washington was traditionally high scoring too, but was very low scoring at Cal. While Harsin's offenses at Boise State were high scoring, his offenses at Auburn were very low scoring.

However, the issue is also that indications are that Wilcox prefers more conservative, generally lower scoring offenses and pushed out Spavital, the OC of his one relatively high scoring offense and pushed Bloesch to have Mendoza stop throwing downfield and be more conservative with 4th quarter leads. It is a mindset reflecting the head coach's preferences as much as anything else.

---

Maybe. But I believe that being able get a Baldwin, or Musgrave, or Bloesch to sign on as OC, and be fine with having their offensive decisions, play calls, game plans, authority, or autonomy subordinated to JW'traditionally conservative default tendencies is not the same as being able to persuade a Harsin to sign on as OC and a Rolo to sign on as a Senior Offensive Assistant without agreeing up front that Harsin would have full autonomy over his offense (with perhaps certain, 'end of game' or 4th down or red zone "check-ins" or "consultations" with JW. In which I would anticipate JW would mostly defer to
Harsin, the FAR more successful, FAR more accomplished, frequently nationally ranked HC AND OC.

Pittstop said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Pittstop said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

calumnus said:

---

JeffMcd said:

---

I hope we're open to starting JKS at game 1. He should have a fully legitimate opportunity thru Fall camp.

Nothing like game-time to hone a QB, our weakest part of schedule is the first two games, JKS has a massively higher ceiling than Brown. His early development will give us a chance against SMU,

Interesting to note that many sites rank Brown (as the presumptive Cal starter) at the bottom of the ACC QB list. Like 14 of 17 ish.

With a lower tier QB our chances of winning Louisville, SMU, VT, UNC, Minnesota, Duke are very low.

Start the true Freshmen. Let him throw deep play action behind a much improved OL. Score in the red zone with an aggressive OC and a top quartile kicker.

During the Willcox era, other than the one Spavital season, our O strategy has been conservative and ineffective.

Cal should take some risk and in a 50/50 or close ranking after fall camp - start JKS in an attempt to create a ranked 40 or better CFB total offense. It should be Jaron's to lose.

"No risk = no reward."

Another year with a 75 to 110 ranked offense is a disaster. That's another 6 win season, at best.

---

Cal's offense ranking under Wilcox:
2017 #71
2018 #116
2019 #112
2020 #111
2021 #96
2022 #96
2023 #43
2024 #90

Wilcox's teams average #92.5 on offense, worse even than Holmoe (#87.8).

Thus, I would be shocked if our offense is better than #75 this year. Other than the first year (#71, so barely) with Baldwin and players that remained from Dykes, the only time we were significantly better than #75 was 2022 (#43) with Spavital, but he got pushed out. Wilcox really prefers plodding offenses and "winning with defense" (though mostly ends up losing).

I think Harsin is promising a grind it out offense which is part of why all our skill position players departed. Harsin's offense at Auburn was #68 his first year, but that was with third year starter and future first round draft pick Bo Nix at QB. Once his skill position players departed his second year he had the #86 offense.

I think we can expect a lot of close, low scoring games. By design,

---

No coach at any level should be designing an offense to have lots of close, low scoring games.

---

I'm not so sure about that 'power running oriented' and strictly 'grind it out' are not necessarily the same. Harsin's offenses have traditionally been high-scoring offenses, even though he has featured a power running game.

---

Baldwin's offense at Eastern Washington was traditionally high scoring too, but was very low scoring at Cal. While Harsin's offenses at Boise State were high scoring, his offenses at Auburn were very low scoring.

However, the issue is also that indications are that Wilcox prefers more conservative, generally lower scoring offenses and pushed out Spavital, the OC of his one relatively high scoring offense and pushed Bloesch to have Mendoza stop throwing downfield and be more conservative with 4th quarter leads. It is a mindset reflecting the head coach's preferences as much as anything else.

---

Maybe. But I believe that being able get a Baldwin, or Musgrave, or Bloesch to sign on as OC, and be fine with having their offensive decisions, play calls, game plans, authority, or autonomy subordinated to JW'traditionally conservative default tendencies is not the same as being able to persuade a Harsin to sign on as OC and a Rolo to sign on as a Senior Offensive Assistant without agreeing up front that Harsin would have full autonomy over his offense (with perhaps certain, 'end of game' or 4th down or red zone "check-ins" or "consultations" with JW. In which I would anticipate JW would mostly defer to
Harsin, the FAR more successful, FAR more accomplished, frequently nationally ranked HC AND OC.

---

depends on what, if anything, Harsin negotiated as non-negotiable. If Jw gets to have check-ins and/or consultations and Harsin allows it, he won't see autonomy again. Open the door a crack and autonomy will be lost, like water gets into a roof.

Does Harsin have enough balls to send JW over to his D and leave him alone? If JW makes a scene about it, then Harsin needs to stand his ground and promise to have it out in JW's office after the game. Otherwise, the leak will become a torrent and we'll be back where we started. If you've got a tyrant who wins, like Woody or Bear or Nick, you put up with it as long as you can. We don't have that It's do or die this year. Maybe that possibility will give JW second thoughts, but in the end, he's hard wired this way.

Pittstop said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Pittstop said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

calumnus said:

---

JeffMcd said:

---

I hope we're open to starting JKS at game 1. He should have a fully legitimate opportunity thru Fall camp.

Nothing like game-time to hone a QB, our weakest part of schedule is the first two games, JKS has a massively higher ceiling than Brown. His early development will give us a chance against SMU,

Interesting to note that many sites rank Brown (as the presumptive Cal starter) at the bottom of the ACC QB list. Like 14 of 17 ish.

With a lower tier QB our chances of winning Louisville, SMU, VT, UNC, Minnesota, Duke are very low.

Start the true Freshmen. Let him throw deep play action behind a much improved OL. Score in the red zone with an aggressive OC and a top quartile kicker.

During the Willcox era, other than the one Spavital season, our O strategy has been conservative and ineffective.

Cal should take some risk and in a 50/50 or close ranking after fall camp - start JKS in an attempt to create a ranked 40 or better CFB total offense. It should be Jaron's to lose.

"No risk = no reward."

Another year with a 75 to 110 ranked offense is a disaster. That's another 6 win season, at best.

---

Cal's offense ranking under Wilcox:
2017 #71
2018 #116
2019 #112
2020 #111
2021 #96
2022 #96
2023 #43
2024 #90

Wilcox's teams average #92.5 on offense, worse even than Holmoe (#87.8).

Thus, I would be shocked if our offense is better than #75 this year. Other than the first year (#71, so barely) with Baldwin and players that remained from Dykes, the only time we were significantly better than #75 was 2022 (#43) with Spavital, but he got pushed out. Wilcox really prefers plodding offenses and "winning with defense" (though mostly ends up losing).

I think Harsin is promising a grind it out offense which is part of why all our skill position players departed. Harsin's offense at Auburn was #68 his first year, but that was with third year starter and future first round draft pick Bo Nix at QB. Once his skill position players departed his second year he had the #86 offense.

I think we can expect a lot of close, low scoring games. By design,

---

No coach at any level should be designing an offense to have lots of close, low scoring games.

---

I'm not so sure about that 'power running oriented' and strictly 'grind it out' are not necessarily the same. Harsin's offenses have traditionally been high-scoring offenses, even though he has featured a power running game.

---

Baldwin's offense at Eastern Washington was traditionally high scoring too, but was very low scoring at Cal. While Harsin's offenses at Boise State were high scoring, his offenses at Auburn were very low scoring.

However, the issue is also that indications are that Wilcox prefers more conservative, generally lower scoring offenses and pushed out Spavital, the OC of his one relatively high scoring offense and pushed Bloesch to have Mendoza stop throwing downfield and be more conservative with 4th quarter leads. It is a mindset reflecting the head coach's preferences as much as anything else.

---

Maybe. But I believe that being able get a Baldwin, or Musgrave, or Bloesch to sign on as OC, and be fine with having their offensive decisions, play calls, game plans, authority, or autonomy subordinated to JW'traditionally conservative default tendencies is not the same as being able to persuade a Harsin to sign on as OC and a Rolo to sign on as a Senior Offensive Assistant without agreeing up front that Harsin would have full autonomy over his offense (with perhaps certain, 'end of game' or 4th down or red zone "check-ins" or "consultations" with JW. In which I would anticipate JW would mostly defer to
Harsin, the FAR more successful, FAR more accomplished, frequently nationally ranked HC AND OC.

---

Both Harsin and Rolovich were fired from their last jobs, where they were both formally accused of anti-Black racism and were unemployed without other offers. It is not like they had a lot of leverage. They are both friends of Wilcox, he is doing them a favor helping them rehab their careers as much as they are helping him (if they are successful). However they work together is how they work together and it will remain to be seen how involved Wilcox gets in the in-game coaching decisions. He may be smart and leave to them, but then he should have done that with his previous OCs too (and maybe he did?).

ac_green33 said:

---

I'm sorry but no coach ever tries to purposely score fewer points than they possibly could. These are simply delusional statements

---

You haven't been listening.

Rushinbear said:

---

Pittstop said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Pittstop said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

calumnus said:

---

JeffMcd said:

---

I hope we're open to starting JKS at game 1. He should have a fully legitimate opportunity thru Fall camp.

Nothing like game-time to hone a QB, our weakest part of schedule is the first two games, JKS has a massively higher ceiling than Brown. His early development will give us a chance against SMU,

Interesting to note that many sites rank Brown (as the presumptive Cal starter) at the bottom of the ACC QB list. Like 14 of 17 ish.

With a lower tier QB our chances of winning Louisville, SMU, VT, UNC, Minnesota, Duke are very low.

Start the true Freshmen. Let him throw deep play action behind a much improved OL. Score in the red zone with an aggressive OC and a top quartile kicker.

During the Willcox era, other than the one Spavital season, our O strategy has been conservative and ineffective.

Cal should take some risk and in a 50/50 or close ranking after fall camp - start JKS in an attempt to create a ranked 40 or better CFB total offense. It should be Jaron's to lose.

"No risk = no reward."

Another year with a 75 to 110 ranked offense is a disaster. That's another 6 win season, at best.

---

Cal's offense ranking under Wilcox:
2017 #71
2018 #116
2019 #112
2020 #111
2021 #96
2022 #96
2023 #43
2024 #90

Wilcox's teams average #92.5 on offense, worse even than Holmoe (#87.8).

Thus, I would be shocked if our offense is better than #75 this year. Other than the first year (#71, so barely) with Baldwin and players that remained from Dykes, the only time we were significantly better than #75 was 2022 (#43) with Spavital, but he got pushed out. Wilcox really prefers plodding offenses and "winning with defense" (though mostly ends up losing).

I think Harsin is promising a grind it out offense which is part of why all our skill position players departed. Harsin's offense at Auburn was #68 his first year, but that was with third year starter and future first round draft pick Bo Nix at QB. Once his skill position players departed his second year he had the #86 offense.

I think we can expect a lot of close, low scoring games. By design,

---

No coach at any level should be designing an offense to have lots of close, low scoring games.

---

I'm not so sure about that 'power running oriented' and strictly 'grind it out' are not necessarily the same. Harsin's offenses have traditionally been high-scoring offenses, even though he has featured a power running game.

---

Baldwin's offense at Eastern Washington was traditionally high scoring too, but was very low scoring at Cal. While Harsin's offenses at Boise State were high scoring, his offenses at Auburn were very low scoring.

However, the issue is also that indications are that Wilcox prefers more conservative, generally lower scoring offenses and pushed out Spavital, the OC of his one relatively high scoring offense and pushed Bloesch to have Mendoza stop throwing downfield and be more conservative with 4th quarter leads. It is a mindset reflecting the head coach's preferences as much as anything else.

---

Maybe. But I believe that being able get a Baldwin, or Musgrave, or Bloesch to sign on as OC, and be fine with having their offensive decisions, play calls, game plans, authority, or autonomy subordinated to JW'traditionally conservative default tendencies is not the same as being able to persuade a Harsin to sign on as OC and a Rolo to sign on as a Senior Offensive Assistant without agreeing up front that Harsin would have full autonomy over his offense (with perhaps certain, 'end of game' or 4th down or red zone "check-ins" or "consultations" with JW. In which I would anticipate JW would mostly defer to
Harsin, the FAR more successful, FAR more accomplished, frequently nationally ranked HC AND OC.

---

depends on what, if anything, Harsin negotiated as non-negotiable. If Jw gets to have check-ins and/or consultations and Harsin allows it, he won't see autonomy again. Open the door a crack and autonomy will be lost, like water gets into a roof.

Does Harsin have enough balls to send JW over to his D and leave him alone? If JW makes a scene about it, then Harsin needs to stand his ground and promise to have it out in JW's office after the game. Otherwise, the leak will become a torrent and we'll be back where we started. If you've got a tyrant who wins, like Woody or Bear or Nick, you put up with it as long as you can. We don't have that It's do or die this year. Maybe that possibility will give JW second thoughts, but in the end, he's hard wired this way.

---

Hence the word "perhaps" in my post with regard to the "check-ins" and "consultations". My true belief is that Harsin was doing JW 'a solid' by accepting the OC role, subject to specific terms & conditions that needed to be agreed to by JW. He certainly had the requisite HC/OC gravitas to exact such terms, unlike JW's previous OCs. Obviously Spav did not have that, and was walked to his car when tried to ignore those limitations (I presume).

calumnus said:

---

Pittstop said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Pittstop said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

calumnus said:

---

JeffMcd said:

---

I hope we're open to starting JKS at game 1. He should have a fully legitimate opportunity thru Fall camp.

Nothing like game-time to hone a QB, our weakest part of schedule is the first two games, JKS has a massively higher ceiling than Brown. His early development will give us a chance against SMU,

Interesting to note that many sites rank Brown (as the presumptive Cal starter) at the bottom of the ACC QB list. Like 14 of 17 ish.

With a lower tier QB our chances of winning Louisville, SMU, VT, UNC, Minnesota, Duke are very low.

Start the true Freshmen. Let him throw deep play action behind a much improved OL. Score in the red zone with an aggressive OC and a top quartile kicker.

During the Willcox era, other than the one Spavital season, our O strategy has been conservative and ineffective.

Cal should take some risk and in a 50/50 or close ranking after fall camp - start JKS in an attempt to create a ranked 40 or better CFB total offense. It should be Jaron's to lose.

"No risk = no reward."

Another year with a 75 to 110 ranked offense is a disaster. That's another 6 win season, at best.

---

Cal's offense ranking under Wilcox:
2017 #71
2018 #116
2019 #112
2020 #111
2021 #96
2022 #96
2023 #43
2024 #90

Wilcox's teams average #92.5 on offense, worse even than Holmoe (#87.8).

Thus, I would be shocked if our offense is better than #75 this year. Other than the first year (#71, so barely) with Baldwin and players that remained from Dykes, the only time we were significantly better than #75 was 2022 (#43) with Spavital, but he got pushed out. Wilcox really prefers plodding offenses and "winning with defense" (though mostly ends up losing).

I think Harsin is promising a grind it out offense which is part of why all our skill position players departed. Harsin's offense at Auburn was #68 his first year, but that was with third year starter and future first round draft pick Bo Nix at QB. Once his skill position players departed his second year he had the #86 offense.

I think we can expect a lot of close, low scoring games. By design,

---

No coach at any level should be designing an offense to have lots of close, low scoring games.

---

I'm not so sure about that 'power running oriented' and strictly 'grind it out' are not necessarily the same. Harsin's offenses have traditionally been high-scoring offenses, even though he has featured a power running game.

---

Baldwin's offense at Eastern Washington was traditionally high scoring too, but was very low scoring at Cal. While Harsin's offenses at Boise State were high scoring, his offenses at Auburn were very low scoring.

However, the issue is also that indications are that Wilcox prefers more conservative, generally lower scoring offenses and pushed out Spavital, the OC of his one relatively high scoring offense and pushed Bloesch to have Mendoza stop throwing downfield and be more conservative with 4th quarter leads. It is a mindset reflecting the head coach's preferences as much as anything else.

---

Maybe. But I believe that being able get a Baldwin, or Musgrave, or Bloesch to sign on as OC, and be fine with having their offensive decisions, play calls, game plans, authority, or autonomy subordinated to JW'traditionally conservative default tendencies is not the same as being able to persuade a Harsin to sign on as OC and a Rolo to sign on as a Senior Offensive Assistant without agreeing up front that Harsin would have full autonomy over his offense (with perhaps certain, 'end of game' or 4th down or red zone "check-ins" or "consultations" with JW. In which I would anticipate JW would mostly defer to
Harsin, the FAR more successful, FAR more accomplished, frequently nationally ranked HC AND OC.

---

Both Harsin and Rolovich were fired from their last jobs, where they were both formally accused of anti-Black racism and were unemployed without other offers. It is not like they had a lot of leverage. They are both friends of Wilcox, he is doing them a favor helping them rehab their careers as much as they are helping him (if they are successful). However they work together is how they work together and it will remain to be seen how involved Wilcox gets in the in-game coaching decisions. He may be smart and leave to them, but then he should have done that with his previous OCs too (and maybe he did?).

---

That's like saying that Chip Kelly, or Bobby Petrino, or Urban Meyer, or Jimbo Fisher, or Dan Mullen, or Art Briles, or Ed Orgeron would not have the gravitas to require similar 'terms' in exchange for agreeing to accept a college coordinator's position just because they'd been fired from their previous positions (notwithstanding that Briles will likely never get another P4 job offer due to his abject smarmyness).

ac_green33 said:

---

I'm sorry but no coach ever tries to purposely score fewer points than they possibly could. These are simply delusional statements

---

In basketball coaches used to run four corners. Mark Fox used to have the team run the shot clock down before initiating the offense. Coaches in football often try to end games by burning clock.

It used to be the accepted wisdom in alternating possession sports (football and basketball) that slow playing offense "makes the defense better" by limiting the number of possessions for the opponent (it limits both teams) . A variation is that playing fast and scoring fast on offense "tires out your defense" (when logically it "tires out" both teams equally. Some "defensive minded" coaches still think that way. Mark Fox was one and Justin Wilcox is another. He has made statements after repeatedly using the same 4th quarter slow down strategy to the effect that to win you need to score 4 TDs per game (one per quarter) and hold your opponent to 3. Thus, going into the 4th quarter we had scored "enough" and it was up to the defense to keep the opponent scoreless.

calumnus said:

---

ac_green33 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ac_green33 said:

---

I'm sorry but no coach ever tries to purposely score fewer points than they possibly could. These are simply delusional statements

---

In basketball coaches used to run four corners. Mark Fox used to have the team run the shot clock down before initiating the offense. Coaches in football often try to end games by burning clock.

It used to be the accepted wisdom in alternating possession sports (football and basketball) that slow playing offense "makes the defense better" by limiting the number of possessions for the opponent (it limits both teams) . A variation is that playing fast and scoring fast on offense "tires out your defense" (when logically it "tires out" both teams equally. Some "defensive minded" coaches still think that way. Mark Fox was one and Justin Wilcox is another. He has made statements after repeatedly using the same 4th quarter slow down strategy to the effect that to win you need to score 4 TDs per game (one per quarter) and hold your opponent to 3. Thus, going into the 4th quarter we had scored "enough" and it was up to the defense to keep the opponent scoreless.

---

Come on, lol. Playing slow or trying to run clock is not the same as saying "I don't want to score any more points" and the defense just has to hold because I decided it's enough. That is a patently ridiculous thing you're suggesting.

---

Wilcox after the game and after other similar losses and now even again at the ACC Media Days said "I firmly believe the goal is to score 4 TDs per game" and in this game "The offense did their job (getting to 38)" ignoring the fact we were playing the #1 offense in the country. It is an entirely different matter if the running game is productive and you can score AND burn clock in the process, but burning clock should never come at the expense of scoring.

---

What's hilarious is against Miami we held the ball for only 22 minutes and got burned at the end, and in the next game against Pitt, we held the ball for 38 minutes and got burned at the end, so what's the deal with this whole operation...

And another thing, even if we scored 28+ per game, that would barely crack the top 50 in FBS points per game, so unless Wilcox is going to show out and have a dominant defense, that is a low bar, in 2024 we averaged 25.1 points a game which had us 90th in FBS, so it's not a substantive move whatsoever

Strykur said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ac_green33 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ac_green33 said:

---

I'm sorry but no coach ever tries to purposely score fewer points than they possibly could. These are simply delusional statements

---

In basketball coaches used to run four corners. Mark Fox used to have the team run the shot clock down before initiating the offense. Coaches in football often try to end games by burning clock.

It used to be the accepted wisdom in alternating possession sports (football and basketball) that slow playing offense "makes the defense better" by limiting the number of possessions for the opponent (it limits both teams) . A variation is that playing fast and scoring fast on offense "tires out your defense" (when logically it "tires out" both teams equally. Some "defensive minded" coaches still think that way. Mark Fox was one and Justin Wilcox is another. He has made statements after repeatedly using the same 4th quarter slow down strategy to the effect that to win you need to score 4 TDs per game (one per quarter) and hold your opponent to 3. Thus, going into the 4th quarter we had scored "enough" and it was up to the defense to keep the opponent scoreless.

---

Come on, lol. Playing slow or trying to run clock is not the same as saying "I don't want to score any more points" and the defense just has to hold because I decided it's enough. That is a patently ridiculous thing you're suggesting.

---

Wilcox after the game and after other similar losses and now even again at the ACC Media Days said "I firmly believe the goal is to score 4 TDs per game" and in this game "The offense did their job (getting to 38)" ignoring the fact we were playing the #1 offense in the country. It is an entirely different matter if the running game is productive and you can score AND burn clock in the process, but burning clock should never come at the expense of scoring.

---

What's hilarious is against Miami we held the ball for only 22 minutes and got burned at the end, and in the next game against Pitt, we held the ball for 38 minutes and got burned at the end, so what's the deal with this whole operation...

And another thing, even if we scored 28+ per game, that would barely crack the top 50 in FBS points per game, so unless Wilcox is going to show out and have a dominant defense, that is a low bar, in 2024 we averaged 25.1 points a game which had us 90th in FBS, so it's not a substantive move whatsoever

---

28 points per game was actually #70 Old Dominion, which admittedly is better than our #90, but really should not be the goal, especially when you are playing the #1 offense.

But coaching a team to #90 when you return the Pac-12's leading rusher, his backup is even better, your OL returns, your QB has a breakout season, you have another star freshman WR, your TEs might be your best receivers and you bring in the #20 portal class and the schedule is the weakest we have faced in 100 years… That is just horrible, and again, it was obvious the brakes were being applied when we had 4th quarter leads. A classic case of playing too conservative, playing not to lose and trying to win with your defense.

calumnus said:

---

ac_green33 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ac_green33 said:

---

I'm sorry but no coach ever tries to purposely score fewer points than they possibly could. These are simply delusional statements

---

In basketball coaches used to run four corners. Mark Fox used to have the team run the shot clock down before initiating the offense. Coaches in football often try to end games by burning clock.

It used to be the accepted wisdom in alternating possession sports (football and basketball) that slow playing offense "makes the defense better" by limiting the number of possessions for the opponent (it limits both teams) . A variation is that playing fast and scoring fast on offense "tires out your defense" (when logically it "tires out" both teams equally. Some "defensive minded" coaches still think that way. Mark Fox was one and Justin Wilcox is another. He has made statements after repeatedly using the same 4th quarter slow down strategy to the effect that to win you need to score 4 TDs per game (one per quarter) and hold your opponent to 3. Thus, going into the 4th quarter we had scored "enough" and it was up to the defense to keep the opponent scoreless.

---

Come on, lol. Playing slow or trying to run clock is not the same as saying "I don't want to score any more points" and the defense just has to hold because I decided it's enough. That is a patently ridiculous thing you're suggesting.

---

When against Miami we had been rushing Ott for 1.5 YPC but lighting it up through the air throwing downfield (Mendoza with a 180 passer rating), 13 yards per attempt, and 38-18 lead through 3 quarters, we got conservative, running Ott up the middle repeatedly with Mendoza only attempting swing passes and then punting, never to score again and losing 39-38.

Wilcox after the game and after other similar losses and now even again at the ACC Media Days said "I firmly believe the goal is to score 4 TDs per game" and in this game "The offense did their job (getting to 38)" ignoring the fact we were playing the #1 offense in the country. It is an entirely different matter if the running game is productive and you can score AND burn clock in the process, but burning clock should never come at the expense of scoring. And if your teams proven best way to score TDs is to throw downfield you should do that even if it means you score quickly.

Similarly, I remember a Cal basketball game where Kevin Johnson got a steal in the backcourt and took it the other way for an uncontested layup only to get chewed out and benched by Campanelli because he wanted him to hold the ball and burn clock instead. That is idiocy, but it is not uncommon idiocy among many coaches.

---

If you score quickly, the other team has to burn clock just to get back to where they were when you scored. There are few situations in which this principle does not hold.

Rushinbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ac_green33 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

ac_green33 said:

---

I'm sorry but no coach ever tries to purposely score fewer points than they possibly could. These are simply delusional statements

---

In basketball coaches used to run four corners. Mark Fox used to have the team run the shot clock down before initiating the offense. Coaches in football often try to end games by burning clock.

It used to be the accepted wisdom in alternating possession sports (football and basketball) that slow playing offense "makes the defense better" by limiting the number of possessions for the opponent (it limits both teams) . A variation is that playing fast and scoring fast on offense "tires out your defense" (when logically it "tires out" both teams equally. Some "defensive minded" coaches still think that way. Mark Fox was one and Justin Wilcox is another. He has made statements after repeatedly using the same 4th quarter slow down strategy to the effect that to win you need to score 4 TDs per game (one per quarter) and hold your opponent to 3. Thus, going into the 4th quarter we had scored "enough" and it was up to the defense to keep the opponent scoreless.

---

Come on, lol. Playing slow or trying to run clock is not the same as saying "I don't want to score any more points" and the defense just has to hold because I decided it's enough. That is a patently ridiculous thing you're suggesting.

---

When against Miami we had been rushing Ott for 1.5 YPC but lighting it up through the air throwing downfield (Mendoza with a 180 passer rating), 13 yards per attempt, and 38-18 lead through 3 quarters, we got conservative, running Ott up the middle repeatedly with Mendoza only attempting swing passes and then punting, never to score again and losing 39-38.

Wilcox after the game and after other similar losses and now even again at the ACC Media Days said "I firmly believe the goal is to score 4 TDs per game" and in this game "The offense did their job (getting to 38)" ignoring the fact we were playing the #1 offense in the country. It is an entirely different matter if the running game is productive and you can score AND burn clock in the process, but burning clock should never come at the expense of scoring. And if your teams proven best way to score TDs is to throw downfield you should do that even if it means you score quickly.

Similarly, I remember a Cal basketball game where Kevin Johnson got a steal in the backcourt and took it the other way for an uncontested layup only to get chewed out and benched by Campanelli because he wanted him to hold the ball and burn clock instead. That is idiocy, but it is not uncommon idiocy among many coaches.

---

If you score quickly, the other team has to burn clock just to get back to where they were when you scored. There are few situations in which this principle does not hold.

---

And that is if they actually come back and score.

HearstMining said:

---

Since 2021, Wilcox has averaged 4+ losses per season where the other team has scored >28 points. So, I don't know where he gets this "scoring 28 pts should be enough" philosophy. He must think a string of 7-5 or 8-4 seasons will get him a contract extension because that's what he's aiming for.

---

He got a 6 year extension worth $30 million after a 5-7 season so I can see why he might think that.

People here are "demanding" 7 or 8 wins this season. While I think it is critical that we move on to a smarter, more competitive, more charismatic, offensive minded coach, I have my doubts as to whether we would really fire him if he wins 7 or 8, despite the fact he would almost certainly own the Cal record for conference losses. Moreover, if he does hit that mark and we bring him back for year 10, there will be people saying "he turned the corner" and "is trending up" and put tremendous pressure to extend him "for recruiting." With the financial challenges the university is going to be facing, they might think "hold and hope" is the best financial strategy,

calumnus said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Since 2021, Wilcox has averaged 4+ losses per season where the other team has scored >28 points. So, I don't know where he gets this "scoring 28 pts should be enough" philosophy. He must think a string of 7-5 or 8-4 seasons will get him a contract extension because that's what he's aiming for.

---

People here are "demanding" 7 or 8 wins this season. While I think it is critical that we move on to a smarter, more competitive, more charismatic, offensive minded coach, I have my doubts as to whether we would really fire him if he wins 7 or 8, despite the fact he would almost certainly own the Cal record for conference losses.

---

Let's get real, after the crap we saw last year, and against this year's schedule, retaining him after a 7-5 2025 would signal that this program is not serious about sticking around the major college football scene and will be kicked out of the club once the super league starts, we have maybe a few dozen games left to change that notion and we have no time to dither as to what our intentions are.

Strykur said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Since 2021, Wilcox has averaged 4+ losses per season where the other team has scored >28 points. So, I don't know where he gets this "scoring 28 pts should be enough" philosophy. He must think a string of 7-5 or 8-4 seasons will get him a contract extension because that's what he's aiming for.

---

People here are "demanding" 7 or 8 wins this season. While I think it is critical that we move on to a smarter, more competitive, more charismatic, offensive minded coach, I have my doubts as to whether we would really fire him if he wins 7 or 8, despite the fact he would almost certainly own the Cal record for conference losses.

---

Let's get real, after the crap we saw last year, and against this year's schedule, retaining him after a 7-5 2025 would signal that this program is not serious about sticking around the major college football scene and will be kicked out of the club once the super league starts, we have maybe a few dozen games left to change that notion and we have no time to dither as to what our intentions are.

---

Agreed, but say he goes 8-4? Does that really change things? Does he get retained then? And if so, do we go into year 10 of Wilcox with him only having one year left on his contract? Or does that get him an extension?

I don't see the clear path forward here.

It feels like we are just prolonging the inevitable, spending a lot of money increasing the staff trying to prop him up when time is running out.

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Since 2021, Wilcox has averaged 4+ losses per season where the other team has scored >28 points. So, I don't know where he gets this "scoring 28 pts should be enough" philosophy. He must think a string of 7-5 or 8-4 seasons will get him a contract extension because that's what he's aiming for.

---

People here are "demanding" 7 or 8 wins this season. While I think it is critical that we move on to a smarter, more competitive, more charismatic, offensive minded coach, I have my doubts as to whether we would really fire him if he wins 7 or 8, despite the fact he would almost certainly own the Cal record for conference losses.

---

Let's get real, after the crap we saw last year, and against this year's schedule, retaining him after a 7-5 2025 would signal that this program is not serious about sticking around the major college football scene and will be kicked out of the club once the super league starts, we have maybe a few dozen games left to change that notion and we have no time to dither as to what our intentions are.

---

Agreed, but say he goes 8-4? Does that really change things? Does he get retained then? And if so, do we go into year 10 of Wilcox with him only having one year left on his contract? Or does that get him an extension?

I don't see the clear path forward here.

It feels like we are just prolonging the inevitable, spending a lot of money increasing the staff trying to prop him up when time is running out.

---

depends who makes the call. If it's knowlton, well we know the answer to that one.

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Since 2021, Wilcox has averaged 4+ losses per season where the other team has scored >28 points. So, I don't know where he gets this "scoring 28 pts should be enough" philosophy. He must think a string of 7-5 or 8-4 seasons will get him a contract extension because that's what he's aiming for.

---

People here are "demanding" 7 or 8 wins this season. While I think it is critical that we move on to a smarter, more competitive, more charismatic, offensive minded coach, I have my doubts as to whether we would really fire him if he wins 7 or 8, despite the fact he would almost certainly own the Cal record for conference losses.

---

Let's get real, after the crap we saw last year, and against this year's schedule, retaining him after a 7-5 2025 would signal that this program is not serious about sticking around the major college football scene and will be kicked out of the club once the super league starts, we have maybe a few dozen games left to change that notion and we have no time to dither as to what our intentions are.

---

Agreed, but say he goes 8-4? Does that really change things? Does he get retained then? And if so, do we go into year 10 of Wilcox with him only having one year left on his contract? Or does that get him an extension?

I don't see the clear path forward here.

It feels like we are just prolonging the inevitable, spending a lot of money increasing the staff trying to prop him up when time is running out.

---

Prolonging the inevitable is the best way to describe Wilcox. The man has managed to skirt by while being an average coach thanks to Knowlton and his horrendous contract extension.

8-4 should be the bare minimum expectation. Him hitting it doesnt mean he is extension worthy. Now 9 wins + ? Okay that means he exceeded expectations and should get a small extension (with no stupid buyout clauses like he previously received).

I wager anything 8 or less wins will likely convince Wilcox to leave on his own terms and become a DC at some top B10/SEC program or even the NFL.

Rushinbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Since 2021, Wilcox has averaged 4+ losses per season where the other team has scored >28 points. So, I don't know where he gets this "scoring 28 pts should be enough" philosophy. He must think a string of 7-5 or 8-4 seasons will get him a contract extension because that's what he's aiming for.

---

People here are "demanding" 7 or 8 wins this season. While I think it is critical that we move on to a smarter, more competitive, more charismatic, offensive minded coach, I have my doubts as to whether we would really fire him if he wins 7 or 8, despite the fact he would almost certainly own the Cal record for conference losses.

---

Let's get real, after the crap we saw last year, and against this year's schedule, retaining him after a 7-5 2025 would signal that this program is not serious about sticking around the major college football scene and will be kicked out of the club once the super league starts, we have maybe a few dozen games left to change that notion and we have no time to dither as to what our intentions are.

---

Agreed, but say he goes 8-4? Does that really change things? Does he get retained then? And if so, do we go into year 10 of Wilcox with him only having one year left on his contract? Or does that get him an extension?

I don't see the clear path forward here.

It feels like we are just prolonging the inevitable, spending a lot of money increasing the staff trying to prop him up when time is running out.

---

depends who makes the call. If it's knowlton, well we know the answer to that one.

---

Thankfully Knowlton has "retired."

panda said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Since 2021, Wilcox has averaged 4+ losses per season where the other team has scored >28 points. So, I don't know where he gets this "scoring 28 pts should be enough" philosophy. He must think a string of 7-5 or 8-4 seasons will get him a contract extension because that's what he's aiming for.

---

People here are "demanding" 7 or 8 wins this season. While I think it is critical that we move on to a smarter, more competitive, more charismatic, offensive minded coach, I have my doubts as to whether we would really fire him if he wins 7 or 8, despite the fact he would almost certainly own the Cal record for conference losses.

---

Let's get real, after the crap we saw last year, and against this year's schedule, retaining him after a 7-5 2025 would signal that this program is not serious about sticking around the major college football scene and will be kicked out of the club once the super league starts, we have maybe a few dozen games left to change that notion and we have no time to dither as to what our intentions are.

---

Agreed, but say he goes 8-4? Does that really change things? Does he get retained then? And if so, do we go into year 10 of Wilcox with him only having one year left on his contract? Or does that get him an extension?

I don't see the clear path forward here.

It feels like we are just prolonging the inevitable, spending a lot of money increasing the staff trying to prop him up when time is running out.

---

Prolonging the inevitable is the best way to describe Wilcox. The man has managed to skirt by while being an average coach thanks to Knowlton and his horrendous contract extension.

8-4 should be the bare minimum expectation. Him hitting it doesnt mean he is extension worthy. Now 9 wins + ? Okay that means he exceeded expectations and should get a small extension (with no stupid buyout clauses like he previously received).

I wager anything 8 or less wins will likely convince Wilcox to leave on his own terms and become a DC at some top B10/SEC program or even the NFL.

---

He manages to give the impression of being "average" even though his 23-43 conference record indicates he is a well below average P4 coach. His 35-50 record against FBS opponents is only somewhat better.

However, if he wins 10 this year and has 10 wins next year I am sure we all would be happy, even though he would still have a losing record against FBS opponents, and like with Tedford in 2004, I would probably think he could have done better (ie find a way to have Marshawn Lynch on the field). He would have "turned the corner" and like Tedford in 2004, he would have momentum. I just find that to be a highly unlikely scenario. I also think it would be argued that a contract extension without a guarantee is not a contract extension, We will see.

calumnus said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Since 2021, Wilcox has averaged 4+ losses per season where the other team has scored >28 points. So, I don't know where he gets this "scoring 28 pts should be enough" philosophy. He must think a string of 7-5 or 8-4 seasons will get him a contract extension because that's what he's aiming for.

---

People here are "demanding" 7 or 8 wins this season. While I think it is critical that we move on to a smarter, more competitive, more charismatic, offensive minded coach, I have my doubts as to whether we would really fire him if he wins 7 or 8, despite the fact he would almost certainly own the Cal record for conference losses.

---

Let's get real, after the crap we saw last year, and against this year's schedule, retaining him after a 7-5 2025 would signal that this program is not serious about sticking around the major college football scene and will be kicked out of the club once the super league starts, we have maybe a few dozen games left to change that notion and we have no time to dither as to what our intentions are.

---

Agreed, but say he goes 8-4? Does that really change things? Does he get retained then? And if so, do we go into year 10 of Wilcox with him only having one year left on his contract? Or does that get him an extension?

I don't see the clear path forward here.

It feels like we are just prolonging the inevitable, spending a lot of money increasing the staff trying to prop him up when time is running out.

---

depends who makes the call. If it's knowlton, well we know the answer to that one.

---

Thankfully Knowlton has "retired."

---

so used to him screwing things up that I forgot.

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Since 2021, Wilcox has averaged 4+ losses per season where the other team has scored >28 points. So, I don't know where he gets this "scoring 28 pts should be enough" philosophy. He must think a string of 7-5 or 8-4 seasons will get him a contract extension because that's what he's aiming for.

---

People here are "demanding" 7 or 8 wins this season. While I think it is critical that we move on to a smarter, more competitive, more charismatic, offensive minded coach, I have my doubts as to whether we would really fire him if he wins 7 or 8, despite the fact he would almost certainly own the Cal record for conference losses.

---

Let's get real, after the crap we saw last year, and against this year's schedule, retaining him after a 7-5 2025 would signal that this program is not serious about sticking around the major college football scene and will be kicked out of the club once the super league starts, we have maybe a few dozen games left to change that notion and we have no time to dither as to what our intentions are.

---

Agreed, but say he goes 8-4? Does that really change things? Does he get retained then? And if so, do we go into year 10 of Wilcox with him only having one year left on his contract? Or does that get him an extension?

I don't see the clear path forward here.

It feels like we are just prolonging the inevitable, spending a lot of money increasing the staff trying to prop him up when time is running out.

---

I agree retaining Wilcox was a mistake. But I am pretty strongly convinced he will be not be the HC in 2026. When Rivera was actually put in charge it was really late in the game to change the HC. So for now he evaluates Wilcox and the staff. Observes the college football landscape which is different than the NFL. And fundraises to set up the next HC with a chance to win.

Rivera has a big job putting into place everything else that a strong football program needs to win. That is a big job here. For now we have to trust Rivera and Lyons that they know what needs to be done. And that it does not include Wilcox beyond this season.

8-4 and another mid tier or less bowl game should not suffice. IMO only an ACC championship gets him to 2026. And no extensions. At least not one that increases the buyout.

I believe the Cal HC job could be attractive if the other pieces are in place. One good season does not make you a strong program. You need to have the pieces in place to do that annually. People fear that removing Wilcox after a good season would hurt their prospects for attracting a strong HC. I disagree with that. Good coaches want a chance to win. If under Rivera/Lyons the program has the structure in place to win they can attract a good coach to lead the team. Good coaches know what that looks like.

But yes time is running out. We can only hope there is enough time to change the narrative around Cal football.

6956bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

calumnus said:

---

HearstMining said:

---

Since 2021, Wilcox has averaged 4+ losses per season where the other team has scored >28 points. So, I don't know where he gets this "scoring 28 pts should be enough" philosophy. He must think a string of 7-5 or 8-4 seasons will get him a contract extension because that's what he's aiming for.

---

People here are "demanding" 7 or 8 wins this season. While I think it is critical that we move on to a smarter, more competitive, more charismatic, offensive minded coach, I have my doubts as to whether we would really fire him if he wins 7 or 8, despite the fact he would almost certainly own the Cal record for conference losses.

---

Let's get real, after the crap we saw last year, and against this year's schedule, retaining him after a 7-5 2025 would signal that this program is not serious about sticking around the major college football scene and will be kicked out of the club once the super league starts, we have maybe a few dozen games left to change that notion and we have no time to dither as to what our intentions are.

---

Agreed, but say he goes 8-4? Does that really change things? Does he get retained then? And if so, do we go into year 10 of Wilcox with him only having one year left on his contract? Or does that get him an extension?

I don't see the clear path forward here.

It feels like we are just prolonging the inevitable, spending a lot of money increasing the staff trying to prop him up when time is running out.

---

8-4 and another mid tier or less bowl game should not suffice. IMO only an ACC championship gets him to 2026. And no extensions. At least not one that increases the buyout.

---

8-4 would be the worst result because that is no man's land in regards to results and trajectory of the program, 9-3 means we won at least a game against one of the better opponents on the schedule and are on the fringes of playoff contention, 7-5 at least gives us enough to change things but since 8-4 does not and is not a big upward move, puts us nowhere.