BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

jy1988 said:

---

We all know that 6-6 would not be acceptable.

---

Just out of curiosity, what is the minimum number of wins/losses this year for Cal to retain Wilcox? This question is open to everyone who claims 6-6 is insufficient but has not supported his firing given his inexcusable losses against SDSU and Duke.

---

We need a new coach regardless of what happens in the remaining two regular season games, plus any bowl game. Even at 9-4, I view this season as a fluke. Wilcox is a nice man but a mediocre coach, and I don't believe that somehow suddenly changed this year. We have to find a new coach who would also be acceptable to JKS. If that's not possible, then IMHO, we're just screwed, and should begin preparing for relegation.

---

Wilcox should've been sent packing a couple years ago. But we kept hearing about how Cal couldn't afford it. Never mind that keeping him meant Cal wasted its two easiest schedules ever and will end up getting relegated.

But there are still numerous Wilcox apologists and defenders who insist that he should be retained because reasons. They try to cover up their irrational support by pointing to his last win, while ignoring all his embarrassing and inexcusable losses. Then they pretend going 8-4 in a ludicrously soft schedule is somehow progress and means he should be retained.

What I want to know, then, is 8-4 the minimum for them to keep supporting Wilcox as Cal HC? Is 7-5 it? Or is 6-6 enough? Where do they draw the line?

---

8-4 with a win over Stanfurd is acceptable to keep him or let him go. Nobody is going to hyper analyze our 8-4, 9-4, or 8-5 finish and say we are getting relegated in 2030 because 01, Calalumnus and Brightbear thought we had too easy of a schedule. The only way we can get an in demand coach to come here, if Wilcox leaves after going 9-4, is if it was mutually agreed upon. Even then, this new coach will have reservations about having to turn a mustang into a ferrari (which a few special coaches can indeed do but many are fired after failing).

---

Ah yes. The old no Coach will want to coach at Cal if we have such a hair trigger on firing that we fire a coach after 9 years argument.

---

Ah yes, the old every coach wants to coach here after we fire a 9-4 coach who has to deal with a university that doesn't support football and a fanbase that demands 10 wins with less resources than the competition.

---

College football coach is not a job that comes with any job security. Virtually every other school fires coaches faster and at the best jobs much faster. Cal has the least demanding fan base on the planet. If anything that fact that it has taken so many years to fire a failed coach might give some pause.

There will be some coaches who don't believe we are committed. Rivera will need to sell like Gladstone sold Tedford (and a very good list of coaching prospects) Definitely not every coach will want to coach here. There will be plenty of good ones that do. Despite the warnings of losers, whenever Cal has done a thorough search, they have found good candidates.

And by the way. It's "fewer resources" not "less resources". Since you think correcting grammar on sports board makes you smartier.

---

Less resources is technically correct. I wasn't counting or itemizing. I was discussing resources as a whole.

Firing a coach after going 9-4, which is what we are discussing unbeknownst to those with poor reading comprehension, isn't the best way to show we are serious about winning. It appears RR is doing other good things though, like stopping the university from taking food away from the football team.

Grammarians noe mostly agree that less and fewer are pretty much interchangeable because of Murkun misuse over recent decades.

Anyway, Les Resources sounds like the sales manager for Cal Berkeley's New and Newly Used Cars, a subsidiary of Ralph Spoilsport, LLC.

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

jy1988 said:

---

We all know that 6-6 would not be acceptable.

---

Just out of curiosity, what is the minimum number of wins/losses this year for Cal to retain Wilcox? This question is open to everyone who claims 6-6 is insufficient but has not supported his firing given his inexcusable losses against SDSU and Duke.

---

We need a new coach regardless of what happens in the remaining two regular season games, plus any bowl game. Even at 9-4, I view this season as a fluke. Wilcox is a nice man but a mediocre coach, and I don't believe that somehow suddenly changed this year. We have to find a new coach who would also be acceptable to JKS. If that's not possible, then IMHO, we're just screwed, and should begin preparing for relegation.

---

Wilcox should've been sent packing a couple years ago. But we kept hearing about how Cal couldn't afford it. Never mind that keeping him meant Cal wasted its two easiest schedules ever and will end up getting relegated.

But there are still numerous Wilcox apologists and defenders who insist that he should be retained because reasons. They try to cover up their irrational support by pointing to his last win, while ignoring all his embarrassing and inexcusable losses. Then they pretend going 8-4 in a ludicrously soft schedule is somehow progress and means he should be retained.

What I want to know, then, is 8-4 the minimum for them to keep supporting Wilcox as Cal HC? Is 7-5 it? Or is 6-6 enough? Where do they draw the line?

---

8-4 with a win over Stanfurd is acceptable to keep him or let him go. Nobody is going to hyper analyze our 8-4, 9-4, or 8-5 finish and say we are getting relegated in 2030 because 01, Calalumnus and Brightbear thought we had too easy of a schedule. The only way we can get an in demand coach to come here, if Wilcox leaves after going 9-4, is if it was mutually agreed upon. Even then, this new coach will have reservations about having to turn a mustang into a ferrari (which a few special coaches can indeed do but many are fired after failing).

---

Ah yes. The old no Coach will want to coach at Cal if we have such a hair trigger on firing that we fire a coach after 9 years argument.

---

Ah yes, the old every coach wants to coach here after we fire a 9-4 coach who has to deal with a university that doesn't support football and a fanbase that demands 10 wins with less resources than the competition.

---

College football coach is not a job that comes with any job security. Virtually every other school fires coaches faster and at the best jobs much faster. Cal has the least demanding fan base on the planet. If anything that fact that it has taken so many years to fire a failed coach might give some pause.

There will be some coaches who don't believe we are committed. Rivera will need to sell like Gladstone sold Tedford (and a very good list of coaching prospects) Definitely not every coach will want to coach here. There will be plenty of good ones that do. Despite the warnings of losers, whenever Cal has done a thorough search, they have found good candidates.

And by the way. It's "fewer resources" not "less resources". Since you think correcting grammar on sports board makes you smartier.

---

Less resources is technically correct. I wasn't counting or itemizing. I was discussing resources as a whole.

Firing a coach after going 9-4, which is what we are discussing unbeknownst to those with poor reading comprehension, isn't the best way to show we are serious about winning. It appears RR is doing other good things though, like stopping the university from taking food away from the football team.

---

Resources is a countable noun and you were using it as such whether you think you were or not. You can't say less sticks when you are referring to half a bucket of sticks instead of a whole bucket of sticks and say you weren't counting or itemizing the sticks. That isn't how that works. But I'm being an ass to demonstrate that correcting someone's grammar on a sports board, especially to specifically post just a grammar correction (when it was clearly a typo) is an arrogant, pedantic attempt at belittling someone you disagree with.

I will also opine that someone who repeatedly displays disdain for people simply because they are on a free board is reminiscent of students in the Stanford prison experiment being mentally weak enough to genuinely take on false roles that are arbitrarily assigned to them. To actually look down your nose at people based on some imagined hierarchy of people who paid a few bucks and people who didn't is hilarious.

Those of you who still support this guy continually try to 1. Make it an argument about but what if he does something he hasn't actually done. He hasn't won 9 games; 2. Always want to look only at the immediate past instead of the whole past. Keeping a coach who is 51-54 over 9 seasons (as he would be) is not a way to show you are serious about winning. He's only still here because of the buyout or he wouldn't be here to have one barely passable season after 8 crappy ones.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

jy1988 said:

---

We all know that 6-6 would not be acceptable.

---

Just out of curiosity, what is the minimum number of wins/losses this year for Cal to retain Wilcox? This question is open to everyone who claims 6-6 is insufficient but has not supported his firing given his inexcusable losses against SDSU and Duke.

---

We need a new coach regardless of what happens in the remaining two regular season games, plus any bowl game. Even at 9-4, I view this season as a fluke. Wilcox is a nice man but a mediocre coach, and I don't believe that somehow suddenly changed this year. We have to find a new coach who would also be acceptable to JKS. If that's not possible, then IMHO, we're just screwed, and should begin preparing for relegation.

---

Wilcox should've been sent packing a couple years ago. But we kept hearing about how Cal couldn't afford it. Never mind that keeping him meant Cal wasted its two easiest schedules ever and will end up getting relegated.

But there are still numerous Wilcox apologists and defenders who insist that he should be retained because reasons. They try to cover up their irrational support by pointing to his last win, while ignoring all his embarrassing and inexcusable losses. Then they pretend going 8-4 in a ludicrously soft schedule is somehow progress and means he should be retained.

What I want to know, then, is 8-4 the minimum for them to keep supporting Wilcox as Cal HC? Is 7-5 it? Or is 6-6 enough? Where do they draw the line?

---

8-4 with a win over Stanfurd is acceptable to keep him or let him go. Nobody is going to hyper analyze our 8-4, 9-4, or 8-5 finish and say we are getting relegated in 2030 because 01, Calalumnus and Brightbear thought we had too easy of a schedule. The only way we can get an in demand coach to come here, if Wilcox leaves after going 9-4, is if it was mutually agreed upon. Even then, this new coach will have reservations about having to turn a mustang into a ferrari (which a few special coaches can indeed do but many are fired after failing).

---

Ah yes. The old no Coach will want to coach at Cal if we have such a hair trigger on firing that we fire a coach after 9 years argument.

---

Ah yes, the old every coach wants to coach here after we fire a 9-4 coach who has to deal with a university that doesn't support football and a fanbase that demands 10 wins with less resources than the competition.

---

College football coach is not a job that comes with any job security. Virtually every other school fires coaches faster and at the best jobs much faster. Cal has the least demanding fan base on the planet. If anything that fact that it has taken so many years to fire a failed coach might give some pause.

There will be some coaches who don't believe we are committed. Rivera will need to sell like Gladstone sold Tedford (and a very good list of coaching prospects) Definitely not every coach will want to coach here. There will be plenty of good ones that do. Despite the warnings of losers, whenever Cal has done a thorough search, they have found good candidates.

And by the way. It's "fewer resources" not "less resources". Since you think correcting grammar on sports board makes you smartier.

---

Less resources is technically correct. I wasn't counting or itemizing. I was discussing resources as a whole.

Firing a coach after going 9-4, which is what we are discussing unbeknownst to those with poor reading comprehension, isn't the best way to show we are serious about winning. It appears RR is doing other good things though, like stopping the university from taking food away from the football team.

---

Resources is a countable noun and you were using it as such whether you think you were or not. You can't say less sticks when you are referring to half a bucket of sticks instead of a whole bucket of sticks and say you weren't counting or itemizing the sticks. That isn't how that works. But I'm being an ass to demonstrate that correcting someone's grammar on a sports board, especially to specifically post just a grammar correction (when it was clearly a typo) is an arrogant, pedantic attempt at belittling someone you disagree with.

I will also opine that someone who repeatedly displays disdain for people simply because they are on a free board is reminiscent of students in the Stanford prison experiment being mentally weak enough to genuinely take on false roles that are arbitrarily assigned to them. To actually look down your nose at people based on some imagined hierarchy of people who paid a few bucks and people who didn't is hilarious.

Those of you who still support this guy continually try to 1. Make it an argument about but what if he does something he hasn't actually done. He hasn't won 9 games; 2. Always want to look only at the immediate past instead of the whole past. Keeping a coach who is 51-54 over 9 seasons (as he would be) is not a way to show you are serious about winning. He's only still here because of the buyout or he wouldn't be here to have one barely passable season after 8 crappy ones.

---

My disdain for many folks on the free board is with their attitude. It sucks. They sound like intellectual babies that just complain that x coach isn't meeting their demands. As I have previously discussed, coaches leave Cal and do well. You ignore the pattern and just want to put different color lipstick on the pig. If the next coach succeeds, chances are it is because of the changes RR and the chancellor are making so that the new coach won't have less resources THAN Justin and Sonny had.

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

jy1988 said:

---

We all know that 6-6 would not be acceptable.

---

Just out of curiosity, what is the minimum number of wins/losses this year for Cal to retain Wilcox? This question is open to everyone who claims 6-6 is insufficient but has not supported his firing given his inexcusable losses against SDSU and Duke.

---

We need a new coach regardless of what happens in the remaining two regular season games, plus any bowl game. Even at 9-4, I view this season as a fluke. Wilcox is a nice man but a mediocre coach, and I don't believe that somehow suddenly changed this year. We have to find a new coach who would also be acceptable to JKS. If that's not possible, then IMHO, we're just screwed, and should begin preparing for relegation.

---

Wilcox should've been sent packing a couple years ago. But we kept hearing about how Cal couldn't afford it. Never mind that keeping him meant Cal wasted its two easiest schedules ever and will end up getting relegated.

But there are still numerous Wilcox apologists and defenders who insist that he should be retained because reasons. They try to cover up their irrational support by pointing to his last win, while ignoring all his embarrassing and inexcusable losses. Then they pretend going 8-4 in a ludicrously soft schedule is somehow progress and means he should be retained.

What I want to know, then, is 8-4 the minimum for them to keep supporting Wilcox as Cal HC? Is 7-5 it? Or is 6-6 enough? Where do they draw the line?

---

8-4 with a win over Stanfurd is acceptable to keep him or let him go. Nobody is going to hyper analyze our 8-4, 9-4, or 8-5 finish and say we are getting relegated in 2030 because 01, Calalumnus and Brightbear thought we had too easy of a schedule. The only way we can get an in demand coach to come here, if Wilcox leaves after going 9-4, is if it was mutually agreed upon. Even then, this new coach will have reservations about having to turn a mustang into a ferrari (which a few special coaches can indeed do but many are fired after failing).

---

Ah yes. The old no Coach will want to coach at Cal if we have such a hair trigger on firing that we fire a coach after 9 years argument.

---

Ah yes, the old every coach wants to coach here after we fire a 9-4 coach who has to deal with a university that doesn't support football and a fanbase that demands 10 wins with less resources than the competition.

---

College football coach is not a job that comes with any job security. Virtually every other school fires coaches faster and at the best jobs much faster. Cal has the least demanding fan base on the planet. If anything that fact that it has taken so many years to fire a failed coach might give some pause.

There will be some coaches who don't believe we are committed. Rivera will need to sell like Gladstone sold Tedford (and a very good list of coaching prospects) Definitely not every coach will want to coach here. There will be plenty of good ones that do. Despite the warnings of losers, whenever Cal has done a thorough search, they have found good candidates.

And by the way. It's "fewer resources" not "less resources". Since you think correcting grammar on sports board makes you smartier.

---

Less resources is technically correct. I wasn't counting or itemizing. I was discussing resources as a whole.

Firing a coach after going 9-4, which is what we are discussing unbeknownst to those with poor reading comprehension, isn't the best way to show we are serious about winning. It appears RR is doing other good things though, like stopping the university from taking food away from the football team.

---

Resources is a countable noun and you were using it as such whether you think you were or not. You can't say less sticks when you are referring to half a bucket of sticks instead of a whole bucket of sticks and say you weren't counting or itemizing the sticks. That isn't how that works. But I'm being an ass to demonstrate that correcting someone's grammar on a sports board, especially to specifically post just a grammar correction (when it was clearly a typo) is an arrogant, pedantic attempt at belittling someone you disagree with.

I will also opine that someone who repeatedly displays disdain for people simply because they are on a free board is reminiscent of students in the Stanford prison experiment being mentally weak enough to genuinely take on false roles that are arbitrarily assigned to them. To actually look down your nose at people based on some imagined hierarchy of people who paid a few bucks and people who didn't is hilarious.

Those of you who still support this guy continually try to 1. Make it an argument about but what if he does something he hasn't actually done. He hasn't won 9 games; 2. Always want to look only at the immediate past instead of the whole past. Keeping a coach who is 51-54 over 9 seasons (as he would be) is not a way to show you are serious about winning. He's only still here because of the buyout or he wouldn't be here to have one barely passable season after 8 crappy ones.

---

My disdain for many folks on the free board is with their attitude. It sucks. They sound like intellectual babies that just complain that x coach isn't meeting their demands. As I have previously discussed, coaches leave Cal and do well. You ignore the pattern and just want to put different color lipstick on the pig. If the next coach succeeds, chances are it is because of the changes RR and the chancellor are making so that the new coach won't have less resources THAN Justin and Sonny had.

---

It's funny how Tedford was able to do more and achieve better results with less. Maybe it's not the resources, but the coach.

01Bear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

oski003 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Jeff82 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

jy1988 said:

---

We all know that 6-6 would not be acceptable.

---

Just out of curiosity, what is the minimum number of wins/losses this year for Cal to retain Wilcox? This question is open to everyone who claims 6-6 is insufficient but has not supported his firing given his inexcusable losses against SDSU and Duke.

---

We need a new coach regardless of what happens in the remaining two regular season games, plus any bowl game. Even at 9-4, I view this season as a fluke. Wilcox is a nice man but a mediocre coach, and I don't believe that somehow suddenly changed this year. We have to find a new coach who would also be acceptable to JKS. If that's not possible, then IMHO, we're just screwed, and should begin preparing for relegation.

---

Wilcox should've been sent packing a couple years ago. But we kept hearing about how Cal couldn't afford it. Never mind that keeping him meant Cal wasted its two easiest schedules ever and will end up getting relegated.

But there are still numerous Wilcox apologists and defenders who insist that he should be retained because reasons. They try to cover up their irrational support by pointing to his last win, while ignoring all his embarrassing and inexcusable losses. Then they pretend going 8-4 in a ludicrously soft schedule is somehow progress and means he should be retained.

What I want to know, then, is 8-4 the minimum for them to keep supporting Wilcox as Cal HC? Is 7-5 it? Or is 6-6 enough? Where do they draw the line?

---

8-4 with a win over Stanfurd is acceptable to keep him or let him go. Nobody is going to hyper analyze our 8-4, 9-4, or 8-5 finish and say we are getting relegated in 2030 because 01, Calalumnus and Brightbear thought we had too easy of a schedule. The only way we can get an in demand coach to come here, if Wilcox leaves after going 9-4, is if it was mutually agreed upon. Even then, this new coach will have reservations about having to turn a mustang into a ferrari (which a few special coaches can indeed do but many are fired after failing).

---

Ah yes. The old no Coach will want to coach at Cal if we have such a hair trigger on firing that we fire a coach after 9 years argument.

---

Ah yes, the old every coach wants to coach here after we fire a 9-4 coach who has to deal with a university that doesn't support football and a fanbase that demands 10 wins with less resources than the competition.

---

College football coach is not a job that comes with any job security. Virtually every other school fires coaches faster and at the best jobs much faster. Cal has the least demanding fan base on the planet. If anything that fact that it has taken so many years to fire a failed coach might give some pause.

There will be some coaches who don't believe we are committed. Rivera will need to sell like Gladstone sold Tedford (and a very good list of coaching prospects) Definitely not every coach will want to coach here. There will be plenty of good ones that do. Despite the warnings of losers, whenever Cal has done a thorough search, they have found good candidates.

And by the way. It's "fewer resources" not "less resources". Since you think correcting grammar on sports board makes you smartier.

---

Less resources is technically correct. I wasn't counting or itemizing. I was discussing resources as a whole.

Firing a coach after going 9-4, which is what we are discussing unbeknownst to those with poor reading comprehension, isn't the best way to show we are serious about winning. It appears RR is doing other good things though, like stopping the university from taking food away from the football team.

---

Resources is a countable noun and you were using it as such whether you think you were or not. You can't say less sticks when you are referring to half a bucket of sticks instead of a whole bucket of sticks and say you weren't counting or itemizing the sticks. That isn't how that works. But I'm being an ass to demonstrate that correcting someone's grammar on a sports board, especially to specifically post just a grammar correction (when it was clearly a typo) is an arrogant, pedantic attempt at belittling someone you disagree with.

I will also opine that someone who repeatedly displays disdain for people simply because they are on a free board is reminiscent of students in the Stanford prison experiment being mentally weak enough to genuinely take on false roles that are arbitrarily assigned to them. To actually look down your nose at people based on some imagined hierarchy of people who paid a few bucks and people who didn't is hilarious.

Those of you who still support this guy continually try to 1. Make it an argument about but what if he does something he hasn't actually done. He hasn't won 9 games; 2. Always want to look only at the immediate past instead of the whole past. Keeping a coach who is 51-54 over 9 seasons (as he would be) is not a way to show you are serious about winning. He's only still here because of the buyout or he wouldn't be here to have one barely passable season after 8 crappy ones.

---

My disdain for many folks on the free board is with their attitude. It sucks. They sound like intellectual babies that just complain that x coach isn't meeting their demands. As I have previously discussed, coaches leave Cal and do well. You ignore the pattern and just want to put different color lipstick on the pig. If the next coach succeeds, chances are it is because of the changes RR and the chancellor are making so that the new coach won't have less resources THAN Justin and Sonny had.

---

It's funny how Tedford was able to do more and achieve better results with less. Maybe it's not the resources, but the coach.

---

He was a generational coach and Cal nearly killed him. He collapsed, was fired, and never got to the Rose Bowl. He recovered later and did a heck of a job coaching Fresno State. If we fire Wilcox this season, I hope we have what it takes to land a coach as good as Tedford. Screw it, hopefully we get a coach as good as Sonny Dykes.