01Bear said:BigDaddy said:01Bear said:calumnus said:01Bear said:Haloski said:HateRed said:
Chesney has already transplanted a team to UCLA.
FTFY
That's what I thought too, initially. Then I looked into it and realized that Chesney only brought over 10 transfers in total. Keep in mind, UCLA held on to Nico Iamaleava but Chesney gave him a new backfield mate in Wayne Knight from JMU. Chesney's transfer class is made up of plenty of non-JMU players. Yet, last Saturday, all three phases of UCLA's football team were ready to go from the first whistle to the last.
The same cannot be said for Cal's squad. That's a coaching problem. UCLA has an experienced head coach and coordinators. CAL does not. UCLA's coaching staff had the team prepared to play, Cal's did not. UCLA's coaches came in with a good strategy to defeat Cal, Cal's did not.
At the end of the day, UCLA's investment in its new coaching staff paid off on Saturday, Cal's did not. Whether Cal's coaches will improve enough to make Cal relevant in the college football landscape by the time of the next realignment, only time will tell. But the initial results are not promising.
"Only brought over 10 players" from JMU's CFP team? 10 is huge. There are only 22 starters on a football team. It is essentially the same as what Cignetti did bringing over 13 players from his JMU team to Indiana.
Agreed, but Chesney did not transplant a team from JMU to UCLA. He didn't even bring all his starters on either offense or defense. While Chesney did bring a significant number of players, including his all conference running back, it should be noted that not all of his transfers are starting at UCLA (e.g., JD Dean).
UCLA's "transplant" strategy has paid immediate dividends, while Cal's "faith in Tosh" strategy has not. Yet, arguably, Cal needed immediate football success more than UCLA. But, for some unfathomable reason, the powers that be at Cal (read: the whale donors) opted to go with the complete unknown in Tosh, Somerville, and Hutchings.
UCLA, like Cal, was very active in the portal this offseason. I believe I read that Chesney brought in more than 40 new players, including the 10 guys from JMU. Their entire OL are transfers, including two guys from James Madison, and appeared to be vastly improved. Throw in the RB Knight and the DL West and it appears that they were able to upgrade their roster is key areas.
IIRC, Cal's transfer class was ranked in the #10-20 range. UCLA's was ranked in the #10-15 range. Both schools brought in lots of transfers. The difference is that UCLA managed to also bring in 10 transfers from a CFP team along with most of the coaching staff from that team. Meanwhile, Cal hired a rookie head coach who proceeded to hire two rookie coordinators. The difference in experience showed itself when push came to shove. Cal crumbled in the 4th quarter (even as it struggled to contain the expected UCLA run game all night long) while UCLA ate Cal's lunch.
There was no reason Cal had to hire three noobs in the most important coaching positions at the same time, let alone at a time when Cal needs to win immediately. That the whale donors thought this was somehow okay is an indictment of their ability to see beyond the salesmanship and charisma of a Cal alumnus. That Ron Rivera, as Cal GM, was on board with a rookie head coach hiring two rookie coordinators is beyond worrisome.
Then again, when Cal gets relegated to the second or third tier of college football, I'll find myself with more free Saturdays in the fall. Maybe Tosh & his first-time coordinators was the right long-play after all. I won't mind having more free Saturdays to go fishing and not anxiously worrying about how some college kids play a child's game.
Berkeley/Davis will be a very popular game.