Boot said:
Seriously? You must be a great coach.
BigDaddy said:GoCal80 said:
I wonder if Bob Chesney was ever on Cal's radar.
Tosh seemed like a super risky hire to me. He'd been embedded in highly successful programs, with tons of resources and top talent in the coaching staffs and players. Beyond his recruiting reputation, were there any indications that he could rebuild a program that was down and get less than super star players to rise up and play to or exceed their potential, and that he could effectively lead something as complex as an entire football program? We previously hired a more well known Cal alum as head coach based on the hope his connection to Cal and enthusiasm and charisma would lead to success. Joe Kapp's record as a head coach at Cal was 20-34-1. Maybe with the resources Tosh has Kapp would have done better, but the football arms race is a tricky thing.
I don't think the coaching search led by RR and the $$$ guys ever got past Tosh. He was the only candidate imo, and I cannot recall Cal interviewing anyone else for the job. I don't think they ever considered Bob Chesney, but honestly don't think that Chesney would have come to Cal. He just had better job options and was one of the hotter candidates on the Coaching Carousel last season.
UCLA actually got lucky that Penn State passed on Chesney to hire Matt Campbell, Virginia Tech landed James Franklin and Maryland chose to give Mike Locksley another year. All of those places would have been natural landing spots for Chesney coming out of James Madison.
BearlyCareAnymore said:BigDaddy said:GoCal80 said:
I wonder if Bob Chesney was ever on Cal's radar.
Tosh seemed like a super risky hire to me. He'd been embedded in highly successful programs, with tons of resources and top talent in the coaching staffs and players. Beyond his recruiting reputation, were there any indications that he could rebuild a program that was down and get less than super star players to rise up and play to or exceed their potential, and that he could effectively lead something as complex as an entire football program? We previously hired a more well known Cal alum as head coach based on the hope his connection to Cal and enthusiasm and charisma would lead to success. Joe Kapp's record as a head coach at Cal was 20-34-1. Maybe with the resources Tosh has Kapp would have done better, but the football arms race is a tricky thing.
I don't think the coaching search led by RR and the $$$ guys ever got past Tosh. He was the only candidate imo, and I cannot recall Cal interviewing anyone else for the job. I don't think they ever considered Bob Chesney, but honestly don't think that Chesney would have come to Cal. He just had better job options and was one of the hotter candidates on the Coaching Carousel last season.
UCLA actually got lucky that Penn State passed on Chesney to hire Matt Campbell, Virginia Tech landed James Franklin and Maryland chose to give Mike Locksley another year. All of those places would have been natural landing spots for Chesney coming out of James Madison.
It's the first game of the season and those often aren't indicative, but with that as the only evidence I'd tentatively say neither team is lighting the world on fire this year.
Strykur said:BearlyCareAnymore said:BigDaddy said:GoCal80 said:
I wonder if Bob Chesney was ever on Cal's radar.
Tosh seemed like a super risky hire to me. He'd been embedded in highly successful programs, with tons of resources and top talent in the coaching staffs and players. Beyond his recruiting reputation, were there any indications that he could rebuild a program that was down and get less than super star players to rise up and play to or exceed their potential, and that he could effectively lead something as complex as an entire football program? We previously hired a more well known Cal alum as head coach based on the hope his connection to Cal and enthusiasm and charisma would lead to success. Joe Kapp's record as a head coach at Cal was 20-34-1. Maybe with the resources Tosh has Kapp would have done better, but the football arms race is a tricky thing.
I don't think the coaching search led by RR and the $$$ guys ever got past Tosh. He was the only candidate imo, and I cannot recall Cal interviewing anyone else for the job. I don't think they ever considered Bob Chesney, but honestly don't think that Chesney would have come to Cal. He just had better job options and was one of the hotter candidates on the Coaching Carousel last season.
UCLA actually got lucky that Penn State passed on Chesney to hire Matt Campbell, Virginia Tech landed James Franklin and Maryland chose to give Mike Locksley another year. All of those places would have been natural landing spots for Chesney coming out of James Madison.
It's the first game of the season and those often aren't indicative, but with that as the only evidence I'd tentatively say neither team is lighting the world on fire this year.
Look at the bear runts schedule, other than the trip to Eugene, they might actually do something quickly
GoCal80 said:
Part of the issue now is that the new coach, recruits, and returning quarterback were so over hyped, and expectations were not managed well. Statements like, "less than 9 or 10 wins is unacceptable" were being tossed around. There is wisdom in the words, "promise less, deliver more,"
BearlyBear said:
A lot of people clearly had an axe to grind and just kept quiet. It really is just one game and people are calling to burn it all down.
I however do agree the timeline is short and the expectations, if unfair, on Tosh need to be extremely high, to win very fast. What we saw Saturday was massively disappointing. But there was also so much clear confusion it's obvious it's still too early to overreact. If not 3 years give it 3 games. I'm only going to panic and even expecting this team needs to win now, if we keep losing, and more importantly not making adjustments which are so obvious even lay people can see them and want to tear at their eyes.
Cuse, Wagner, and Clemson then the pitchforks will be felt for real or we've turned it around. Much more will be known by week 4. And for that matter, we don't even know if Chesney is good yet. Not every team is going to let them run 300 yards and average a first down on first down, and give up 3 turnovers plus 3 more turnovers on downs.
HearstMining said:
To say we were spoiled is a stretch, but I definitely noticed the lack of ILB play against UCLA. Where have you gone Uluave, Weaver, Deng, Kunaszyk, etc. They weren't all great, but they were sure good.
BigDaddy said:GoCal80 said:
I wonder if Bob Chesney was ever on Cal's radar.
Tosh seemed like a super risky hire to me. He'd been embedded in highly successful programs, with tons of resources and top talent in the coaching staffs and players. Beyond his recruiting reputation, were there any indications that he could rebuild a program that was down and get less than super star players to rise up and play to or exceed their potential, and that he could effectively lead something as complex as an entire football program? We previously hired a more well known Cal alum as head coach based on the hope his connection to Cal and enthusiasm and charisma would lead to success. Joe Kapp's record as a head coach at Cal was 20-34-1. Maybe with the resources Tosh has Kapp would have done better, but the football arms race is a tricky thing.
I don't think the coaching search led by RR and the $$$ guys ever got past Tosh. He was the only candidate imo, and I cannot recall Cal interviewing anyone else for the job. I don't think they ever considered Bob Chesney, but honestly don't think that Chesney would have come to Cal. He just had better job options and was one of the hotter candidates on the Coaching Carousel last season.
UCLA actually got lucky that Penn State passed on Chesney to hire Matt Campbell, Virginia Tech landed James Franklin and Maryland chose to give Mike Locksley another year. All of those places would have been natural landing spots for Chesney coming out of James Madison.
Bobodeluxe said:HearstMining said:
To say we were spoiled is a stretch, but I definitely noticed the lack of ILB play against UCLA. Where have you gone Uluave, Weaver, Deng, Kunaszyk, etc. They weren't all great, but they were sure good.
None would fit in the scheme.
01Bear said:Bobodeluxe said:HearstMining said:
To say we were spoiled is a stretch, but I definitely noticed the lack of ILB play against UCLA. Where have you gone Uluave, Weaver, Deng, Kunaszyk, etc. They weren't all great, but they were sure good.
None would fit in the scheme.
Serious question, what exactly is the scheme?
Also, given how easily UCLA ran all over Cal, is the scheme worth keeping?
Finally, wouldn't it have been better to keep an All-ACC First Team LB rather than losing him to BYU?
Bobodeluxe said:
It was about the $. The qb had to be paid, and he needed competent skill position players. Most were overpaid, but had to be done. Less money was spent on the defensive side, and the inside backers would have been nuts to pass up the pay days. Uluave to byu, by way of Michigan transfer credit restrictions, and Ferrelli to Mississippi, by way of Clemson not being able to match $.
It's a business. Money talks, …
HearstMining said:Bobodeluxe said:
It was about the $. The qb had to be paid, and he needed competent skill position players. Most were overpaid, but had to be done. Less money was spent on the defensive side, and the inside backers would have been nuts to pass up the pay days. Uluave to byu, by way of Michigan transfer credit restrictions, and Ferrelli to Mississippi, by way of Clemson not being able to match $.
It's a business. Money talks, …
Interesting info that I had not heard before.
- As a Michigan alum, I'm pleased to see that they're holding to some academic standards, or maybe it's just some policy restricting total transfer units. When I was there, they hid many of the football players in the Education major, which according to an Ed. major I knew, was glorified high school.
- If Cal had to overpay on offensive skill players, that must not have left much for OL and based on Saturday's performance, they're unfortunately getting what they paid for.
HateRed said:
Chesney has already transplanted a team to UCLA.
Haloski said:HateRed said:
Chesney has already transplanted a team to UCLA.
FTFY
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.
Rushinbear said:HearstMining said:Bobodeluxe said:
It was about the $. The qb had to be paid, and he needed competent skill position players. Most were overpaid, but had to be done. Less money was spent on the defensive side, and the inside backers would have been nuts to pass up the pay days. Uluave to byu, by way of Michigan transfer credit restrictions, and Ferrelli to Mississippi, by way of Clemson not being able to match $.
It's a business. Money talks, …
Interesting info that I had not heard before.
- As a Michigan alum, I'm pleased to see that they're holding to some academic standards, or maybe it's just some policy restricting total transfer units. When I was there, they hid many of the football players in the Education major, which according to an Ed. major I knew, was glorified high school.
- If Cal had to overpay on offensive skill players, that must not have left much for OL and based on Saturday's performance, they're unfortunately getting what they paid for.
all but one of the OL were returnees - Lewis. Now, the prevailing wisdom has always been that OLs need maturity to reach their potential, but it didn't look like that last week. Maybe UCLA was just that good on the DL or maybe the O system is too new to have an effect. In any event, we'll know more Sat afternoon. I think they'll be better and good enough to help us beat 'Cuse.
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.
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.
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.
calumnus 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.
The stated goal is building with 4 year players and to that end Cal has a Top 20 class coming in next year. Developing high potential young rookie coaches is consistent with that strategy.
It was clearly not a strategy for being great on Day 1, it is a strategy for being better than Wilcox could ever be by Year 2 and challenging for the ACC Championship and CFP by Year 3 or 4. Losing to UCLA on Day 1 does not tell us the goal is not attainable.
Grrrrah76 said:
UCLA chose to bring in a program, as did Indiana.
Tosh is building a program. Several of our portal players have a lot of eligibility left and a lot of talented high school recruits. This doesn't equate to immediate success. Give him some time, like more than one game.
Golden One said:
You're exaggerating quite a bit. Remember that Cal played UCLA even until midway through the 4th quarter, when things collapsed due to a failed 4th down conversion and 2 interceptions. Up to that point, there was little difference in the way both teams played overall. Yes, our OL was bad, but so was the UCLA pass defense.
01Bear said:calumnus 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.
The stated goal is building with 4 year players and to that end Cal has a Top 20 class coming in next year. Developing high potential young rookie coaches is consistent with that strategy.
It was clearly not a strategy for being great on Day 1, it is a strategy for being better than Wilcox could ever be by Year 2 and challenging for the ACC Championship and CFP by Year 3 or 4. Losing to UCLA on Day 1 does not tell us the goal is not attainable.
The problem with that approach is that Cal doesn't have time to build its program. It needs to win and win now. The next realignment will likely take place in 2030, with the decision as to what schools are added to the P2 in 2029. Cal doesn't have the luxury of time to build a program from scratch, let alone a program with 4 year players in the NIL era (where the best players get poached by other schools).
The strategy you identified is one that would've been great when Tedford was first fired. It would've even been fine when Sonny was fired. But at this point in the game, it's about as relevant to the current world of college football as the single wing formation.
Rushinbear said:HearstMining said:Bobodeluxe said:
It was about the $. The qb had to be paid, and he needed competent skill position players. Most were overpaid, but had to be done. Less money was spent on the defensive side, and the inside backers would have been nuts to pass up the pay days. Uluave to byu, by way of Michigan transfer credit restrictions, and Ferrelli to Mississippi, by way of Clemson not being able to match $.
It's a business. Money talks, …
Interesting info that I had not heard before.
- As a Michigan alum, I'm pleased to see that they're holding to some academic standards, or maybe it's just some policy restricting total transfer units. When I was there, they hid many of the football players in the Education major, which according to an Ed. major I knew, was glorified high school.
- If Cal had to overpay on offensive skill players, that must not have left much for OL and based on Saturday's performance, they're unfortunately getting what they paid for.
all but one of the OL were returnees - Lewis. Now, the prevailing wisdom has always been that OLs need maturity to reach their potential, but it didn't look like that last week. Maybe UCLA was just that good on the DL or maybe the O system is too new to have an effect. In any event, we'll know more Sat afternoon. I think they'll be better and good enough to help us beat 'Cuse.
calumnus 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.
The stated goal is building with 4 year players and to that end Cal has a Top 20 class coming in next year. Developing high potential young rookie coaches is consistent with that strategy.
It was clearly not a strategy for being great on Day 1, it is a strategy for being better than Wilcox could ever be by Year 2 and challenging for the ACC Championship and CFP by Year 3 or 4. Losing to UCLA on Day 1 does not tell us the goal is not attainable.
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.
calumnus 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.
The stated goal is building with 4 year players and to that end Cal has a Top 20 class coming in next year. Developing high potential young rookie coaches is consistent with that strategy.
It was clearly not a strategy for being great on Day 1, it is a strategy for being better than Wilcox could ever be by Year 2 and challenging for the ACC Championship and CFP by Year 3 or 4. Losing to UCLA on Day 1 does not tell us the goal is not attainable.
ducktilldeath said:Grrrrah76 said:
UCLA chose to bring in a program, as did Indiana.
Tosh is building a program. Several of our portal players have a lot of eligibility left and a lot of talented high school recruits. This doesn't equate to immediate success. Give him some time, like more than one game.
This is the "We are Oregon State" POTD. You have JKS. Win_right_****ing_now.
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.
