We just paid $6mm to completely dismantle the unit that was top-10 in the country, and replace with a first-time HC. And the potential coordinator names I'm hearing now are Hardy Nickerson and Eric Kiesau? In the mean time, every program in our conference is upgrading their coaching staff + recruiting their brains out, while we a) probably don't have any coaches on the road, b) have no connections to the recruits previously committed.

Fuc!ing awesome. If we alums remotely cared about this program, we would be calling for Mike Williams' head on a platter. I'm done. I'm *not* renewing.

heech;842793214 said:

---

We just paid $6mm to completely dismantle the unit that was top-10 in the country, and replace with a first-time HC. And the potential coordinator names I'm hearing now are Hardy Nickerson and Eric Kiesau? In the mean time, every program in our conference is upgrading their coaching staff + recruiting their brains out, while we a) probably don't have any coaches on the road, b) have no connections to the recruits previously committed.

Fuc!ing awesome. If we alums remotely cared about this program, we would be calling for Mike Williams' head on a platter. I'm done. I'm *not* renewing.

---

I feel the anger and frustration, but what unit was top 10 in the country?

Cal89;842793216 said:

---

I feel the anger and frustration, but what unit was top 10 in the country?

---

http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/21

heech;842793218 said:

---

http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/21

---

Well...we didn't win like a top 10 team...that means you have to have a defense too. How would our offense look if we didn't have a 5th year Sr. grad transfer?

heech;842793218 said:

---

http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/21

---

Yards per game isn't a great way to measure offensive efficiency. We were 22nd in scoring offense, which seems a little closer to reality. Plenty of times that "top 10" offense couldn't move the ball against a good team.

MinotStateBeav;842793222 said:

---

Well...we didn't win like a top 10 team...that means you have to have a defense too. How would our offense look if we didn't have a 5th year Sr. grad transfer?

---

So, let's dismantle that unit entirely?

We are looking at an unbelievably mismanaged transition. I had a nightmare scenario laid-out after the Dykes firing while I rooted for a) the dream hires (RR and Kelly), b) the intriguing "Young Guns" combination. Now we're looking at ending up with Nickerson and Kiesau...? Oh. My. God.

heech;842793214 said:

---

We just paid $6mm to completely dismantle the unit that was top-10 in the country, and replace with a first-time HC. And the potential coordinator names I'm hearing now are Hardy Nickerson and Eric Kiesau? In the mean time, every program in our conference is upgrading their coaching staff + recruiting their brains out, while we a) probably don't have any coaches on the road, b) have no connections to the recruits previously committed.

---

Sounds about right

heech;842793218 said:

---

http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/21

---

Ah, yards. They don't win games though, points do. We also snapped the ball more than all other teams I believe - plays per game, so getting a lot of yards is very much explained. Bunch of hot air without corresponding big points...

Over SD's four years, Cal is like 5th best (between 5th and 6th as I recall) in PPG scoring in Pac-12 games. In our "special" year under SD where we were treated to a bowl, our offense rose to 6th best in conference scoring only after our last game against ASU, who had the worst pass D in the nation.

The great facade, that we had some power offense, is so untrue. Relative to the worst FBS defense over the past four years, that's probably why some feel the offense was so good.

We averaged less than 31 PPG in Pac-12 games over four years. That is very average...

Cal89;842793240 said:

---

Ah, yards. They don't win games though, points do. We also snapped the ball more than all other teams I believe - plays per game, so getting a lot of yards is very much explained. Bunch of hot air without corresponding big points...

Over SD's four years, Cal is like 5th best (between 5th and 6th as I recall) in PPG scoring in Pac-12 games. In our "special" year under SD where we were treated to a bowl, our offense rose to 6th best in conference scoring only after our last game against ASU, who had the worst pass D in the nation.

---

No idea where you're getting your stats.

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/points-per-game

We were #3 in the Pac-12 this year in PPG, and #3 in the Pac-12 last year in PPG. Doesn't matter now, it's all ancient history... I'm sure the next OC (whoever that is) will do much better.

Going back to a more traditional type of offense...good

heech;842793244 said:

---

No idea where you're getting your stats.

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/points-per-game

We were #3 in the Pac-12 this year in PPG, and #3 in the Pac-12 last year in PPG. Doesn't matter now, it's all ancient history... I'm sure the next OC (whoever that is) will do much better.

---

I agree with a lot of what you're saying.

But points per game? Seriously? Cmon man

Can we all agree not to use stats from the Stone Age

heech;842793244 said:

---

No idea where you're getting your stats.

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/points-per-game

We were #3 in the Pac-12 this year in PPG, and #3 in the Pac-12 last year in PPG. Doesn't matter now, it's all ancient history... I'm sure the next OC (whoever that is) will do much better.

---

In conference games is likely the difference. Need to look at the games that most matter against the same competition. We were a very distant 3rd this year at 33.8 PPG. Last year 6th best...

ducky23;842793252 said:

---

I agree with a lot of what you're saying.

But points per game? Seriously? Cmon man

Can we all agree not to use stats from the Stone Age

---

Just responding to Cal89's point... stats aside, I don't think there was much dispute our offense was more than decent, almost good enough to compensate for our horrendously crappy defense. In any case, for those who didn't appreciate it, I guess they're happy we're flushing it down the toilet.

heech;842793226 said:

---

So, let's dismantle that unit entirely?

We are looking at an unbelievably mismanaged transition. I had a nightmare scenario laid-out after the Dykes firing while I rooted for a) the dream hires (RR and Kelly), b) the intriguing "Young Guns" combination. Now we're looking at ending up with Nickerson and Kiesau...? Oh. My. God.

---

Typically when you hire a new HC..most of the time the OC/DC isn't sticking around for the next regime. The timing of the firing is a valid concern, but why don't you actually wait and see who Wilcox brings in instead of panic about the unknown. Nobody here knows what kind of offense he wants to run so complaining about Spav taking off is pretty rediculous imho, and yes ...it matters what kind of offense you want to run to pick an OC.

heech;842793214 said:

---

We just paid $6mm to completely dismantle the unit that was top-10 in the country, and replace with a first-time HC. And the potential coordinator names I'm hearing now are Hardy Nickerson and Eric Kiesau? In the mean time, every program in our conference is upgrading their coaching staff + recruiting their brains out, while we a) probably don't have any coaches on the road, b) have no connections to the recruits previously committed.

Fuc!ing awesome. If we alums remotely cared about this program, we would be calling for Mike Williams' head on a platter. I'm done. I'm *not* renewing.

---

This!

Sounds good!

ducky23;842793252 said:

---

I agree with a lot of what you're saying.

But points per game? Seriously? Cmon man

Can we all agree not to use stats from the Stone Age

---

While I look at plenty of stats and efficiency metrics, it ultimately comes down to points - what decides the winners from losers. If a team chooses to run a buttload of plays, or not, is efficient or not (like yards per play), the bottom line when the clock is done moving is the production of points. We were nothing to write home about in conference games...

BearNecessities;842793224 said:

---

Yards per game isn't a great way to measure offensive efficiency. We were 22nd in scoring offense, which seems a little closer to reality. Plenty of times that "top 10" offense couldn't move the ball against a good team.

---

So you think we'll do more scoring with a mediocre to mediocre+ defensive specialist now as our head coach?
Have to agree with heech. Hope I am wrong, but after last night's optimism, this does not inspire hope.
At least with Dykes and our sometimes very good offense and our generally poor defense, we ended up
at times exciting (albeit frustrating). I fear under Wilcox we may now end up with an adequate defense with
a less than adequate offense which translates into.....B-O-R-I-N-G.....and more won-loss records similar
to the Dykes era. As a lifelong Cal fan, I will naturally support and root for Wilcox to succeed, but this
whole new change looks very vanilla to me right now barring some unexpected good news. And as we know,
in this day and age, vanilla just isn't going to cut it in the Pac-12.

MinotStateBeav;842793257 said:

---

Typically when you hire a new HC..most of the time the OC/DC isn't sticking around for the next regime. The timing of the firing is a valid concern, but why don't you actually wait and see who Wilcox brings in instead of panic about the unknown. Nobody here knows what kind of offense he wants to run so complaining about Spav taking off is pretty rediculous imho, and yes ...it matters what kind of offense you want to run to pick an OC.

---

I first tried to stay optimistic, and then I tried to hold my tongue... it was only when I was hearing from insiders that Nickerson and Kiesau were currently the two guys at the top of the pile that I started to lose my $hit.

If Wilcox wants to go his own direction and upgrade from Spav, I can respect that. But it sure looks like everyone is abandoning ship and we're ending up with the dregs. I haven't heard any remotely attractive OC names attached to Cal at this point. That's of course a function of the timing, previously mentioned. Did I mention Mike Williams' head on a platter?

Cal89;842793260 said:

---

While I look at plenty of stats and efficiency metrics, it ultimately comes down to points - what decides the winners from losers. If a team chooses to run a buttload of plays, or not, is efficient or not (like yards per play), the bottom line when the clock is done moving is the production of points. We were nothing to write home about in conference games...

---

it ultimately comes down to scoring more points than the other team.

If you are scoring 40 but giving up 50, then guess what? And if you are scoring 40 and the other team is scoring 50 because each team is running like 20 more plays than usual, then what is that proving?

I'm sorry. When you are comparing one teams offense to another (as one of the posters did) you absolutely cannot use ppg when cal is running, in some cases, substantially more plays than other teams.

heech;842793214 said:

---

We just paid $6mm to completely dismantle the unit that was top-10 in the country, and replace with a first-time HC. And the potential coordinator names I'm hearing now are Hardy Nickerson and Eric Kiesau? In the mean time, every program in our conference is upgrading their coaching staff + recruiting their brains out, while we a) probably don't have any coaches on the road, b) have no connections to the recruits previously committed.

Fuc!ing awesome. If we alums remotely cared about this program, we would be calling for Mike Williams' head on a platter. I'm done. I'm *not* renewing.

---

Look, the thing we learned after this season is that Dykes was never going to lead Cal to be a conference title contender. Once you know you don't have a guy that will take you to top, its best to move on and try to find someone who will. It doesn't mean the next person will be that guy, but it does mean you are not wasting time with someone you know won't work out.

CalBarn;842793262 said:

---

So you think we'll do more scoring with a mediocre to mediocre+ defensive specialist now as our head coach?
Have to agree with heech. Hope I am wrong, but after last night's optimism, this does not inspire hope.
At least with Dykes and our sometimes very good offense and our generally poor defense, we ended up
at times exciting (albeit frustrating). I fear under Wilcox we may now end up with an adequate defense with
a less than adequate offense which translates into.....B-O-R-I-N-G.....and more won-loss records similar
to the Dykes era. As a lifelong Cal fan, I will naturally support and root for Wilcox to succeed, but this
whole new change looks very vanilla to me right now barring some unexpected good news. And as we know,
in this day and age, vanilla just isn't going to cut it in the Pac-12.

---

You may be right. I don't think Wilcox is any type of home run hire. Hopefully he'll be a good head coach, but I have no way of knowing for sure.

ducky23;842793267 said:

---

it ultimately comes down to scoring more points than the other team.

If you are scoring 40 but giving up 50, then guess what? And if you are scoring 40 and the other team is scoring 50 because each team is running like 20 more plays than usual, then what is that proving?

I'm sorry. When you are comparing one teams offense to another (as one of the posters did) you absolutely cannot use ppg when cal is running, in some cases, substantially more plays than other teams.

---

So what measure would you use for measuring offensive effectiveness?

golden sloth;842793271 said:

---

Look, the thing we learned after this season is that Dykes was never going to lead Cal to be a conference title contender. Once you know you don't have a guy that will take you to top, its best to move on and try to find someone who will. It doesn't mean the next person will be that guy, but it does mean you are not wasting time with someone you know won't work out.

---

I'm not pining for Dykes, I'm eviscerating Williams for the $hitshow that is the current transition and the deep, bottom-less hole that Cal football is now apparently falling into. I'd love someone to blow sunshine in my direction and help me understand how this is going to work out.

heech;842793244 said:

---

No idea where you're getting your stats.

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/points-per-game

We were #3 in the Pac-12 this year in PPG, and #3 in the Pac-12 last year in PPG. Doesn't matter now, it's all ancient history... I'm sure the next OC (whoever that is) will do much better.

---

But even with the 3rd best scoring offense in the Pac-12, Cal was 4th last in net points per game with -5.5 thanks to fielding the worst scoring defense in the conference. Only Oregon (-5.7), Arizona State (-6.5) and Arizona (-13.5) were worse than Cal in net points per game.

BearNecessities;842793275 said:

---

So what measure would you use for measuring offensive effectiveness?

---

Wins is my measure. This is the problem with looking at just offense or just defense. They have to mesh with each other. It really is a thing where one helps the other. People really need to get off the fantasy football kick. Alabama's passing game is horrible...but it doesn't have to be great..because their defense is so good that they only need to score 21pts for about a 98% chance at winning, and those 21 points don't even come off long drives, since with their running game they are winning the field position battle all day long.

ducky23;842793267 said:

---

it ultimately comes down to scoring more points than the other team.

If you are scoring 40 but giving up 50, then guess what? And if you are scoring 40 and the other team is scoring 50 because each team is running like 20 more plays than usual, then what is that proving?

I'm sorry. When you are comparing one teams offense to another (as one of the posters did) you absolutely cannot use ppg when cal is running, in some cases, substantially more plays than other teams.

---

So we can lose when scoring a lot in Sonnyball and lose when not scoring and playing good defense in Holmoeball. Sounds like were choosing the latter. There are teams that operate a pass based spread that do have good or at least decent offenses, there just not named Cal.

wifeisafurd;842793288 said:

---

So we can lose when scoring a lot in Sonnyball and lose when not scoring and playing good defense in Holmoeball. Sounds like were choosing the latter.

---

Maybe the people who think defense is the cure-all weren't around for the Holmoeball days. F me those were painful days.

ducky23;842793267 said:

---

it ultimately comes down to scoring more points than the other team.

If you are scoring 40 but giving up 50, then guess what? And if you are scoring 40 and the other team is scoring 50 because each team is running like 20 more plays than usual, then what is that proving?

I'm sorry. When you are comparing one teams offense to another (as one of the posters did) you absolutely cannot use ppg when cal is running, in some cases, substantially more plays than other teams.

---

The offense has an objective, to score points. They go about this is various ways of course; and often times that entails the decision to have more or less plays. I'll take the offense that scores the most points every season, regardless of how that is achieved. A poor Pac-12 offense scores in the low 20's, average around 30, and the better ones 40+, typically.

Efficiency. Cal's was rather blah in 2016. I had noted that earlier in another thread. Even on that link heech provided, Cal's yards per play was like one of the lowest up there... Efficiency and like metrics are huge to understand further, but it comes down to points, regardless of what approach an offense takes.

Games are sometimes won by the least efficient team, because they overcame that with volume of plays and scored more points. There's no award for how efficient the team is that day or year. A team chooses to go fast-pace and average 90 snaps a game with an ok efficiency vs a team that chooses to go with a more traditional 70 plays on offense a game, but more efficient on a per play basis... Pick your poison. Who wins? Simply the team with the most points. Cal chose to run a ton of plays in 2016 (we got slower every year under TF). Over the course of the SD era at Cal, we saw an average number of points in Pac-12 games.

BearNecessities;842793275 said:

---

So what measure would you use for measuring offensive effectiveness?

---

The very basic ones are yards per play or points per possession. They are far from perfect, but light years better than ppg.

FEI is interesting. It's basically points per possession but takes out garbage time and adjusts for field position. The only problem is that it doesn't take into account strength of schedule.

Unfortunately there's no perfect stat. But some stats are much better measured than others.

heech;842793244 said:

---

No idea where you're getting your stats.

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/points-per-game

We were #3 in the Pac-12 this year in PPG, and #3 in the Pac-12 last year in PPG. Doesn't matter now, it's all ancient history... I'm sure the next OC (whoever that is) will do much better.

---

Don't forget that the Cal defence also set "records" as well - and that we gave up more points than we scored in 7 of the 12 games we played. Partly this is because the air raid puts a huge stress on the defence with so many 3 & outs, and so little clock time. With the number of receivers needed, there aren't enough scholarships available for the defence, the result being a defence ranked 122 out of 125.

None of this years national championship series teams run the air raid for this very reason. All of them had very good defence. That is how to build a winning team & program.

I'm glad we done with this air raid nonsense & will get back to real football.

i wouldn't be surprised if tosh was part of the deal, and then clowned us again.

I'm in agreement. The problem for me isn't letting dykes go. It's extending him in the first place, when he was clearly not digging being here. Instead of letting his contract expire and having an extra 6million to spend on a coach, plus the last two years of salary, we now have lost all that, plus butts in the seats. What we have today might be the best we can hope for, under the circumstances. I sure hope it works out. But the flaw was hanging onto a mess in the first place, because we were in panic mode.

bearsandgiants;842793313 said:

---

i wouldn't be surprised if tosh was part of the deal, and then clowned us again.

I'm in agreement. The problem for me isn't letting dykes go. It's extending him in the first place, when he was clearly not digging being here. Instead of letting his contract expire and having an extra 6million to spend on a coach, plus the last two years of salary, we now have lost all that, plus butts in the seats. What we have today might be the best we can hope for, under the circumstances. I sure hope it works out. But the flaw was hanging onto a mess in the first place, because we were in panic mode.

---

I agree with this--I think we needed to have someone big locked down (like a Kelly) before we did something like this. Wilcox, or someone just like him is always available. I wanted to see Spav develop his offense more. $6 million is a big hit to the program for a very unproven option. Maybe we end up with a great OC but how do we keep a great OC more than a year or two without them moving on? I see a lot of instability there ahead--hope I'm wrong.

heech;842793290 said:

---

Maybe the people who think defense is the cure-all weren't around for the Holmoeball days. F me those were painful days.

---

+1000 I survived by watching from Tightwad--no money spent, plenty of beer and a great view of the Bay, City and GG to help keep perspective.

As would be expected, the fan base focuses on the most transparent things available to them, such as points scored vs given up, wins vs loses and other similar statistics. The transparency of these particular metrics are generally laid at the feet of the coach, after all, it is his decisions on game day that ultimately result in the points or wins, no? Well, I will continue to beat this drum, but it seems to me that we don't put enough credence in the performance of the administration and bureaucracy of this University. It is certainly one constant in Cal football, albeit one that is not very transparent to most (including me) fans.

I for one don't feel like Cal as a university takes major sports very seriously. There is outright hostility on and off campus towards our football program. I don't think any of that is questionable. Furthermore, the UC system seems bereft of challenges to quickly act on things that are highly time sensitive. For example, having a contract ready and able to be signed so that the machinery of a major sports program doesn't miss a cog. To be successful in attracting top tier coaching talent the university has to at least present the appearance that it takes this part of the school's business seriously, that it support success and it is willing to pay for it. I can't really say from this fan's point of view, who is admittedly not in the know, that we do any of these things well. None of it is very transparent, except for the fact that we are mired in mediocrity on the field.

It was necessary to make a change.
- I have ESP and was keeping my seats either way. we love Cal and love seeing old friends.
- I had lost hope in the Dykes organization. I assumed that Cal would have no defense, gaudy passing stats and four plus hour games. I saw little chance of regular bowl games under Dykes.
- I thank him for cleaning up the academics and re-balancing the classes. I wish Sonny and his family all the best. Looking forward now to a new era and real big boy football