Cal is still swimming in the wrong pool!

1CalFan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mattwlcx1- said:

As a WSU alum/fan, sorry I like to lurk to know how fans see their teams, I would say don't worry about stars and offers because that won't dictate success. The first and foremost things you need is guys that can fit your system and buy in. USC as of recent and UCLA for as long as I've known have shown stars mean nothing. They consistently get 4/5 star guys that aren't good for their team just for the sake of them being 4/5 star guys. A 3 star player that perfectly fits your system is far better for your team than a 5 star guy that doesn't. As a Coug we will never get those top recruits to come to Pullman. It never has happened and it never will we will always compete with the MWC and Oregon St for those 3 star guys. But what we have been able to do is get the RIGHT 3 star guys.

That's the key. The amazing thing about Cal is that if you guys start getting the RIGHT 3 star guys, and start to become successful, you will jump into the 4/5 star recruiting because of your great school and location. WSU has been a game away from the P-12 Championship game for 4 straight years. We finished last year 11-2 and top 10 in the nation all with MWC and Oregon St recruited players. You guys do that with these recruits and you will instantly get the bigger names to come to Cal.

So don't focus on who else is recruiting the players you are getting or the stars they have. Focus on if they are team oriented guys who play hard, buy in, and fit how you guys play football. That is how to build the foundation of sustainable success.

P.S. Please beat the Huskies. That would make this Coug very happy.
100% correct. Thank you for posting.
Blueblood
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mattwlcx1- said:

As a WSU alum/fan, sorry I like to lurk to know how fans see their teams, I would say don't worry about stars and offers because that won't dictate success. The first and foremost things you need is guys that can fit your system and buy in. USC as of recent and UCLA for as long as I've known have shown stars mean nothing. They consistently get 4/5 star guys that aren't good for their team just for the sake of them being 4/5 star guys. A 3 star player that perfectly fits your system is far better for your team than a 5 star guy that doesn't. As a Coug we will never get those top recruits to come to Pullman. It never has happened and it never will we will always compete with the MWC and Oregon St for those 3 star guys. But what we have been able to do is get the RIGHT 3 star guys.

That's the key. The amazing thing about Cal is that if you guys start getting the RIGHT 3 star guys, and start to become successful, you will jump into the 4/5 star recruiting because of your great school and location. WSU has been a game away from the P-12 Championship game for 4 straight years. We finished last year 11-2 and top 10 in the nation all with MWC and Oregon St recruited players. You guys do that with these recruits and you will instantly get the bigger names to come to Cal.

So don't focus on who else is recruiting the players you are getting or the stars they have. Focus on if they are team oriented guys who play hard, buy in, and fit how you guys play football. That is how to build the foundation of sustainable success.

P.S. Please beat the Huskies. That would make this Coug very happy.
Sorry rookie, I can't buy into what you are espousing.

I do believe stars and the type of offers in Power 5 recruiting pools will and do indeed dictate success.

I will continue to worry about stars as a pathway for Cal football success. The basis for our disagreement is what you and I believe constitutes success. IMHO, I feel that you've adopted a standard of success that many Cal fans are currently trying to, or have, become comfortable with. That is, wow, we had a 10-2 or even a 7-5 season, but we didn't win the PAC12 Championship nor played in the Rose Bowl. Ain't that great! Although given Cal's mediocre program, e.g., no Rose Bowl in almost 60 years, I'll have to admit what you put forth is a very addicting way of looking at things.

Also, I do find myself generally agreeing with some of your individual points. One, getting players that fit your system and get them to buy into that system is valid. I think Cal's defensive improvement clearly demonstrates this concept. Secondly, I agree that upon the happenchance Cal ever does have real football success the Bears will draw in **** and ***** stellar recruits. And, lastly, I agree that you can claim some aspect of success for your team, as you do, if your team consistently is nationally ranked.

However, I can't agree that u$C and ucla "have shown stars mean nothing."

If you look at the participants in the Pac 12 championship playoff games since its inception in 2011, ucla has played in it twice and u$C once, whereas Cal and Wazzu haven't been once yet. Actually, you are unfortunately looking at the wrong school. You should be looking at stanfurd. Stars mean a lot in their recruiting (in that they get stellar recruits that fit their system) and they've been in the playoffs 4 times. Although playoff success also includes good coaching too.

Or, let's look at the Rose Bowl Pac 12 participants since 2011. In those 8 years, 6 bowl games had a Pac 12 representative. All these Pac12 teams draw stellar players. Oregon (another school that attracts stared recruits like flies to s#!%) has played in the Rose Bowl 2 times, stanfurd 3 times, and u$C once.

Cal has never appeared upon this bowl's horizon.

As for the difference between Cal and Wazzu, to me, is the coaching. Cal is always hiring the up and coming guy. Wazzu has Leach (need I say more....I think he's a better coach especially as evinced by his COY awards.). That is, he is a coach that knows his system so well he knows what to look for from what he's given. Cal's coach has no offensive system so recognition of players that fit his system is not working or happening, ergo, Cal's continued no success per my assessment!
Mattwlcx1-
How long do you want to ignore this user?

The argument that because USC and UCLA have made the pac-12 championship game it validates that stars matter doesn't really hold weight to me. I can say without a doubt if WSU played in the south the past 4 years we would have made the PAC-12 championship game at least twice maybe even all 4 years with 3 star guys.

I agree with you that having a lot of 5 star guys helps. It definitely masks things that are lacking in the coaching department. But the most important thing is and always will be coaching. A great coach can take 3 star recruits and have them beat 5 star talent. I believe Justin Wilcox is a great defensive coach. I can't speak about your offense because I also believe Baldwin is slacking. I love the guy for bringing a championship to Eastern but he definitely needs to find his sea legs at this level. But outside of UW you are the team I worry about most to play. I still have nightmares of the shellacking you guys put on us in Berkeley 2 years ago when we were undefeated and ranked 8th.

All I'm saying is you don't need 4/5 star guys to compete for championships. If you have a great coach and players that fit the system you can beat anyone. I wish we could combine our teams. You put your 3 star player defense coached by Wilcox with our 3 star player offense coached by Leach and I will guarantee we will roll over every team in PAC-12. And that's with a bunch of 3 star guys and it proves it's all about coaching and system over star ratings.
calBlitz
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mattwlcx1- said:


The argument that because USC and UCLA have made the pac-12 championship game it validates that stars matter doesn't really hold weight to me. I can say without a doubt if WSU played in the south the past 4 years we would have made the PAC-12 championship game at least twice maybe even all 4 years with 3 star guys.

I agree with you that having a lot of 5 star guys helps. It definitely masks things that are lacking in the coaching department. But the most important thing is and always will be coaching. A great coach can take 3 star recruits and have them beat 5 star talent. I believe Justin Wilcox is a great defensive coach. I can't speak about your offense because I also believe Baldwin is slacking. I love the guy for bringing a championship to Eastern but he definitely needs to find his sea legs at this level. But outside of UW you are the team I worry about most to play. I still have nightmares of the shellacking you guys put on us in Berkeley 2 years ago when we were undefeated and ranked 8th.

All I'm saying is you don't need 4/5 star guys to compete for championships. If you have a great coach and players that fit the system you can beat anyone. I wish we could combine our teams. You put your 3 star player defense coached by Wilcox with our 3 star player offense coached by Leach and I will guarantee we will roll over every team in PAC-12. And that's with a bunch of 3 star guys and it proves it's all about coaching and system over star ratings.
Good stuff.

I will add that during the resurgence of Washington under Peterson, the majority of his players were rated 3 stars. Only recently(last 2 years) has Washington's recuriting gone up. If Cal starts having winning seasons (including conference records), the 4 stars will start coming.
Blueblood
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mattwlcx1- said:


The argument that because USC and UCLA have made the pac-12 championship game it validates that stars matter doesn't really hold weight to me. I can say without a doubt if WSU played in the south the past 4 years we would have made the PAC-12 championship game at least twice maybe even all 4 years with 3 star guys.

I agree with you that having a lot of 5 star guys helps. It definitely masks things that are lacking in the coaching department. But the most important thing is and always will be coaching. A great coach can take 3 star recruits and have them beat 5 star talent. I believe Justin Wilcox is a great defensive coach. I can't speak about your offense because I also believe Baldwin is slacking. I love the guy for bringing a championship to Eastern but he definitely needs to find his sea legs at this level. But outside of UW you are the team I worry about most to play. I still have nightmares of the shellacking you guys put on us in Berkeley 2 years ago when we were undefeated and ranked 8th.

All I'm saying is you don't need 4/5 star guys to compete for championships. If you have a great coach and players that fit the system you can beat anyone. I wish we could combine our teams. You put your 3 star player defense coached by Wilcox with our 3 star player offense coached by Leach and I will guarantee we will roll over every team in PAC-12. And that's with a bunch of 3 star guys and it proves it's all about coaching and system over star ratings.
I like you dude. You're a real team homer.
What I mean to say is that I doubt that Wazzu would have made all four of the Pac 12 championship games if the Cougs played in the south division the last four years (2015 through to 2018 seasons).

In 2015, u$C represented the south div. Wazzu didn't play u$C so let's look at common opponents for that season. The Trojans beat ucla by 19 pts., lost to stanfurd by 10 pts. And lost to UDub by 5 pts. As for
Wazzu, the Cougs beat ucla by 4 pts., lost to stanfurd by 2 pts., but lost to UDub by 35 points! So by extrapolating margin of victory and loss, I'd say Wazzu would've had trouble beating u$C for the South play off berth.

In 2016, Colorado represented the south div. That season the Buffs beat Wazzu by 14 points.

In 2017, u$C again represented the south div. That season the Cougs could of possibly won the Pac 12 championship because Wazzu beat u$c by 3 pts., and stanfurd (the winner of the championship game) also by 3 pts. But, I need to painfully note that the Cougs lost by 27 pts to UDub (I mention this game because during the 2015, 2016, and 2017 recruiting classes UDub picked up 18 four star players whereas the Cougs only picked up 4 such players.).

And, in 2018, Utah represented the South div. Although the Cougs did manage to beat the Utes by 4 points, it would be highly unlikely that they would of won the championship game because the North div. was represented by UDub which beat the Cougs by 13 points in the snow.
But all the above is juicy speculation. I like the really fantastic juicy speculation that you bring up. That is, if Cal had Leach as head coach and Wilcox as his DC. I think this combo would definitely prove your point about a 3 star-player dominated team could not only compete but win the Pac 12 championship!

But, currently Washington is supporting my point of view. The Huskies have won 2 out of the last 3 Pac 12 championships and in their last three recruiting classes they've picked up 31 four star players and presently UDub has 6 **** recruits out of 12 commits in their 2020 class. If Leach doesn't develop another QB, I bet that the star-ladened Huskies will beat the piss out of the Cougs again this coming season.
Mattwlcx1-
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You misread what I wrote. My first sentence was that I believed WSU would have made the championship Game in at least 2 years and maybe all 4. I never said we would have won the championship. But if we didn't have to play Oregon, Stanford, Cal, and UW all 4 of those years and replace them with all the south teams we would have been in that game. We have been 13-3 against the South the last 4 years.

But my main point is if Cal can get to that point where you guys are competing for championships up to the last game of the season and ranked every year, like WSU is, the better recruits will come with that. And you guys can definitely get to that point with the recruits you are getting if you get the right players for your system and have the right coaches in place. Yes it's faster to be able to get to that point with 4/5 star guys but to say that you can't get there with a bunch of 3 star guys that you are getting just isn't true.
Blueblood
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mattwlcx1- said:

You misread what I wrote. My first sentence was that I believed WSU would have made the championship Game in at least 2 years and maybe all 4. I never said we would have won the championship. But if we didn't have to play Oregon, Stanford, Cal, and UW all 4 of those years and replace them with all the south teams we would have been in that game. We have been 13-3 against the South the last 4 years.

But my main point is if Cal can get to that point where you guys are competing for championships up to the last game of the season and ranked every year, like WSU is, the better recruits will come with that. And you guys can definitely get to that point with the recruits you are getting if you get the right players for your system and have the right coaches in place. Yes it's faster to be able to get to that point with 4/5 star guys but to say that you can't get there with a bunch of 3 star guys that you are getting just isn't true.
That's my definition wherein winning the championship is success, not just making the play off game.

This is not my point, that is, how fast you get there. Sure your team can get there with 3 star guys and a lot of luck. What I'm concern with is Cal not only attaining success but also consistently having such success.
chazzed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thank you for your perspective. I just want to note that we are aware, on some level, that we can land 4 and 5 star guys (see: Gonzalez, Lynch, Jackson, Best, and Goff).

p.s., Yes, let's both beat the fuskies!
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Blueblood said:


"Help!"

Cal is apparently content to swimming in the MWC recruiting pool. So, I ask why all the consternation aimed at me when I mention my tongue-in-cheek jest as to why doesn't Cal go whole-hog and take a running dive off the springboard into that MWC pool, especially when stellar recruits seem to prefer the waters of the Power 5 pool instead?

I imagine many BI readers, particularly the Premium Board members, are thinking, "What the hell is Blueblood talking about now?" The following may help answer such a query for most of you but may not for the truly obtuse, like oh I'll be nice and won't mention any specific cyber-handles.

First, we all know that Cal's recruits are generally rated *** players. This is okay if a consistent 7-6 records are the ultimate goals. For me, this isn't the case.

Next, let's take a look at the current 16 recruits that make up the Bears' 2020 recruiting class. This is the third recruiting class for which head coach Wilcox is fully responsible for, I believe.

I list the total offers (which include the one from Cal) that each player received, then out of that number the total from MWC schools.

DB Paster - 8 offers, 3 from MWC (Fresno St., Nevada, San Jose St.)
RB Moore - 8 offers, 5 from MWC (Colorado St., Nevada, San Diego St., UNLV, Utah St.)
TE Ballungay - 9 offers, 5 from MWC (Fresno, St., UNLV, Utah St., San Diego St., Wyoming) #
DB Butler - 8 offers, 5 from MWC (Boise St., Colorado St., Hawaii, San Jose St., UNLV)
RB Street -13 offers, 5 from MWC (Colorado St, Nevada, San Jose St., Utah St., Wyoming) #
DE Aguilar - 10 offers, 3 from MWC (Utah St., New Mexico, Fresno St.) #
TE Muller
- 2 offers, 1 from MWC (Utah St.)
DT McKenzie -10 offers, 4 from MWC (Boise St., Hawaii, San Jose St., UNLV) #
LB Losefa - 7 offers, none from MWC #
QB Johnson - 2 offers, none from MWC
WR Christakos - 21 offers, 3 from MWC (Air Force, UNLV, San Diego St.)
WR Hunter - 8 offers, 5 from MWC (Fresno St., Hawaii, Nevada, UNLV, San Jose St.)
WR Filkins -13 offers, 2 from MWC (Utah St., Nevada) #
LB Alfieri - 5 offers, 1 from MW (Air Force) #
DB Young 8 offers, 1 from MWC (UNLV)
OL Johnson 6 offers, 3 from MWC (Fresno St., Utah St., San Jose St.) #

# Indicates offer from Oregon State, that is, not a success-oriented endorsement.

Again, we all know that Cal's defense recruiting has been fairly adequate so far. But, I believe that for Cal to go anywhere (i.e., conference championships, Rose Bowls, or even an occasional Holiday Bowl bid) the Bears' offense will have to improve too. I don't see any game changers among the offensive recruits (in bold above). If there is one, he is well hidden.

Sonny has already shown what one dimensional recruiting gets us. Cal will have to learn how to compete for recruits against the likes of the Ducks, UDub, the furds, and even the Trojans, not Utah State or Oregon State.
I just joined this thread and would like to respond to the OP while hoping it is not now irrelevant. I agree with your general effort because it is similar to mine--to keep bear fans from becoming delusional with hope by providing actually data to contradict their religious beliefs, and they are often religious.

Here is the problem though:
  • How many of those non MWC offers came from other pac-12 schools that have gone to the bowls you mention? I know that, at least in some cases, we beat out the likes of Oregon, Washington and UCLA for players. So, just because a player gets an offer or 3 or 5 from MWC schools does not mean they are not highly sought after. In fact, just about every 5 and 4 star player gets a bunch of offers from lesser conferences.
  • The "lower tier" conferences aren't always worse anymore. There is much more parity between conferences. And it is not that unusual for a MWC team to end up ranked and/or upset a B5 school.
  • The reason Cal won't join the MWC and will stay in the pac-12 has nothing to do with performance and everything to do with revenue. It is the same reason the SF Giants won't even consider trading Buster Posey even though he is past his prime and there are other catchers that would perform better now. Do you know how many jerseys etc. Buster Posey sells every single year he is in a Giants uniform? A better example is Shinjo, who played center field for the Giants over a decade ago. He played for a couple of years and really was pretty subpar. But the Giants kept him because there are a heck of a lot of Japanese Americans in SF and that meant sales. Cal would do better competitively in the MWC until they ran out of money because they were no longer getting the shared TV revenue from the pac-12. As it is, Cal needs every red cent it can get a hold of.

So, at least with me, your desire to make a point about Cal's status competitively is not very effective when you bring up the MWC. I much prefer some of your other rhetorical tricks. They are sufficient without these kinds of semi comical extremes.
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mattwlcx1- said:

You misread what I wrote. My first sentence was that I believed WSU would have made the championship Game in at least 2 years and maybe all 4. I never said we would have won the championship. But if we didn't have to play Oregon, Stanford, Cal, and UW all 4 of those years and replace them with all the south teams we would have been in that game. We have been 13-3 against the South the last 4 years.

But my main point is if Cal can get to that point where you guys are competing for championships up to the last game of the season and ranked every year, like WSU is, the better recruits will come with that. And you guys can definitely get to that point with the recruits you are getting if you get the right players for your system and have the right coaches in place. Yes it's faster to be able to get to that point with 4/5 star guys but to say that you can't get there with a bunch of 3 star guys that you are getting just isn't true.
Holy c#$p!
We are actually 13-3 over the last 4 years against the south?
Well that's something for me to go to sleep on.
Sweet dreams!
Edit: Oh woops, you were talking about WSU. I guess I'm staying up.
We were 5-11 (point differential of -70) against the south over the last 4 years so what's your point again?
An interesting thing about those 11 losses, only 5 of them were by more than 1 score. Overall 9 of the 16 games were by one score or less. So we could have had a 13-3 record as well, had things been just a little different.
Blueblood
How long do you want to ignore this user?
heartofthebear said:

Mattwlcx1- said:

You misread what I wrote. My first sentence was that I believed WSU would have made the championship Game in at least 2 years and maybe all 4. I never said we would have won the championship. But if we didn't have to play Oregon, Stanford, Cal, and UW all 4 of those years and replace them with all the south teams we would have been in that game. We have been 13-3 against the South the last 4 years.

But my main point is if Cal can get to that point where you guys are competing for championships up to the last game of the season and ranked every year, like WSU is, the better recruits will come with that. And you guys can definitely get to that point with the recruits you are getting if you get the right players for your system and have the right coaches in place. Yes it's faster to be able to get to that point with 4/5 star guys but to say that you can't get there with a bunch of 3 star guys that you are getting just isn't true.
Holy c#$p!
We are actually 13-3 over the last 4 years against the south?
Well that's something for me to go to sleep on.
Sweet dreams!
Edit: Oh woops, you were talking about WSU. I guess I'm staying up.
We were 5-11 (point differential of -70) against the south over the last 4 years so what's your point again?
An interesting thing about those 11 losses, only 5 of them were by more than 1 score. Overall 9 of the 16 games were by one score or less. So we could have had a 13-3 record as well, had things been just a little different.
Hearofthebear you're tired goto bed!
Blueblood
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Blueblood said:

heartofthebear said:

Mattwlcx1- said:

You misread what I wrote. My first sentence was that I believed WSU would have made the championship Game in at least 2 years and maybe all 4. I never said we would have won the championship. But if we didn't have to play Oregon, Stanford, Cal, and UW all 4 of those years and replace them with all the south teams we would have been in that game. We have been 13-3 against the South the last 4 years.

But my main point is if Cal can get to that point where you guys are competing for championships up to the last game of the season and ranked every year, like WSU is, the better recruits will come with that. And you guys can definitely get to that point with the recruits you are getting if you get the right players for your system and have the right coaches in place. Yes it's faster to be able to get to that point with 4/5 star guys but to say that you can't get there with a bunch of 3 star guys that you are getting just isn't true.
Holy c#$p!
We are actually 13-3 over the last 4 years against the south?
Well that's something for me to go to sleep on.
Sweet dreams!
Edit: Oh woops, you were talking about WSU. I guess I'm staying up.
We were 5-11 (point differential of -70) against the south over the last 4 years so what's your point again?
An interesting thing about those 11 losses, only 5 of them were by more than 1 score. Overall 9 of the 16 games were by one score or less. So we could have had a 13-3 record as well, had things been just a little different.
Hearofthebear you're tired goto bed!
Quote:

Looks to me that 70% of the offer are not Mountain West.
That's without counting.
***?
You make a valid observation, and I made a confusing but still valid labeling decision.

Yes, 40 or 29% of the total 138 offers made to the 16 recruits making up the 2020 class so far are from the MWC schools. This means that 71% of the remaining offers are not from MWC schools as you so astutely point out.

My underlying question is, "Is the above good or bad with respect to Cal attaining success (as I define it)?"

Thus, I was stating my position that what is of import is the talent-level pool making up the offers, not so much how many offers came from MWC schools. For want of an eye-catching and provocative title I deemed Cal is swimming more in the MWC pool, which includes several lesser talented pools (identified so, below, per my prejudice) which I see delaying any embryonic football success when compared to the other P12 north division recruiting swimming holes.

What I mean is that I looked at the other 98 or 71% of the offers a little more closely. I found that 40 offers also came from P12 schools. A tie between the MWC and P12, but what about the still remaining 58 offers?

So this is what I did to make my unpopular point.

I increased the size of the MWC or lesser talented labeled pool by subtracting Cal's 16 offers, 12 of what I call academic offers (like from Yale, Harvard, Princeton, etc.), 5 offers from military schools (like Army), and 9 offers from DII schools (or FCS level members like Montana St., Southern Utah, Northern Arizona, UC Davis, Central Michigan, etc.) from the remaining balance of the above cited 58 offers (note, I should've subtracted all the Oregon State offers too but I didn't), then after doing this I increased the MWC pool with these subtracted 42 offers for a total of 82 (I kept the MWC title because it was the dominant offeror or swimmer).

So, 59.5% of the offers came from the MWC level recruiting pool.

Figuring in the P12 offer 29% with the aforementioned 59.5%, it can be surmised that only 11.5% of the offers came from Power 5 schools (like Florida, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Boston College, etc.) outside the P12.

Hence, Cal has got to change its current swimming habits or get new swimming trunks!

(I did ignore the facts that a couple of Cal's recruits had many more offers than the others which may have padded the Power 5 and P 12 percentages and that two of the recruits didn't receive any offers from other P12 members. I did this even though to include such would have only strengthen my position.)
Bear19
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Actually, the counter argument is to see through Blueblood's stupid crap.
Characterizing BB's posts as "stupid crap" is hardly an enlightened argument. His posts are often MWC centric, yes, and they may not always be worthy of a Pulitzer. But BB does take the time to thoroughly explain his position and answer criticsms point by point.

BB has piqued the interest of more than a few FG members in this thread. Maybe it's something to argue about while we're waiting for Fall Camp to start.

I do have to say that I've learned more about the MWC here on FG than I ever expected. BB's affectation with comparing Cal to the MWC is strangely entertaining to a degree imo. Sort of like FG's own version of a song, once heard, that you can't get out of your head. The whole thing could be BB's way of passive aggressively railing against the long time mediocrity of our football program. Anyway, it's a whole level above "stupid crap" imo.
Bear19
How long do you want to ignore this user?
chazzed said:

I don't know why people still respond to this person. Maybe the logic goes something like this: "Hey, it's that troll with a tired, obnoxious persona. I think I'll feed it. Surely, I'll be able to get it to see the light".
An example of "trolling" would be accusing someone who's posts you don't like of being a troll, yes?
GivemTheAxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bear19 said:

chazzed said:

I don't know why people still respond to this person. Maybe the logic goes something like this: "Hey, it's that troll with a tired, obnoxious persona. I think I'll feed it. Surely, I'll be able to get it to see the light".
An example of "trolling" would be accusing someone who's posts you don't like of being a troll, yes?
the problem with this approach is that it logically means that every one who calls some one a troll is a troll him/herself
So Chazzed is a troll. Bear19 is a troll and so am I.
Blueblood
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GivemTheAxe said:

Bear19 said:

chazzed said:

I don't know why people still respond to this person. Maybe the logic goes something like this: "Hey, it's that troll with a tired, obnoxious persona. I think I'll feed it. Surely, I'll be able to get it to see the light".
An example of "trolling" would be accusing someone who's posts you don't like of being a troll, yes?
the problem with this definition is that it logically means that every one who calls some one a troll is a troll him/herself
So Chazzed is a troll. Bear19 is a troll and so am I.
Yes, chazzed is a troll. However I don't see any post by Bear19 calling you a troll nor any post by you specifically calling anyone a troll,therefore you and Bear19 are not trolls. More importantly, I'm not a troll in that I haven't called anyone of you guys a troll!
Fyght4Cal
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Blue, you may not be a troll, but you be trollin', tho.
🎵There‚Äôs the Highland Dutch and the Lowland Dutch
The Rotterdam Dutch and Tim DeRuyter 🎶
Oski87
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Here is the deal - Cal has an average 3 star class. That class is ranked about 30-40 in recruiting rankings, right next to UCLA and USC who also have 3 star average classes (all based on Rivals data).

That is not a MWC ranking. That is an average power 5 class ranking. We are significantly above the worst PAC 12 school - the one predicted to win the south - Utah, who currently averages a 1.8 star ranking. The best MW team currently is UNLV which has a 2.5 average star ranking, which is based on 6 committed recruits.

The average MWC star rankings for 2019 was 2.15. The average PAC 12 ranking was 2.99. In 2019 Cal was 5th in the Pac 12 in average star ranking and 36th in the country.

So far this year the average star ranking for the PAC 12 is 2.93. The MW is 1.93.

My guess is that Cal ends up somewhere around a top 35 team this year. So at the end of the day, the ranking will be what we are. Which tends to be how it all ends up over time.

I am sure everyone wants a better class. Basically if added three 4 star recruits at this point we would be a top 20 team in the country in recruiting. But we are performing in our recruiting as we should as an average Power 5 conference team with 7 wins.


chazzed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I appreciate your efforts at pointing out irony to me, but I'm trying to save other posters time and frustration. If you want to engage the OP as if he's not being disingenuous, though, have at it.

Go Bears!
chazzed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We're a solid trio of trolls, I'd say.
Blueblood
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Here is the deal - Cal has an average 3 star class. That class is ranked about 30-40 in recruiting rankings, right next to UCLA and USC who also have 3 star average classes (all based on Rivals data).

Cal did have an average 3 star class until the Bears got its most recent two ** star commit. (This commits offers only strengthen my initially espoused position in that he got an offer from Cal, of course, but his other offers came from my expanded MWC pool, .i.e., 1 from a MWC team, 1 from a military academy, and 3 from FCS (DII) schools. No other Power 5 school outside of Cal offered).


[Note: Your post is confusing because I'm not sure which recruiting year that you are always in, and
you appear to confuse a schools overall class recruiting ranking with its average star ranking or rating of its recruits. They are all not the same. The "overall class recruiting ranking" includes all the rating factors, whereas the "average star ranking" is exactly just that and only that.]

Currently Cal's 2020 average star ranking has been adjusted from 3.0 to 2.94. To me, this is no big deal as it was not the primary basis of my position. Also, Cal's 2020 recruiting ranking is #32 which looks a lot better than the distant recruiting rankings of u$C (#64) and ucla (#71). Although this looks good for Cal, it isn't because the recruiting year is in its early stages. If you look at the current 2020 average star rankings, Cal is #40, but u$C's and ucla's are #34 and #33, respectively. Even worse is the fact that Oregon's, Washington's, and the dirty furds' are #13, #20, and #8, respectively!

That is not a MWC ranking. That is an average power 5 class ranking. We are significantly above the worst PAC 12 school - the one predicted to win the south - Utah, who currently averages a 1.8 star ranking. The best MW team currently is UNLV which has a 2.5 average star ranking, which is based on 6 committed recruits.
The average MWC star rankings for 2019 was 2.15. The average PAC 12 ranking was 2.99. In 2019 Cal was 5th in the Pac 12 in average star ranking and 36th in the country.

So far this year the average star ranking for the PAC 12 is 2.93. The MW is 1.93.

My guess is that Cal ends up somewhere around a top 35 team this year. So at the end of the day, the ranking will be what we are. Which tends to be how it all ends up over time.

I agree that the average star ratings of the Pac 12 schools, including Cal's, are higher than that of the collective MWC. I think that is what you were trying to show above? As such, this fact supports my position in that Cal in order to have success should be more in line with the metrics of the successful north division teams.

In 2019, the average star rating for Cal was a respectable 2.96 but for the three consistent successful teams (Oregon, Washington, and the furds) ahead of Cal in the north division the average star rating was 3.46! This is a big disconnect which seems to be repeating or may be even increasing in 2020 so far because the average star rating of these same three teams is the same 3.46. Cal so far is 2.94.


I am sure everyone wants a better class. Basically if added three 4 star recruits at this point we would be a top 20 team in the country in recruiting. But we are performing in our recruiting as we should as an average Power 5 conference team with 7 wins.

I agree, but alas, Cal has no four **** star recruits yet. "Performing in our recruiting as we should" will not develop into a successful team, maybe in the short hall with luck, but not a consistently successful program in the long run.
Goobear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
All I can say is, look at Utah. The head coach has been there since 1994. Would you like Cal to be the favorite to win the PAC 12 and be consistent? Perhaps not the MW model but the Utah model should be followed? Not sure what ratings the Utes recruits have but they seem to have figured out to do it their way? The came from the MW didn't they? Anyway BB (Blue Blood not Beau Baldwin) I am sure you mean well. Go Bears!
Blueblood
How long do you want to ignore this user?



All I can say is, look at Utah. [Why?] The head coach has been there since 1994. [Yeah, so? He has taken the Utes to a lot of post-season bowls and won them too.] Would you like Cal to be the favorite to win the PAC 12 and be consistent? [DooOOH! That's what I've been advocating!] Perhaps not the MW model but the Utah model should be followed? [ As a start, like it appears like the Utes are about to do, yes.] Not sure what ratings the Utes recruits have but they seem to have figured out to do it their way? [Yes, they're trying. The Utes average star ratings for the 2018 and 2019 seasons were 3.05 and 2.96 compared to Cal's 2.82 and 2.96 for the same periods. So?] The came from the MW didn't they? [Yes, over 8 seasons ago, and they have played in their first championship play off game just this last season. Cal hasn't even accomplished that. The Utes are projected to be in the play offs again this coming season which is a lot more than I can say for Cal.] Anyway BB (Blue Blood not Beau Baldwin) I am sure you mean well. Go Bears![Of course I do. Oh, and you don't have to be so formal, just call me plain old Blueblood or whatever.]
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Does anybody have the time to go to 247 team comittments page and grab the mean and median of each MWC team vs Cal? It is obvious that the OP is full of crap. Here is an example.

Generally, .89 is a 4 star, .80 is a 3 star (.79 is a 2 star).

Cal mean 2019 committed recruit rating: .857
SJS mean 2019 committed recruit rating: .802
Cal median 2019 committed recruit rating:. .858
SJS median 2019 committed recruit rating: .801

Cal's actual lowest commit would be SJSU's 4th highest commit. Also, SJSU enrolled 14 of 20 commits; I assume they therefore have to use walk-ons. Cal enrolled 24 commits.

Nevada's median is . 8167.
FSU's median is .820
Blueblood
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Does anybody have the time to go to 247 team comittments page and grab the mean and median of each MWC team vs Cal? It is obvious that the OP is full of crap. Here is an example.

Generally, .89 is a 4 star, .80 is a 3 star (.79 is a 2 star).

Cal mean 2019 committed recruit rating: .857
SJS mean 2019 committed recruit rating: .802
Cal median 2019 committed recruit rating:. .858
SJS median 2019 committed recruit rating: .801

Cal's actual lowest commit would be SJSU's 4th highest commit. Also, SJSU enrolled 14 of 20 commits; I assume they therefore have to use walk-ons. Cal enrolled 24 commits.

Nevada's median is . 8167.
FSU's median is .820



Oh Mr. Potatohead.....Mr. Potatohead.......listen up.....

Your stupid numbers mean nothing. The fact of the matter is Cal has very little success in the conference as it was organized over the last 8 seasons when the play off system was invoked. You know like as much success as you point out that San Jose' State has had in the MWC. You are for some strange reason defending this? What a creep!

I only mentioned the average star rating because your friend, mr. Goobear, brought the subject up and because he used such numbers incorrectly.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Blueblood said:

oski003 said:

Does anybody have the time to go to 247 team comittments page and grab the mean and median of each MWC team vs Cal? It is obvious that the OP is full of crap. Here is an example.

Generally, .89 is a 4 star, .80 is a 3 star (.79 is a 2 star).

Cal mean 2019 committed recruit rating: .857
SJS mean 2019 committed recruit rating: .802
Cal median 2019 committed recruit rating:. .858
SJS median 2019 committed recruit rating: .801

Cal's actual lowest commit would be SJSU's 4th highest commit. Also, SJSU enrolled 14 of 20 commits; I assume they therefore have to use walk-ons. Cal enrolled 24 commits.

Nevada's median is . 8167.
FSU's median is .820



Oh Mr. Potatohead.....Mr. Potatohead.......listen up.....

Your stupid numbers mean nothing. The act of the matter is Cal has very little success in the conference as it was organized over the last 8 seasons when the play off system was invoked. You know like as much success as you point out that San Jose' State has had in the MWC. You are for some strange reason defending this? What a creep!

I only mentioned the average star rating because your friend, mr. Goobear, brought the subject up and because he use such numbers incorrectly.



Facts mean something, and this topic is a lie. Thank you for confirming that by switching to overall success after the advent of the playoff system. I agree that Cal can do better.
Blueblood
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Blueblood said:

oski003 said:

Does anybody have the time to go to 247 team comittments page and grab the mean and median of each MWC team vs Cal? It is obvious that the OP is full of crap. Here is an example.

Generally, .89 is a 4 star, .80 is a 3 star (.79 is a 2 star).

Cal mean 2019 committed recruit rating: .857
SJS mean 2019 committed recruit rating: .802
Cal median 2019 committed recruit rating:. .858
SJS median 2019 committed recruit rating: .801

Cal's actual lowest commit would be SJSU's 4th highest commit. Also, SJSU enrolled 14 of 20 commits; I assume they therefore have to use walk-ons. Cal enrolled 24 commits.

Nevada's median is . 8167.
FSU's median is .820



Oh Mr. Potatohead.....Mr. Potatohead.......listen up.....

Your stupid numbers mean nothing. The act of the matter is Cal has very little success in the conference as it was organized over the last 8 seasons when the play off system was invoked. You know like as much success as you point out that San Jose' State has had in the MWC. You are for some strange reason defending this? What a creep!

I only mentioned the average star rating because your friend, mr. Goobear, brought the subject up and because he use such numbers incorrectly.



Facts mean something, and this topic is a lie. Thank you for confirming that by switching to overall success after the advent of the playoff system. I agree that Cal can do better.
There are no "lies" in my facts. The numbers that I used are taken directly from Rivals. Again, I only switched to the "advent of the playoff system" because your friend commanded that we look at Utah? That's when Utah became a member of the Pac 12 and that's what we're looking for, i.e., success for Cal in the Pac 12.

But...but...I am glad that we agree "that Cal can do better!"
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Goobear said:

All I can say is, look at Utah. The head coach has been there since 1994. Would you like Cal to be the favorite to win the PAC 12 and be consistent? Perhaps not the MW model but the Utah model should be followed? Not sure what ratings the Utes recruits have but they seem to have figured out to do it their way? The came from the MW didn't they? Anyway BB (Blue Blood not Beau Baldwin) I am sure you mean well. Go Bears!
Just being a bit nit picky, but Whittingham has only been the head coach at Utah since 2005. 2004 is you count coaching the Fiesta Bowl after Urban Meyer left for bigger and better things. One thing Utah does have is a good track record of picking head coaches and staying with them through the occasional down year. They've only had 3 head coaches since 1990 and that includes Urban Meyer only being there 2 years.
Goobear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

Goobear said:

All I can say is, look at Utah. The head coach has been there since 1994. Would you like Cal to be the favorite to win the PAC 12 and be consistent? Perhaps not the MW model but the Utah model should be followed? Not sure what ratings the Utes recruits have but they seem to have figured out to do it their way? The came from the MW didn't they? Anyway BB (Blue Blood not Beau Baldwin) I am sure you mean well. Go Bears!
Just being a bit nit picky, but Whittingham has only been the head coach at Utah since 2005. 2004 is you count coaching the Fiesta Bowl after Urban Meyer left for bigger and better things. One thing Utah does have is a good track record of picking head coaches and staying with them through the occasional down year. They've only had 3 head coaches since 1990 and that includes Urban Meyer only being there 2 years.
My point was Cal needs a guy who sticks around, knows the impediments and learns how to succeed with them. Yes Whitthingham was a DC first but he has only been head coach at the Utes for 14 years? Cal should learn something from that. It takes time at Cal to succeed given its impediments. There is no fast way unless FB becomes top priority for the entire school. Until then, build steady upwards...My 2 cents...
Blueblood
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

Goobear said:

All I can say is, look at Utah. The head coach has been there since 1994. Would you like Cal to be the favorite to win the PAC 12 and be consistent? Perhaps not the MW model but the Utah model should be followed? Not sure what ratings the Utes recruits have but they seem to have figured out to do it their way? The came from the MW didn't they? Anyway BB (Blue Blood not Beau Baldwin) I am sure you mean well. Go Bears!
Just being a bit nit picky, but Whittingham has only been the head coach at Utah since 2005. 2004 is you count coaching the Fiesta Bowl after Urban Meyer left for bigger and better things. One thing Utah does have is a good track record of picking head coaches and staying with them through the occasional down year. They've only had 3 head coaches since 1990 and that includes Urban Meyer only being there 2 years.
If you ever see any nits on me, you have my permissin to pick them.

Technically, Whittingham was appointed head coach in December 2004 about three weeks before the Utes played in the Fiesta Bowl. He was designated a co-coach with Urban during that bowl game. I think its easy knowing that a school picked a good head coach when that coach improves this teams winning record for four seasons after being selected, i.e., 7-5, 8-5, 9-4, then 13-0, and has his team declared National Champions.

I'll have to admit that Coach Wilcox is on the same glorious path, i.e., 5-7, 7-6, then soar or crash? If Cal gets 8 wins or more, then get the statue buliding bricks out of moth balls!
Page 2 of 2
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.