"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.

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 agree that for Cal to become successful we must successfully recruit against the Big Schools.
And I agree that we have not been as successful as I would like in recent years.
But give credit where credit is due and don't cherry pick your data. The most recent recruit Paster had offers from UW, UCLA, UO and Utah.
Street had offers from UO, ASU, Utah, Fla.
Damien Moore had offers from Utah and ASU.
Christakos had offers from ASU, UA, Utah, Colo, Mich St, Neb, Ark
Butler had offer from UCLA
Aguilar had offers from UA, ASU, Colo
Muelu had offers from USC,UO, Utah, Neb.
McKensie had offers from UO, UA, Oregon State and Neb.
There are also others that had at least one other offer from the Big Schools. So it is unfair to portray recruiting to be as bad as in the SD era. Cal recruiting is clearly on the rise.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

I agree that for Cal to become successful we must successfully recruit against the Big Schools.
And I agree that we have not been as successful as I would like in recent years.
But give credit where credit is due and don't cherry pick your data. The most recent recruit Paster had offers from UW, UCLA, UO and Utah.
Street had offers from UO, ASU, Utah, Fla.
Damien Moore had offers from Utah and ASU.
Christakos had offers from ASU, UA, Utah, Colo, Mich St, Neb, Ark
Butler had offers from UCLA
There are also others that had at least one other offer from the Big Schools. So it is unfair to portray recruiting to be as bad as in the SD era.

---

That's just the problem, recruiting is exactly that...cherry picking.

You say "give credit where credit is due." To whom, the players or the coaches or both?

Oh, I give all the credit in the world to the players that can get a university such as Cal to give them a scholarship. I say well done indeed!

Credit to the coaches? No way. Just recently someone here posted the salaries for the Cal assistant coaching staff. Damn, most of them make a cool quarter million dollars with added bonus opportunities. Keeping this in mind, take another look at the recruiting results that I've listed.

I acknowledge that some of the above recruits got a few Big School offers but not from their respective conferences as a collective whole. No, Cal's targets are more closely characteristically aligned with the MWC and/or Oregon State targets. I emphasized that such will not improve the Bears' offense, ergo, not much success as I see it.

AunBear89 said:

---

Oh, another lengthy bluedud MWC post with nothing new to say.

Yawn... same ol' bluedud.

---

I know you're really upset that I didn't mention your cyber-handle aUNbear89 in my initial post! ahahahahahaaaaa

Blueblood said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

I agree that for Cal to become successful we must successfully recruit against the Big Schools.
And I agree that we have not been as successful as I would like in recent years.
But give credit where credit is due and don't cherry pick your data. The most recent recruit Paster had offers from UW, UCLA, UO and Utah.
Street had offers from UO, ASU, Utah, Fla.
Damien Moore had offers from Utah and ASU.
Christakos had offers from ASU, UA, Utah, Colo, Mich St, Neb, Ark
Butler had offers from UCLA
There are also others that had at least one other offer from the Big Schools. So it is unfair to portray recruiting to be as bad as in the SD era.

---

That's just the problem, recruiting is exactly that...cherry picking.

You say "give credit where credit is due." To whom, the players or the coaches or both?

Oh, I give all the credit in the world to the players that can get a university such as Cal to give them a scholarship. I say well done indeed!

Credit to the coaches? No way. Just recently someone here posted the salaries for the Cal assistant coaching staff. Damn, most of them make a cool quarter million dollars with added bonus opportunities. Keeping this in mind, take another look at the recruiting results that I've listed.

I acknowledge that some of the above recruits got a few Big School offers but not from their respective conferences as a collective whole. No, Cal's targets are more closely characteristically aligned with the MWC and/or Oregon State targets. I emphasized that such will not improve the Bears' offense, ergo, not much success as I see it.

---

I would give credit to both the players and the coaches for the improvement in recruiting.
You object to giving coaches credit because they are paid so much.
1. I don't have a problem with the coaches salaries since there have been many posts on this Board complaining that the coaches are not paid enough relative to their peers. Especially in view of the cost of living in the Bay Area.

2. Why should I object to giving the coaches credit for improving recruiting just because they are paid to improve recruiting. They are doing their job. And apparently that improvement is evidenced in the quality of the recruits.
Have we reached our goal of equality with USC or UW? No. But it is a heck of a lot better than under SD. And getting even better. (As an employer I have no problem encouraging and publicly congratulating employees when it is warranted)

No doubt talent helps but we all know it's a combination of factors that result in wins. And that competition is fierce for OKG who are the most talented. Build a program of all star Juniors and Seniors not an all star team of freshmen I say. It's better aligned with the university culture as a whole and the university is the big dog at the table not the coach.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

I agree that for Cal to become successful we must successfully recruit against the Big Schools.
And I agree that we have not been as successful as I would like in recent years.
But give credit where credit is due and don't cherry pick your data. The most recent recruit Paster had offers from UW, UCLA, UO and Utah.
Street had offers from UO, ASU, Utah, Fla.
Damien Moore had offers from Utah and ASU.
Christakos had offers from ASU, UA, Utah, Colo, Mich St, Neb, Ark
Butler had offers from UCLA
There are also others that had at least one other offer from the Big Schools. So it is unfair to portray recruiting to be as bad as in the SD era.

---

That's just the problem, recruiting is exactly that...cherry picking.

You say "give credit where credit is due." To whom, the players or the coaches or both?

Oh, I give all the credit in the world to the players that can get a university such as Cal to give them a scholarship. I say well done indeed!

Credit to the coaches? No way. Just recently someone here posted the salaries for the Cal assistant coaching staff. Damn, most of them make a cool quarter million dollars with added bonus opportunities. Keeping this in mind, take another look at the recruiting results that I've listed.

I acknowledge that some of the above recruits got a few Big School offers but not from their respective conferences as a collective whole. No, Cal's targets are more closely characteristically aligned with the MWC and/or Oregon State targets. I emphasized that such will not improve the Bears' offense, ergo, not much success as I see it.

---

I would give credit to both the players and the coaches for the improvement in recruiting.
You object to giving coaches credit because they are paid so much.
1. I don't have a problem with the coaches salaries since there have been many posts on this Board complaining that the coaches are not paid enough relative to their peers. Especially in view of the cost of living in the Bay Area.

2. Why should I object to giving the coaches credit for improving recruiting just because they are paid to improve recruiting. They are doing their job. And apparently that improvement is evidenced in the quality of the recruits.
Have we reached our goal of equality with USC or UW? No. But it is a heck of a lot better than under SD. And getting even better. (As an employer I have no problem encouraging and publicly congratulating employees when it is warranted)

---

I am not challenging the veracity of your (managerial abilities or) spread the credit benefcience philosophy. I do not deny Cal recruiting improvement, but like all Cal improvement it is only slight for the short term. I just think in this case its too short-sighted is all. I am thinking a little bit more broadly, like how may P12 play-off games, P12 championships, Rose Bowls, or Holiday Bowl bids have Cal earned lately? Furthermore, the coaches "are doing their job" as it is just ain't cuttin' it with me and shouldn't for anyone else given the question that I just posed.

I won't argue the fact that you cite that recruiting improvement is also reflected by "the quality of recruits." Its just that at the level you take this view is not, I believe, going to get Cal to real football success.

upsetof86 said:

---

No doubt talent helps but we all know it's a combination of factors that result in wins. And that competition is fierce for OKG who are the most talented. Build a program of all star Juniors and Seniors not an all star team of freshmen I say. It's better aligned with the university culture as a whole and the university is the big dog at the table not the coach.

---

Yes we will need to be a team of good juniors and seniors. This is the key to be consistent in the upper echelon of the PAC-12. This will also get us better recruits over time. As I said before at Cal it will take longer to get there because of this and smaller pool in general due to Cal being Cal. Nevertheless, I believe Wilcox is figuring it out the despite Cal being Cal, he can build strong teams knowing how to deal with that.

Maybe I don't understand you position [this is a distinct possibility]

I agree that i would like to see Cal become relevant again in the race for the PAC-12 championship every year. [Yes, I do too and for a very, very long time now.]

But in view of how low we were at the end of JT's tenure and how little improvement there was at the end of SD's tenure. I don't see how Cal could have made a quick recovery to championship relevance overnight (especially with all the problems facing Cal FB and Cal Athletics in general (including the problems with finances and academics).

To me it appears that Chancellor Christ has done a great job in getting the finances on the right track.

To me it also appears that improvement of performance on the field is on the right track. [I'm not so sure of what you posit here with respect to Coach Wilcox and staff. In part, yes, maybe.]

JW has turned one of the worst defenses in CFB into one of the best. And his recruiting on the Defensive side of the ball is among the best without sacrificing academic performance

The offense has been another story but also one of progress. [Ah yes, this is where I questioned your "improvement of performance" statement. When Sonny left Cal the Bears' offense was still ranked fairly high, i.e., it was 22nd out of 128 D1 teams, whereas, under Wilcox the offense seems to be plummeting. His offense was ranked 73rd out of 130 teams in 2017 and in 2018 it was an impoverished 116th out of 130 teams.] JW was hired too late in the recruiting cycle to make any improvement in his first year. The second year was sabotaged by inexperience and injuries [Even so, I don't see the "progress" in the offense for which you claim. And, as to my position, I don't see the upcoming recruiting as an indication for this offensive progress of which you believe is occurring. This is my concern per my OP.]

Yet it appears from the recruiting results so far that we are building the infrastructure of a solid (not great) Offense. "Great" will come only after we have demonstrated to potential recruits that there is a "there" there. [Again, this is my concern. Will "solid" improvement bring Cal success (as I've defined it). Looking at the current 2020 MWC-leaning recruiting that I've pointed out, I have my doubts.]

But I expect with a top 10 Defense Cal will show adequate success even with only a top 50 offense. [Well okay. But Cal is a long way away from having a "top 50 offense", I mean, Cal was 116th just last season? Wilcox may improve upon that number but with what he has now, I don't think by much.]

I see that JW has Cal on a logical steady path to success. But not overnight success. [I realize this which, again, has me concerned in that will Wilcox and company be around long enough to see the type of success to which I allude? At the moment, unlike you, I don't see it given the current recruiting where fellow-members of the P12 north division keep on significantly out-recruiting Cal where such seems to be at the MWC level.]

It apears to me that you want to see overnight success. But I don't see how thatcan be achieved without 1. Tons of money for coaches and 2. Improving recruiting by sacrificing academic performance

I don't see either 1 or 2 being viable at Cal. [Okay, I agree Cal won't have overnight success. Let's hope for Cal longterm success!

Blueblood said:

---

Maybe I don't understand you position [...that's a possibiity.]

I agree that i would like to see Cal become relevant again in the race for the PAC-12 championship every year. [Yes, I do too and for a very, very long time now.]

But in view of how low we were at the end of JT's tenure and how little improvement there was at the end of SD's tenure. I don't see how Cal could have made a quick recovery to championship relevance overnight (especially with all the problems facing Cal FB and Cal Athletics in general (including the problems with finances and academics). [I wasn't so concerned about Cal making "quick recovery" so much because Cal has really only had hit-n-miss "championship relevance" at best, i.e., the last time was under Tedford in 2008 where Cal was 4-1 against north div. schools, thus I feel consistently winning the north div. would be a good start to being considered championship relevant. (This is part of my position)]

To me it appears that Chancellor Christ has done a great job in getting the finances on the right track. [Okay?]

To me it also appears that improvement of performance on the field is on the right track. [I'm not so sure of what you posit here with respect to Coach Wilcox and staff. In part, yes, maybe.]

JW has turned one of the worst defenses in CFB into one of the best. And his recruiting on the Defensive side of the ball is among the best without sacrificing academic performance




The offense has been another story but also one of progress. [Ah yes, this is where I questioned your "improvement of performance" statement. When Sonny left Cal the Bears' offense was still ranked fairly high, i.e., it was 22nd out of 128 D1 teams, whereas, under Wilcox the offense seems to be plummeting. His offense was ranked 73rd out of 130 teams in 2017 and in 2018 it was an impoverished 116th out of 130 teams.] JW was hired too late in the recruiting cycle to make any improvement in his first year. The second year was sabotaged by inexperience and injuries [Even so, I don't see the "progress" in the offense for which you claim. And, as to my position, I don't see the upcoming recruiting contributing to this offensive progress of which you believe is occurring. This is my concern per my OP.]

Yet it appears from the recruiting results so far that we are building the infrastructure of a solid (not great) Offense. "Great" will come only after we have demonstrated to potential recruits that there is a "there" there. [Again, this is my concern. Will "solid" improvement bring Cal success (as I've defined it). Looking at the current 2020 MWC-leaning recruiting I have my doubts.]

But I expect with a top 10 Defense Cal will show adequate success even with only a top 50 offense.

I see that JW has Cal on a logical steady path to success. But Not overnight success

---

Thank you for your post. I understand your position a little better.

My only comments are:
1. I believe you over estimate the real strength of SD's offense.
It was often criticized on this Board as a gimmick offense.
Yes it was high scoring. But most of those high scoring games were against the weaker teams. When faced with the stronger teams the Offense sputtered and stalled.

Rarely did SD's team really challenge the good teams.
Also SD had the benefit of one of the best CFB QBs in the past 10 years. Followed by Webb who was a Pro-caliber QB
Last year Cal beat both UW the league champion and USC. Something that has not happened in a long time. To me that shows definite progress in just 2 years.

2. You and I disagree about the caliber of the current crop of recruits.
To me this year's recruits so far look much better than last year's recruits.
You point out that they have received too many offers from MWC teams.
I replied by pointing out that they also received offers from PAC-12 teams (other than Oregon State) and other good Football schools.
To me there is a definite improvement. And unlike many of the "great" recruiting classes from JT's tenure. All of these recruits have the smarts to remain at Cal.
I am not saying that JW can rest on his laurels. But I am saying he has made progress and there is every reason to expect him to continue improving the team.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

Maybe I don't understand you position [...that's a possibiity.]

I agree that i would like to see Cal become relevant again in the race for the PAC-12 championship every year. [Yes, I do too and for a very, very long time now.]

But in view of how low we were at the end of JT's tenure and how little improvement there was at the end of SD's tenure. I don't see how Cal could have made a quick recovery to championship relevance overnight (especially with all the problems facing Cal FB and Cal Athletics in general (including the problems with finances and academics). [I wasn't so concerned about Cal making "quick recovery" so much because Cal has really only had hit-n-miss "championship relevance" at best, i.e., the last time was under Tedford in 2008 where Cal was 4-1 against north div. schools, thus I feel consistently winning the north div. would be a good start to being considered championship relevant. (This is part of my position)]

To me it appears that Chancellor Christ has done a great job in getting the finances on the right track. [Okay?]

To me it also appears that improvement of performance on the field is on the right track. [I'm not so sure of what you posit here with respect to Coach Wilcox and staff. In part, yes, maybe.]

JW has turned one of the worst defenses in CFB into one of the best. And his recruiting on the Defensive side of the ball is among the best without sacrificing academic performance




The offense has been another story but also one of progress. [Ah yes, this is where I questioned your "improvement of performance" statement. When Sonny left Cal the Bears' offense was still ranked fairly high, i.e., it was 22nd out of 128 D1 teams, whereas, under Wilcox the offense seems to be plummeting. His offense was ranked 73rd out of 130 teams in 2017 and in 2018 it was an impoverished 116th out of 130 teams.] JW was hired too late in the recruiting cycle to make any improvement in his first year. The second year was sabotaged by inexperience and injuries [Even so, I don't see the "progress" in the offense for which you claim. And, as to my position, I don't see the upcoming recruiting contributing to this offensive progress of which you believe is occurring. This is my concern per my OP.]

Yet it appears from the recruiting results so far that we are building the infrastructure of a solid (not great) Offense. "Great" will come only after we have demonstrated to potential recruits that there is a "there" there. [Again, this is my concern. Will "solid" improvement bring Cal success (as I've defined it). Looking at the current 2020 MWC-leaning recruiting I have my doubts.]

But I expect with a top 10 Defense Cal will show adequate success even with only a top 50 offense.

I see that JW has Cal on a logical steady path to success. But Not overnight success

---

Thank you for your post. I understand your position a little better.

My only comments are:
1. I believe you over estimate the real strength of SD's offense.
It was often criticized on this Board as a gimmick offense.
Yes it was high scoring. But most of those high scoring games were against the weaker teams. When faced with the stronger teams the Offense sputtered and stalled.

Rarely did SD's team really challenge the good teams.
Also SD had the benefit of one of the best CFB QBs in the past 10 years. Followed by Webb who was a Pro-caliber QB
Last year Cal beat both UW the league champion and USC. Something that has not happened in a long time. To me that shows definite progress in just 2 years.

2. You and I disagree about the caliber of the current crop of recruits.
To me this year's recruits so far look much better than last year's recruits.
You point out that they have received too many offers from MWC teams.
I replied by pointing out that they also received offers from PAC-12 teams (other than Oregon State) and other good Football schools.
To me there is a definite improvement. And unlike many of the "great" recruiting classes from JT's tenure. All of these recruits have the smarts to remain at Cal.
I am not saying that JW can rest on his laurels. But I am saying he has made progress and there is every reason to expect him to continue improving the team.

---

Well stated. You are right and blueblood is wrong.

For someone who doesn't follow recruiting closely, like me, I think the # of total offers and % P5 offers or % MWC offers would be an interesting metric.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

Maybe I don't understand you position [...that's a possibiity.]

I agree that i would like to see Cal become relevant again in the race for the PAC-12 championship every year. [Yes, I do too and for a very, very long time now.]

But in view of how low we were at the end of JT's tenure and how little improvement there was at the end of SD's tenure. I don't see how Cal could have made a quick recovery to championship relevance overnight (especially with all the problems facing Cal FB and Cal Athletics in general (including the problems with finances and academics). [I wasn't so concerned about Cal making "quick recovery" so much because Cal has really only had hit-n-miss "championship relevance" at best, i.e., the last time was under Tedford in 2008 where Cal was 4-1 against north div. schools, thus I feel consistently winning the north div. would be a good start to being considered championship relevant. (This is part of my position)]

To me it appears that Chancellor Christ has done a great job in getting the finances on the right track. [Okay?]

To me it also appears that improvement of performance on the field is on the right track. [I'm not so sure of what you posit here with respect to Coach Wilcox and staff. In part, yes, maybe.]

JW has turned one of the worst defenses in CFB into one of the best. And his recruiting on the Defensive side of the ball is among the best without sacrificing academic performance




The offense has been another story but also one of progress. [Ah yes, this is where I questioned your "improvement of performance" statement. When Sonny left Cal the Bears' offense was still ranked fairly high, i.e., it was 22nd out of 128 D1 teams, whereas, under Wilcox the offense seems to be plummeting. His offense was ranked 73rd out of 130 teams in 2017 and in 2018 it was an impoverished 116th out of 130 teams.] JW was hired too late in the recruiting cycle to make any improvement in his first year. The second year was sabotaged by inexperience and injuries [Even so, I don't see the "progress" in the offense for which you claim. And, as to my position, I don't see the upcoming recruiting contributing to this offensive progress of which you believe is occurring. This is my concern per my OP.]

Yet it appears from the recruiting results so far that we are building the infrastructure of a solid (not great) Offense. "Great" will come only after we have demonstrated to potential recruits that there is a "there" there. [Again, this is my concern. Will "solid" improvement bring Cal success (as I've defined it). Looking at the current 2020 MWC-leaning recruiting I have my doubts.]

But I expect with a top 10 Defense Cal will show adequate success even with only a top 50 offense.

I see that JW has Cal on a logical steady path to success. But Not overnight success

---

Thank you for your post. I understand your position a little better.

My only comments are:
1. I believe you over estimate the real strength of SD's offense.
It was often criticized on this Board as a gimmick offense.
Yes it was high scoring. But most of those high scoring games were against the weaker teams. When faced with the stronger teams the Offense sputtered and stalled.

Rarely did SD's team really challenge the good teams.
Also SD had the benefit of one of the best CFB QBs in the past 10 years. Followed by Webb who was a Pro-caliber QB
Last year Cal beat both UW the league champion and USC. Something that has not happened in a long time. To me that shows definite progress in just 2 years.

2. You and I disagree about the caliber of the current crop of recruits.
To me this year's recruits so far look much better than last year's recruits.
You point out that they have received too many offers from MWC teams.
I replied by pointing out that they also received offers from PAC-12 teams (other than Oregon State) and other good Football schools.
To me there is a definite improvement. And unlike many of the "great" recruiting classes from JT's tenure. All of these recruits have the smarts to remain at Cal.
I am not saying that JW can rest on his laurels. But I am saying he has made progress and there is every reason to expect him to continue improving the team.

---

I sure enjoyed dropping 45 on Texas in Austin then dropping 50 on them the next year in Berkeley.

You win with a combination of offense and defense (and special teams), scoring more than you give up. I think the best overall measure of team strength is our Sagarin (Predictor) rankings which are pretty much unchanged over the last 4 years (in the 50s). We have not improved yet, we are finishing 5th in the PAC-12 North. Wilcox is well liked so that is a plus but the offense is terrible and I have seen nothing from Baldwin to inspire hope. Good news is he either surprises me this year or we get someone new next year, so the long term looks promising.

Trying to suss out how strong our recruiting actually has been is an interesting exercise. I question Blue's methodology, however. Suppose a recruit (regardless of stars) hold offers from UW, USC, tOSU, Alabama, and (because of where he's from) 3 or 4 of the top MWC schools (say FSU, BSU, etc.). Does that mean we are fishing in the MWC pool?

For some unknown reason my complete original reponse to GivemTheAxe will not reproduce.

So, please consider the following in addition thereto where appropriate:

But in view of how low we were at the end of JT's tenure and how little improvement there was at the end of SD's tenure. I don't see how Cal could have made a quick recovery to championship relevance overnight (especially with all the problems facing Cal FB and Cal Athletics in general (including the problems with finances and academics). [I wasn't so concerned about Cal making "quick recovery" so much because Cal has really only had hit-n-miss "championship relevance" at best, i.e., the last time was under Tedford in 2008 where Cal was 4-1 against north div. schools, thus I feel consistently winning the north div. would be a good start to being considered championship relevant. (This is part of my position)]


To me it appears that Chancellor Christ has done a great job in getting the finances on the right track. [I shan't quibble with this.]


JW has turned one of the worst defenses in CFB into one of the best. And his recruiting on the Defensive side of the ball is among the best without sacrificing academic performance [I wholeheartedly agree and do not question this fact. From what I understand that when Sonny left Cal's defense was ranked 127th out of 128 D1 teams and under Wilcox in his second season Cal's defense was ranked 22nd out of 130 teams. I am concerned that we've seen something like this, albeit offense instead of defense, before under Coach Dykes. In Tedford's last season his offense was ranked 93rd out of 124 D1 teams but by his second season at Cal Sonny had the Bears' offense ranked 11th out of 128 teams, but there was not much change in the defensive ranking where Cal was very poor 123rd out of 128.]

UrsaMajor said:

---

Trying to suss out how strong our recruiting actually has been is an interesting exercise. I question Blue's methodology, however. Suppose a recruit (regardless of stars) hold offers from UW, USC, tOSU, Alabama, and (because of where he's from) 3 or 4 of the top MWC schools (say FSU, BSU, etc.). Does that mean we are fishing in the MWC pool?

---

No, probably not. But, from what I see so far of the 2020 class (especially the offensive recruits) your hypo is
not the norm for the cited class at least as of to date. Such recruiting if a trend for the current coaching staff will not lead to success as I define it, let alone success in the P12 north division where any Cal success must first give birth.

calumnus said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

Maybe I don't understand you position [...that's a possibiity.]

I agree that i would like to see Cal become relevant again in the race for the PAC-12 championship every year. [Yes, I do too and for a very, very long time now.]

But in view of how low we were at the end of JT's tenure and how little improvement there was at the end of SD's tenure. I don't see how Cal could have made a quick recovery to championship relevance overnight (especially with all the problems facing Cal FB and Cal Athletics in general (including the problems with finances and academics). [I wasn't so concerned about Cal making "quick recovery" so much because Cal has really only had hit-n-miss "championship relevance" at best, i.e., the last time was under Tedford in 2008 where Cal was 4-1 against north div. schools, thus I feel consistently winning the north div. would be a good start to being considered championship relevant. (This is part of my position)]

To me it appears that Chancellor Christ has done a great job in getting the finances on the right track. [Okay?]

To me it also appears that improvement of performance on the field is on the right track. [I'm not so sure of what you posit here with respect to Coach Wilcox and staff. In part, yes, maybe.]

JW has turned one of the worst defenses in CFB into one of the best. And his recruiting on the Defensive side of the ball is among the best without sacrificing academic performance




The offense has been another story but also one of progress. [Ah yes, this is where I questioned your "improvement of performance" statement. When Sonny left Cal the Bears' offense was still ranked fairly high, i.e., it was 22nd out of 128 D1 teams, whereas, under Wilcox the offense seems to be plummeting. His offense was ranked 73rd out of 130 teams in 2017 and in 2018 it was an impoverished 116th out of 130 teams.] JW was hired too late in the recruiting cycle to make any improvement in his first year. The second year was sabotaged by inexperience and injuries [Even so, I don't see the "progress" in the offense for which you claim. And, as to my position, I don't see the upcoming recruiting contributing to this offensive progress of which you believe is occurring. This is my concern per my OP.]

Yet it appears from the recruiting results so far that we are building the infrastructure of a solid (not great) Offense. "Great" will come only after we have demonstrated to potential recruits that there is a "there" there. [Again, this is my concern. Will "solid" improvement bring Cal success (as I've defined it). Looking at the current 2020 MWC-leaning recruiting I have my doubts.]

But I expect with a top 10 Defense Cal will show adequate success even with only a top 50 offense.

I see that JW has Cal on a logical steady path to success. But Not overnight success

---

Thank you for your post. I understand your position a little better.

My only comments are:
1. I believe you over estimate the real strength of SD's offense.
It was often criticized on this Board as a gimmick offense.
Yes it was high scoring. But most of those high scoring games were against the weaker teams. When faced with the stronger teams the Offense sputtered and stalled.

Rarely did SD's team really challenge the good teams.
Also SD had the benefit of one of the best CFB QBs in the past 10 years. Followed by Webb who was a Pro-caliber QB
Last year Cal beat both UW the league champion and USC. Something that has not happened in a long time. To me that shows definite progress in just 2 years.

2. You and I disagree about the caliber of the current crop of recruits.
To me this year's recruits so far look much better than last year's recruits.
You point out that they have received too many offers from MWC teams.
I replied by pointing out that they also received offers from PAC-12 teams (other than Oregon State) and other good Football schools.
To me there is a definite improvement. And unlike many of the "great" recruiting classes from JT's tenure. All of these recruits have the smarts to remain at Cal.
I am not saying that JW can rest on his laurels. But I am saying he has made progress and there is every reason to expect him to continue improving the team.

---

I sure enjoyed dropping 45 on Texas in Austin then dropping 50 on them the next year in Berkeley.

You win with a combination of offense and defense (and special teams), scoring more than you give up. I think the best overall measure of team strength is our Sagarin (Predictor) rankings which are pretty much unchanged over the last 4 years (in the 50s). We have not improved yet, we are finishing 5th in the PAC-12 North. Wilcox is well liked so that is a plus but the offense is terrible and I have seen nothing from Baldwin to inspire hope. Good news is he either surprises me this year or we get someone new next year, so the long term looks promising.

---

Judging based upon Saragrin scores could prove misleading.
In SD's last 2 years he had everything going him offensively. One Great QB and one very good QB and a stable of excellent receivers.
Virtually all of those were gone by JW's first season.
Nevertheless in his first two years starting with no Offense whatsoever he matched SD's best performances and has the same Saragrin rating.
IMO if SD had remained he would have been without the services of Goff and Webb in Sonny's 5th year. I am positive his 5th year would have been worse than JW's first year
I doubt that Cal would currently have a Saragrin rating in the 50's.

Thank you for your post. I understand your position a little better.

My only comments are:

1. I believe you over estimate the real strength of SD's offense. It was often criticized on this Board as a gimmick offense. Yes it was high scoring. But most of those high scoring games were against the weaker teams. When faced with the stronger teams the Offense sputtered and stalled. [I go along with your observations. But nevertheless, I have to mention that Tedford left Sonny an offense that was ranked nationally 93rd out of 124 teams. So the offense was by no means a bed of roses. By his second season at Cal, Sonny had that offense ranked 11th out of 123 teams. So, like Wilcox's defense, Sonny's offense did take advantage of "weaker" teams, but yes, fell short against "stronger" teams (Sonny's defense was ranked that same season 123rd out of 128 teams) like Wilcox's defense did in 2017 against ranked teams (#5 u$C, #6 Washington, #20 stanfurd) and in 2018 (#19 Oregon, #10 Wazzu, NR stanfurd).

Rarely did SD's team really challenge the good teams. Also SD had the benefit of one of the best CFB QBs in the past 10 years. Followed by Webb who was a Pro-caliber QB (sic) Last year Cal beat both UW the league champion and USC. Something that has not happened in a long time. To me that shows definite progress in just 2 years. [Yes, solely with respect to the Bears' defense.]

2. You and I disagree about the caliber of the current crop of recruits. [Yes, it seems so.] To me this year's recruits so far look much better than last year's recruits. [I'm not so sure. I think it's difficult given that none of them have yet to play for Cal. All I will say is that they appear to be recruited from about the same level.]
You point out that they have received too many offers from MWC teams. I replied by pointing out that they also received offers from PAC-12 teams (other than Oregon State) and other good Football schools. To me there is a definite improvement. And unlike many of the "great" recruiting classes from JT's tenure. All of these recruits have the smarts to remain at Cal. [Whoa! I won't go that far in that I mean no disrespect to any recruit.]

I am not saying that JW can rest on his laurels. But I am saying he has made progress and there is every reason to expect him to continue improving the team. [I hope so, but I do have my doubts about Cal's offensive "progress" given the type of recruiting that I cite. My position is that any success is going to take good offensive and defensive recruiting which Wilcox, like Sonny, hasn't shown that he can bring such recruiting about yet. He may not have the time?]

As I understand it, based on the posts by MoragaBear, Wilcox & staff have their own rating/evaluation system, with the number of "stars" playing little importance in who they recruit.

I want to see Wilcox recruited players drafted by NFL teams - that is the best "measurement" of football playing talent imo.

Blueblood said:

---

UrsaMajor said:

---

Trying to suss out how strong our recruiting actually has been is an interesting exercise. I question Blue's methodology, however. Suppose a recruit (regardless of stars) hold offers from UW, USC, tOSU, Alabama, and (because of where he's from) 3 or 4 of the top MWC schools (say FSU, BSU, etc.). Does that mean we are fishing in the MWC pool?

---

No, probably not. But, from what I see so far of the 2020 class (especially the offensive recruits) your hypo is
not the norm for the cited class at least as of to date. Such recruiting if a trend for the current coaching staff will not lead to success as I define it, let alone success in the P12 north division where any Cal success must first give birth.

---

You may be right. The counter argument is that Wilcox an Friends have a different rating system and have found players that fit their system. Only time will tell.

Actually, the counter argument is to see through Blueblood's stupid crap.

For example, just looking at the first recruit, Trey Paster, was offered by the following:

Cal, AZ, Oregon, UCLA, Utah, Washington, SJSU, Nevada, and Fresno State.

Does this make him a MWC rated recruit? **** no!

This is a dumb analysis. He was offered by three of the top secondaries in the Pac 12.

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".

On the other hand, I would venture to believe most 4-5 star recruits are more focused on the NFL than ever before and by which school can they be show cased. That means a university that is winning, gets a lot of ink, and is on prime time every week. That isn't Cal. The irony, perhaps, is that the Bears DO send a lot of players to the NFL in spite of performing poorly.

Looks to me that 70% of the offer are not Mountain West.
That's without counting.
***?

azulviejo said:

---

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, 46 or 33% 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 67% 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 92 or 67% of the offers a little more closely. I found that 40 offers also came from P12 schools. This gives the MWC a slight 46 to 40 edge over the Pac12, but what about the still remaining 52 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 52 offers (note, I should've subtracted all the Oregon State offers too but I didn't). Doing this I increased the MWC pool by 42 offers for a total of 88 (I kept the MWC title because it was the dominant offeror).

So, 64% of the offers came from the MWC collective-level recruiting pool.

Figuring in the P12 offer 29% with the aforementioned 64%, it can be surmised that only 7% 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.

(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 percentage 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.)

"There, there, Blueblood. I love you even if
chazzed and oski003 don't!"

oski003 said:

---

Actually, the counter argument is to see through Blueblood's stupid crap.

For example, just looking at the first recruit, Trey Paster, was offered by the following:

Cal, AZ, Oregon, UCLA, Utah, Washington, SJSU, Nevada, and Fresno State.

Does this make him a MWC rated recruit? **** no!

This is a dumb analysis. He was offered by three of the top secondaries in the Pac 12.

---

I see your post and think of the saying, "Stupid is as stupid says" or is it "does?" Both apply with your posts.

With regards to Paster you are generally correct. However, he visited ucla and u$C for instance in April 2019.
I happen to know that interest in him started to wean (ergo only *** stars?) as more talented recruits became available or were identified, whereas Cal's offer wasn't made and accepted until just recently in July. Who knows if Cal hadn't offered maybe he would have been a MWC rated recruit?

In any event my stated position dealt with Cal's overall recruiting process not so much the tagging a specific recruting rating of any one recruit.

Blueblood said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Actually, the counter argument is to see through Blueblood's stupid crap.

For example, just looking at the first recruit, Trey Paster, was offered by the following:

Cal, AZ, Oregon, UCLA, Utah, Washington, SJSU, Nevada, and Fresno State.

Does this make him a MWC rated recruit? **** no!

This is a dumb analysis. He was offered by three of the top secondaries in the Pac 12.

---

I see your post and think of the saying, "Stupid is as stupid says" or is it "does?"

With regards to Paster you are generally correct. However, he visited ucla and u$C for instance in April 2019.
I happen to know that interest in him started to wean (ergo only *** stars?) whereas Cal's offer wasn't made and accepted until just recently in July. Who knows if Cal hadn't offered maybe he would have been a MWC rated recruit?

In any event my stated position dealt with Cal's overall recruiting process not so much the tagging a specific recruting rating of any one recruit.

---

If AZ, Oregon, UCLA, Utah, and Washington all hadn't offered then, yes, he could be considered a MWC rated recruit.

Since the opposite happened, considering him a MWC recruit and mentioning two P12 schools that he visited that did not offer (he committed to Cal 5 months before EARLY signing day), is cherry picking to achieve your goals.

oski003 said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Actually, the counter argument is to see through Blueblood's stupid crap.

For example, just looking at the first recruit, Trey Paster, was offered by the following:

Cal, AZ, Oregon, UCLA, Utah, Washington, SJSU, Nevada, and Fresno State.

Does this make him a MWC rated recruit? **** no!

This is a dumb analysis. He was offered by three of the top secondaries in the Pac 12.

---

I see your post and think of the saying, "Stupid is as stupid says" or is it "does?"

With regards to Paster you are generally correct. However, he visited ucla and u$C for instance in April 2019.
I happen to know that interest in him started to wean (ergo only *** stars?) whereas Cal's offer wasn't made and accepted until just recently in July. Who knows if Cal hadn't offered maybe he would have been a MWC rated recruit?

In any event my stated position dealt with Cal's overall recruiting process not so much the tagging a specific recruting rating of any one recruit.

---

If AZ, Oregon, UCLA, Utah, and Washington all hadn't offered then, yes, he could be considered a MWC rated recruit.

Since the opposite happened, considering him a MWC recruit and mentioning two P12 schools that he visited that did not offer (he committed to Cal 5 months before EARLY signing day), is cherry picking to achieve your goals.

---

It was not my intent to be concerned what type of rated recruit any particular recruit was considered. This is your concern apparently, not mine per se. To repeat, I am generally concerned with the overall level of recruiting pool (talent) that Cal is concentrating on.

Blueblood said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Actually, the counter argument is to see through Blueblood's stupid crap.

For example, just looking at the first recruit, Trey Paster, was offered by the following:

Cal, AZ, Oregon, UCLA, Utah, Washington, SJSU, Nevada, and Fresno State.

Does this make him a MWC rated recruit? **** no!

This is a dumb analysis. He was offered by three of the top secondaries in the Pac 12.

---

I see your post and think of the saying, "Stupid is as stupid says" or is it "does?"

With regards to Paster you are generally correct. However, he visited ucla and u$C for instance in April 2019.
I happen to know that interest in him started to wean (ergo only *** stars?) whereas Cal's offer wasn't made and accepted until just recently in July. Who knows if Cal hadn't offered maybe he would have been a MWC rated recruit?

In any event my stated position dealt with Cal's overall recruiting process not so much the tagging a specific recruting rating of any one recruit.

---

If AZ, Oregon, UCLA, Utah, and Washington all hadn't offered then, yes, he could be considered a MWC rated recruit.

Since the opposite happened, considering him a MWC recruit and mentioning two P12 schools that he visited that did not offer (he committed to Cal 5 months before EARLY signing day), is cherry picking to achieve your goals.

---

It was not my intent to be concerned what type of rated recruit any particular recruit was considered. This is your concern apparently, not mine per se. To repeat, I am generally concerned with the overall level of recruiting pool (talent) that Cal is concentrating on.

---

If AZ, Oregon, UCLA, Utah, and Washington all hadn't offered then, yes, he could be considered a MWC POOL recruit.

Since the opposite happened, considering him a MWC POOL recruit and mentioning two P12 schools that he visited that did not offer (he committed to Cal 5 months before EARLY signing day), is cherry picking to achieve your goals.
1 edit

oski003 said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Actually, the counter argument is to see through Blueblood's stupid crap.

For example, just looking at the first recruit, Trey Paster, was offered by the following:

Cal, AZ, Oregon, UCLA, Utah, Washington, SJSU, Nevada, and Fresno State.

Does this make him a MWC rated recruit? **** no!

This is a dumb analysis. He was offered by three of the top secondaries in the Pac 12.

---

I see your post and think of the saying, "Stupid is as stupid says" or is it "does?"

With regards to Paster you are generally correct. However, he visited ucla and u$C for instance in April 2019.
I happen to know that interest in him started to wean (ergo only *** stars?) whereas Cal's offer wasn't made and accepted until just recently in July. Who knows if Cal hadn't offered maybe he would have been a MWC rated recruit?

In any event my stated position dealt with Cal's overall recruiting process not so much the tagging a specific recruting rating of any one recruit.

---

If AZ, Oregon, UCLA, Utah, and Washington all hadn't offered then, yes, he could be considered a MWC rated recruit.

Since the opposite happened, considering him a MWC recruit and mentioning two P12 schools that he visited that did not offer (he committed to Cal 5 months before EARLY signing day), is cherry picking to achieve your goals.

---

It was not my intent to be concerned what type of rated recruit any particular recruit was considered. This is your concern apparently, not mine per se. To repeat, I am generally concerned with the overall level of recruiting pool (talent) that Cal is concentrating on.

---

If AZ, Oregon, UCLA, Utah, and Washington all hadn't offered then, yes, he could be considered a MWC POOL recruit.

Since the opposite happened, considering him a MWC POOL recruit and mentioning two P12 schools that he visited that did not offer (he committed to Cal 5 months before EARLY signing day), is cherry picking to achieve your goals.
1 edit

---

I guess so if that was how the information to which you refer to was presented but it wasn't. I presented my data without really specifically identifying any one recruit. Again, the rest of my data as I catagorized it supports my position. Your continued concentration on the one recruit that you brought up is a classic example of cherry picking.

With regards to Paster and every defensive committment, I am correct.

With regards to players on the offensive side of the ball, our recruits are not being offered by the top P5 offensive programs, with the exception of local P5 programs. For example, Filkins does not have a lot of P5 offers. However, he was offered by Oregon and Oregon St., his local schools.

How many MWC committed players have Cal offers?