I have searched every (except the dark web) for tid bit of information about Modster playing this year. I thought I read somewhere he would have to sit out the amount of games he played in last year. Any word out there?

So who doesn't expect him to be eligible Saturday?

Maybe all this clock and dagger stuff is because he is expected to play. Wouldn't think it's worth the secrecy if he's just going to sit.

Suffice to say it's annoying. There must be a clear factual basis (there are rules) as to when he is eligible. Guess if Garbers was lighting it up, no one would care.

SmellinRoses said:

---

There must be a clear factual basis (there are rules) as to when he is eligible.

---

There is: One year for transfers, but subject to whether one has a sick grandmother or makes up some other story for the NCAA to allow for a waiver.

Maybe that has been the plan all along..... start CG, don't have him turnover the ball, provide a vanilla offense to throw off the scent, go 3-0 and get ranked, game time decision and Modster starts, he throws for over 400 yards and 5 TD'S.....BB is a brilliant OC.......man that was a good dream......

ColoradoBear said:

---

SmellinRoses said:

---

There must be a clear factual basis (there are rules) as to when he is eligible.

---

There is: One year for transfers, but subject to whether one has a sick grandmother or makes up some other story for the NCAA to allow for a waiver.

---

Didn't he already sit out a year? Redshirted his frosh year at UCLA in 2016, played a year as a RS frosh in 2017, and left UCLA to attend Palomar JC for 2018, where he was not on the football team, as I understand it. Maybe the NCAA wants him to actually be enrolled in his future D1 school, and do his sitting out year at that school, and not just be out of football entirely in that year. If that is the case, it may be an unusual one, and the NCAA rule may not cover what he has done, and they can't make up their minds about it.

SFCityBear said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

SmellinRoses said:

---

There must be a clear factual basis (there are rules) as to when he is eligible.

---

There is: One year for transfers, but subject to whether one has a sick grandmother or makes up some other story for the NCAA to allow for a waiver.

---

Didn't he already sit out a year? Redshirted his frosh year at UCLA in 2016, played a year as a RS frosh in 2017, and left UCLA to attend Palomar JC for 2018, where he was not on the football team, as I understand it. Maybe the NCAA wants him to actually be enrolled in his future D1 school, and do his sitting out year at that school, and not just be out of football entirely in that year. If that is the case, it may be an unusual one, and the NCAA rule may not cover what he has done, and they can't make up their minds about it.

---

He didn't leave UCLA football until around Sept 21,2018 which was after their 3rd game. I believe this is really simple.

An article came out August 11, it states Wilcox will here from the NCAA one week later about Modster's eligibility. Sure has bee a helluva long week.....

Here is the main reason now:

A whole whole lot of people in Oxford, MS would love to know about the eligibility of our QB so that they account for it in their week-long game prepration for this Saturday. And, if you and I know about it, they will know about it. That is why you and I don't know about it.

Go Bears, Beat the Rebels!

P.S. He will be eligible either this Saturday or the Friday after that.

Does anybody really think Modster is the answer?

CALiforniALUM said:

---

Does anybody really think Modster is the answer?

---

Now, that is the real question.

Go Bears!

calbear80 said:

---

Here is the main reason now:

A whole whole lot of people in Oxford, MS would love to know about the eligibility of our QB so that they account for it in their week-long game prepration for this Saturday. And, if you and I know about it, they will know about it. That is why you and I don't know about it.

Go Bears, Beat the Rebels!

P.S. He will be eligible either this Saturday or the Friday after that.

---

Agree. I also think this is why Coach Wilcox is keeping the injury information quiet.

We just need a different answer than Chase. But more and more I'm beginning to think it's the offensive coaches (BB and Tui in particular) that need to be changed out. ZERO progress in 3 years ... How can you have three years to just get to average and you can't do that?

SFCityBear said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

SmellinRoses said:

---

There must be a clear factual basis (there are rules) as to when he is eligible.

---

There is: One year for transfers, but subject to whether one has a sick grandmother or makes up some other story for the NCAA to allow for a waiver.

---

Didn't he already sit out a year? Redshirted his frosh year at UCLA in 2016, played a year as a RS frosh in 2017, and left UCLA to attend Palomar JC for 2018, where he was not on the football team, as I understand it. Maybe the NCAA wants him to actually be enrolled in his future D1 school, and do his sitting out year at that school, and not just be out of football entirely in that year. If that is the case, it may be an unusual one, and the NCAA rule may not cover what he has done, and they can't make up their minds about it.

---

I vote for this.

CALiforniALUM said:

---

Does anybody really think Modster is the answer?

---

I don't know if he is the "answer". But, IMO, defense oriented teams are underestimated because they win ugly. I think our fans are underestimating us. I look at UW's offense against us and think they played poorly. Yet they have been stellar in their other two games. UW destroyed a solid Hawaii team by half time (38-0) and then coasted. Frankly, I think it was us, not them.

The defense is as good as any in the country and that will take us pretty far.

The offense is not good, but it just needs to be as good as it was against UW for us to challenge the top of the North. To keep that up, we need some competence in the passing game. Doesn't need to be good. Just good enough. That is either coming from Garbers just getting better, Someone else being able to deliver the ball to receivers, or Baldwin finding a way to use scheme to help the QB enough.

One option would be Modster playing for us like he did for UCLA. If he did that, would he be the driving force behind our victories? No. The defense would be. But if the question is how to make Cal competitive with the top of the Pac-12 North, he could be one "answer". (as could a somewhat improved Garbers or a significantly improved Baldwin).

PaulCali said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

SmellinRoses said:

---

There must be a clear factual basis (there are rules) as to when he is eligible.

---

There is: One year for transfers, but subject to whether one has a sick grandmother or makes up some other story for the NCAA to allow for a waiver.

---

Didn't he already sit out a year? Redshirted his frosh year at UCLA in 2016, played a year as a RS frosh in 2017, and left UCLA to attend Palomar JC for 2018, where he was not on the football team, as I understand it. Maybe the NCAA wants him to actually be enrolled in his future D1 school, and do his sitting out year at that school, and not just be out of football entirely in that year. If that is the case, it may be an unusual one, and the NCAA rule may not cover what he has done, and they can't make up their minds about it.

---

I vote for this.

---

Actually, sorry. Not this. Plenty of other people have done what Modster is doing.

So if he can play within the next couple of weeks, he would have the rest of this year and another two years of eligibility?

PaulCali said:

---

So if he can play within the next couple of weeks, he would have the rest of this year and another two years of eligibility?

---

A player has 5 years of eligibility to play 4. For Modster, that would be 2016-2020. Sixth years are only granted if a player has TWO years lost for medical reasons.

72CalBear said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

Here is the main reason now:

A whole whole lot of people in Oxford, MS would love to know about the eligibility of our QB so that they account for it in their week-long game prepration for this Saturday. And, if you and I know about it, they will know about it. That is why you and I don't know about it.

Go Bears, Beat the Rebels!

P.S. He will be eligible either this Saturday or the Friday after that.

---

Agree. I also think this is why Coach Wilcox is keeping the injury information quiet.

---

we're going to surprise them by being massively injured. they'll never know what him 'em.

ColoradoBear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

SmellinRoses said:

---

There must be a clear factual basis (there are rules) as to when he is eligible.

---

There is: One year for transfers, but subject to whether one has a sick grandmother or makes up some other story for the NCAA to allow for a waiver.

---

Didn't he already sit out a year? Redshirted his frosh year at UCLA in 2016, played a year as a RS frosh in 2017, and left UCLA to attend Palomar JC for 2018, where he was not on the football team, as I understand it. Maybe the NCAA wants him to actually be enrolled in his future D1 school, and do his sitting out year at that school, and not just be out of football entirely in that year. If that is the case, it may be an unusual one, and the NCAA rule may not cover what he has done, and they can't make up their minds about it.

---

He didn't leave UCLA football until around Sept 21,2018 which was after their 3rd game. I believe this is really simple.

---

Here's what's not simple about it:

What, according to the NCAA, constitutes "leaving" the previous school? You mentioned "leave UCLA football". Okay, is it that, or withdraw from UCLA as a student? If it is, indeed, "leave UCLA football", what does that mean, exactly? Tell the coach that one is leaving? Tweet it? Sign some official paperwork giving up the scholarship?

Once we know what "leaving" entails, then it seems pretty simple, but I'm not sure I've seen that defined here.

ColoradoBear said:

---

So who doesn't expect him to be eligible Saturday?

Maybe all this clock and dagger stuff is because he is expected to play. Wouldn't think it's worth the secrecy if he's just going to sit.

---

Yah, I'm sure Wilcox was keeping him under wraps against UW so he could unveil him at Ole Miss. Because he's just that stupid.

Don't get your hopes up, people. Modster's likely not playing this season at all. And if he did, he'd be playing for Baldwin, so there wouldn't be much change in production from the QB. What you see this season is what you get, it isn't going to change. The truth is right there in front of us.

calbear80 said:

---

Here is the main reason now:

A whole whole lot of people in Oxford, MS would love to know about the eligibility of our QB so that they account for it in their week-long game prepration for this Saturday. And, if you and I know about it, they will know about it. That is why you and I don't know about it.

Go Bears, Beat the Rebels!

P.S. He will be eligible either this Saturday or the Friday after that.

---

Somebody explain how an opponent prepares differently for us, if they have knowledge that Modster MIGHT play? Because I'm not seeing it, especially since Garbers and Modster are somewhat similar, in terms of strengths, weaknesses and style.

Now, if it were Chase Garbers or Nate Longshore, I might see it.

Big C said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

ColoradoBear said:

---

SmellinRoses said:

---

There must be a clear factual basis (there are rules) as to when he is eligible.

---

There is: One year for transfers, but subject to whether one has a sick grandmother or makes up some other story for the NCAA to allow for a waiver.

---

Didn't he already sit out a year? Redshirted his frosh year at UCLA in 2016, played a year as a RS frosh in 2017, and left UCLA to attend Palomar JC for 2018, where he was not on the football team, as I understand it. Maybe the NCAA wants him to actually be enrolled in his future D1 school, and do his sitting out year at that school, and not just be out of football entirely in that year. If that is the case, it may be an unusual one, and the NCAA rule may not cover what he has done, and they can't make up their minds about it.

---

He didn't leave UCLA football until around Sept 21,2018 which was after their 3rd game. I believe this is really simple.

---

Here's what's not simple about it:

What, according to the NCAA, constitutes "leaving" the previous school? You mentioned "leave UCLA football". Okay, is it that, or withdraw from UCLA as a student? If it is, indeed, "leave UCLA football", what does that mean, exactly? Tell the coach that one is leaving? Tweet it? Sign some official paperwork giving up the scholarship?

Once we know what "leaving" entails, then it seems pretty simple, but I'm not sure I've seen that defined here.

---

Sure, we might not know the exact date, but it really should not be hard to define an exact date and since this does happen often, the NCAA should have a definition already. For Modster, it seems the window would be pretty small since he'd be counted if he was a rostered player for game 3 and had to withdraw from classes before the start of the fall quarter (which is listed as Monday 9/24/2018).

Whatever date is the magic date, add a year, unless there was a sick grandmother involved.

Big C said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

Here is the main reason now:

A whole whole lot of people in Oxford, MS would love to know about the eligibility of our QB so that they account for it in their week-long game prepration for this Saturday. And, if you and I know about it, they will know about it. That is why you and I don't know about it.

Go Bears, Beat the Rebels!

P.S. He will be eligible either this Saturday or the Friday after that.

---

Somebody explain how an opponent prepares differently for us, if they have knowledge that Modster MIGHT play? Because I'm not seeing it, especially since Garbers and Modster are somewhat similar, in terms of strengths, weaknesses and style.

Now, if it were Chase Garbers or Nate Longshore, I might see it.

---

They are different. Modster can stretch defenses. Garbers is a very good runner who avoids turnovers. Assuming it doesn't screw up anyone's head, I'd have Modster play until we get to the other teams 25 yard line. Then, it's Garbers time!

oski003 said:

---

Big C said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

Here is the main reason now:

A whole whole lot of people in Oxford, MS would love to know about the eligibility of our QB so that they account for it in their week-long game prepration for this Saturday. And, if you and I know about it, they will know about it. That is why you and I don't know about it.

Go Bears, Beat the Rebels!

P.S. He will be eligible either this Saturday or the Friday after that.

---

Somebody explain how an opponent prepares differently for us, if they have knowledge that Modster MIGHT play? Because I'm not seeing it, especially since Garbers and Modster are somewhat similar, in terms of strengths, weaknesses and style.

Now, if it were Chase Garbers or Nate Longshore, I might see it.

---

They are different. Modster can stretch defenses. Garbers is a very good runner who avoids turnovers. Assuming it doesn't screw up anyone's head, I'd have Modster play until we get to the other teams 25 yard line. Then, it's Garbers time!

---

LOL didn't we do that with Goff and Rubenzer?

The answer is simple...executive privilege!

CALiforniALUM said:

---

Does anybody really think Modster is the answer?

---

Not sure about that. But it's now quite clear that Garbers isn't.

KoreAmBear said:

---

oski003 said:

---

..... Modster can stretch defenses. Garbers is a very good runner who avoids turnovers. .....

---

LOL didn't we do that with Goff and Rubenzer?

---

Actually, that wasn't bad.

oski003 said:

---

Big C said:

---

calbear80 said:

---

Here is the main reason now:

A whole whole lot of people in Oxford, MS would love to know about the eligibility of our QB so that they account for it in their week-long game prepration for this Saturday. And, if you and I know about it, they will know about it. That is why you and I don't know about it.

Go Bears, Beat the Rebels!

P.S. He will be eligible either this Saturday or the Friday after that.

---

Somebody explain how an opponent prepares differently for us, if they have knowledge that Modster MIGHT play? Because I'm not seeing it, especially since Garbers and Modster are somewhat similar, in terms of strengths, weaknesses and style.

Now, if it were Chase Garbers or Nate Longshore, I might see it.

---

They are different. Modster can stretch defenses. Garbers is a very good runner who avoids turnovers. Assuming it doesn't screw up anyone's head, I'd have Modster play until we get to the other teams 25 yard line. Then, it's Garbers time!

---

What some here don't get is there may be only a tiny advantage to keeping information from your opponent. It may actually be zero. But one thing that is 100% clear - there is no strategic advantage whatsoever to telling anyone. I get that people want to know. Frankly get over yourself. Why do you need to know before the game starts? Wilcox is paid to think strategically about everything, big and small. If there is a 1% chance we will gain half a yard more by not publicly announcing availability, that is what we should do.

Yes, I get it transparency. How do we know what he coach is doing a good job? (For goodness sake people have demanded in here that we play the backup QB so we could decide for ourselves if the coach chose right). It isn't, however, our job to determine if the coach is doing a good job. You are just going to have to form your opinion based on available information. Feel free to hold it against the coach if you want. That is fair. ButWilcox will stay or go based on how the team on the field performs, not speculation about what some one else does or the timeliness of his injury/eligibility reports.

CalPaTroll said:

---

GI have searched every (except the dark web) for tid bit of information about Modster playing this year. I thought I read somewhere he would have to sit out the amount of games he played in last year. Any word out there?

---

Why? Because it is none of your business. That's why.

calbear80 said:

---

CALiforniALUM said:

---

Does anybody really think Modster is the answer?

---

Now, that is the real question.

Go Bears!

---

None of the QBs are the answer to the offense getting better. They will be as good as the line in front of them, so that line has to stop getting injured so seriously and so often that they can't achieve much consistency and cohesiveness. Two starters out of five are out for the season, and a 3rd stater is also out at present, hopefully temporarily, so the backups will have to improve steadily for the QBs to do the same. To fault Baldwin or Garbers for all of this is misplaced, in my opinion. I pointed out in another post, our offense is putting some points on the board, and they are not giving the opponent the ball with fumbles and INTs. When our offense starts losing games, I'll start worrying.

Go Bears!

My guess is we may learn something soon . Be patient. A guy that hasn't played in a year may make mistakes. He may also have some upside. If Garbers keeps running most of the time we can only hope we don't find out due to an injury.

CalPaTroll said:

---

I have searched every (except the dark web) for tid bit of information about Modster playing this year. I thought I read somewhere he would have to sit out the amount of games he played in last year. Any word out there?

---

The UCLA stats show that Modster did not play in any UCLA games last year, or if he did, he accumulated no statistics.

71Bear said:

---

CalPaTroll said:

---

GI have searched every (except the dark web) for tid bit of information about Modster playing this year. I thought I read somewhere he would have to sit out the amount of games he played in last year. Any word out there?

---

Why? Because it is none of your business. That's why.

---

Oh c'mon. You could make that argument about ANY staff/player contact with the media. The coaches and players don't NEED to talk to the press. Why is their analysis of what happened in the game, or their reaction to what happened, any of our business?

The reason it's our business is that, even though it's only entertainment, somehow we care about it enough to where we're curious. And we are the ones that buy the tickets and sit through the TV commercials that provide the team with the revenue that they use to subsist and to help other non-revenue sports subsist. We are the ones that stand up and yell "Go Bears!" Even though spectator sports are just a diversion, for some reason we care enough to be curious and they ought to be glad that we are.

So give us a little something to satisfy our curiosity. Do we want them to publicize info that our opponents can clearly use to their advantage? Of course not. If a player has a very personal situation that is keeping him off the field, are we demanding that it be divulged in detail? Of course not.

Whether Devon Modster MIGHT play on Saturday makes NO EFFING DIFFERENCE in the way Ole Miss is going to prepare.

Wilcox ought to learn to court the media and the fans a little bit, a la Don Nelson, just like Cal Athletics ought to learn to court the loyal fans that have been coming to the games for decades.

LOL, all the people who spend their valuable time here discussing Cal Football and Basketball and then say that information about them is none of our business.

Big C said:

---

71Bear said:

---

CalPaTroll said:

---

GI have searched every (except the dark web) for tid bit of information about Modster playing this year. I thought I read somewhere he would have to sit out the amount of games he played in last year. Any word out there?

---

Why? Because it is none of your business. That's why.

---

Oh c'mon. You could make that argument about ANY staff/player contact with the media. The coaches and players don't NEED to talk to the press. Why is their analysis of what happened in the game, or their reaction to what happened, any of our business?

The reason it's our business is that, even though it's only entertainment, somehow we care about it enough to where we're curious. And we are the ones that buy the tickets and sit through the TV commercials that provide the team with the revenue that they use to subsist and to help other non-revenue sports subsist.

So give us a little something to satisfy our curiosity. Do we want them to publicize info that our opponents can clearly use to their advantage? Of course not. If a player has a very personal situation that is keeping him off the field, are we demanding that it be divulged in detail? Of course not.

Whether Devon Modster MIGHT play on Saturday makes NO EFFING DIFFERENCE in the way Ole Miss is going to prepare.

Wilcox ought to learn to court the media and the fans a little bit, a la Don Nelson, just like Cal Athletics ought to learn to court the loyal fans that have been coming to the games for decades.

LOL, all the people who spend their valuable time here discussing Cal Football and Basketball and then say that information about them is none of our business.

---

Just out of curiosity, how many people have stopped purchasing tix to Cal games because of Wilcox's secrecy?

And why did attendance and interest in the program soar during the Tedford era despite the fact he never gave the media more than a morsel or two during his entire tenure?

Fans don't give a damn about access to information if the team is winning.

Heck, I really don't care about anything Wilcox says or doesn't say. I do care whether he is developing a winning program.

Do you think Bama fans whine about Saban's closed mouth approach to disseminating info? Nope. National championships have a way of getting a fan base to accept a secret regime.

Bottom line - Winning is the balm to all perceived issues.........