This year, Cal will have beaten one team with a winning record in the regular season.

3,669 Views | 65 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by GBear4Life
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:




Yeah, Modster is a qualified backup. The issue is not that, it's having an offensive system where the backup can't easily step in and perform well.
When a back up comes in and plays poorly, its invariably a result of a poor offensive system and not reflective of the player's ability? You can't be serious.

Modster played well as a backup pressed into duty at UCLA. Yes, I think there is an issue with our system.

Yes, I am serious. Stop asking that like I'm obviously an idiot for not already agreeing with you. Make your case.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:




Yeah, Modster is a qualified backup. The issue is not that, it's having an offensive system where the backup can't easily step in and perform well.
When a back up comes in and plays poorly, its invariably a result of a poor offensive system and not reflective of the player's ability? You can't be serious.

Modster played well as a backup pressed into duty at UCLA. Yes, I think there is an issue with our system.

Yes, I am serious. Stop asking that like I'm obviously an idiot for not already agreeing with you. Make your case.
You haven't made one. Modster made 79 attempts in 2017 against two mediocre teams. You took an unreliable sample size and used it to prop up your predetermined narrative.

More relevant than that is the assertion that "a backup can't easily step in and perform well". Jesus H Christ most programs don't have ONE good QB, let alone two.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:




Yeah, Modster is a qualified backup. The issue is not that, it's having an offensive system where the backup can't easily step in and perform well.
When a back up comes in and plays poorly, its invariably a result of a poor offensive system and not reflective of the player's ability? You can't be serious.

Modster played well as a backup pressed into duty at UCLA. Yes, I think there is an issue with our system.

Yes, I am serious. Stop asking that like I'm obviously an idiot for not already agreeing with you. Make your case.
You haven't made one. Modster made 79 attempts in 2017 against two mediocre teams. You took an unreliable sample size and used it to prop up your predetermined narrative.

More relevant than that is the assertion that "a backup can't easily step in and perform well". Jesus H Christ most programs don't have ONE good QB, let alone two.

Of course there is going to be limited evidence of how good a backup QB is, but there is at least SOME evidence that Modster is competent. Most people thought so when he transferred here. This is not a "predetermined narrative," this is my conclusions based on what I have seen from the multiple quarterbacks who have seen the field in Baldwin's system. It seems like they all look awful until having a LOT of playing time under their belt. I'm not talking about mediocre, I'm talking about everyone starting at the bottom of the barrel. So yes, that tells me that Baldwin's system has a big issue with new QBs being able to "plug and play" as we see at other programs.

Do I know that for sure? Of course not. The evidence is still limited, and I may revise my opinions later. I'm just saying what I see as of now, and believe me it's not something I want to be true. I'd rather the truth be that Baldwin's offense is just about to bust out and become a brilliant machine once we get better recruits (and also that he can help get those recruits). Perhaps you can convince me that it is.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:




Yeah, Modster is a qualified backup. The issue is not that, it's having an offensive system where the backup can't easily step in and perform well.
When a back up comes in and plays poorly, its invariably a result of a poor offensive system and not reflective of the player's ability? You can't be serious.

Modster played well as a backup pressed into duty at UCLA. Yes, I think there is an issue with our system.

Yes, I am serious. Stop asking that like I'm obviously an idiot for not already agreeing with you. Make your case.
You haven't made one. Modster made 79 attempts in 2017 against two mediocre teams. You took an unreliable sample size and used it to prop up your predetermined narrative.

More relevant than that is the assertion that "a backup can't easily step in and perform well". Jesus H Christ most programs don't have ONE good QB, let alone two.

Of course there is going to be limited evidence of how good a backup QB is, but there is at least SOME evidence that Modster is competent. Most people thought so when he transferred here. This is not a "predetermined narrative," this is my conclusions based on what I have seen from the multiple quarterbacks who have seen the field in Baldwin's system. It seems like they all look awful until having a LOT of playing time under their belt. I'm not talking about mediocre, I'm talking about everyone starting at the bottom of the barrel. So yes, that tells me that Baldwin's system has a big issue with new QBs being able to "plug and play" as we see at other programs.

Do I know that for sure? Of course not. The evidence is still limited, and I may revise my opinions later. I'm just saying what I see as of now, and believe me it's not something I want to be true. I'd rather the truth be that Baldwin's offense is just about to bust out and become a brilliant machine once we get better recruits (and also that he can help get those recruits). Perhaps you can convince me that it is.
At the end of the day it's just apparent to me that personnel doesn't carry much weight here. It's ALWAYS a result of the coordinator/coach's competence but ONLY when it aligns with what we already perceive to be true (even though it's difficult to gauge anyways). If we think the coach sucks, any success is the result of the players stepping up.

I think many here played competitive team sports in HS, and it astonishes me to read that kind of perspective that dismisses personnel so much given this experience we've had.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:




Yeah, Modster is a qualified backup. The issue is not that, it's having an offensive system where the backup can't easily step in and perform well.
When a back up comes in and plays poorly, its invariably a result of a poor offensive system and not reflective of the player's ability? You can't be serious.

Modster played well as a backup pressed into duty at UCLA. Yes, I think there is an issue with our system.

Yes, I am serious. Stop asking that like I'm obviously an idiot for not already agreeing with you. Make your case.
You haven't made one. Modster made 79 attempts in 2017 against two mediocre teams. You took an unreliable sample size and used it to prop up your predetermined narrative.

More relevant than that is the assertion that "a backup can't easily step in and perform well". Jesus H Christ most programs don't have ONE good QB, let alone two.

Of course there is going to be limited evidence of how good a backup QB is, but there is at least SOME evidence that Modster is competent. Most people thought so when he transferred here. This is not a "predetermined narrative," this is my conclusions based on what I have seen from the multiple quarterbacks who have seen the field in Baldwin's system. It seems like they all look awful until having a LOT of playing time under their belt. I'm not talking about mediocre, I'm talking about everyone starting at the bottom of the barrel. So yes, that tells me that Baldwin's system has a big issue with new QBs being able to "plug and play" as we see at other programs.

Do I know that for sure? Of course not. The evidence is still limited, and I may revise my opinions later. I'm just saying what I see as of now, and believe me it's not something I want to be true. I'd rather the truth be that Baldwin's offense is just about to bust out and become a brilliant machine once we get better recruits (and also that he can help get those recruits). Perhaps you can convince me that it is.
At the end of the day it's just apparent to me that personnel doesn't carry much weight here. It's ALWAYS a result of the coordinator/coach's competence but ONLY when it aligns with what we already perceive to be true (even though it's difficult to gauge anyways). If we think the coach sucks, any success is the result of the players stepping up.

I think many here played competitive team sports in HS, and it astonishes me to read that kind of perspective that dismisses personnel so much given this experience we've had.

That's because in college sports players will move through but coaches remain. So you want coaches who can keep succeeding with different players. We are looking for evidence that this group can.

Yes, I think such coaches do exist.
Pigskin Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:


At the end of the day it's just apparent to me that personnel doesn't carry much weight here. It's ALWAYS a result of the coordinator/coach's competence but ONLY when it aligns with what we already perceive to be true (even though it's difficult to gauge anyways). If we think the coach sucks, any success is the result of the players stepping up.

I think many here played competitive team sports in HS, and it astonishes me to read that kind of perspective that dismisses personnel so much given this experience we've had.
It's the coaches' job to get good players. In college sports everything is ALWAYS the coaches' fault. Don't like it? Go coach in the pros where you can blame your GM for not getting you players that can execute your intricate system. Otherwise go sell insurance or something that you can be good at because you're obviously not good enough to be a college coordinator.

Enough different talent has passed through the system in three years that it's pretty conclusively either Baldwin's or Wilcox's fault that the offense stinks. Wilcox has more job security and one half of his team performs well, so he'll get one chance to fix it. And if for some reason Baldwin doesn't leave, Wilcox will pay the price if Baldwin continues being one of the worst P5 offensive coordinators.

Loyalty doesn't mean piss when you're in a production based line of work. Win or GTFO.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pigskin Pete said:

GBear4Life said:


At the end of the day it's just apparent to me that personnel doesn't carry much weight here. It's ALWAYS a result of the coordinator/coach's competence but ONLY when it aligns with what we already perceive to be true (even though it's difficult to gauge anyways). If we think the coach sucks, any success is the result of the players stepping up.

I think many here played competitive team sports in HS, and it astonishes me to read that kind of perspective that dismisses personnel so much given this experience we've had.
It's the coaches' job to get good players. In college sports everything is ALWAYS the coaches' fault. Don't like it? Go coach in the pros where you can blame your GM for not getting you players that can execute your intricate system. Otherwise go sell insurance or something that you can be good at because you're obviously not good enough to be a college coordinator.

Enough different talent has passed through the system in three years that it's pretty conclusively either Baldwin's or Wilcox's fault that the offense stinks. Wilcox has more job security and one half of his team performs well, so he'll get one chance to fix it. And if for some reason Baldwin doesn't leave, Wilcox will pay the price if Baldwin continues being one of the worst P5 offensive coordinators.

Loyalty doesn't mean piss when you're in a production based line of work. Win or GTFO.
I was amazed when I first joined the board in the Holmoe era with the paralysis by analysis that goes on especially with those that always, always, always want to "support the team". Their idea is that results are not enough evidence to make a change. You have to trace every failing directly to the coach.

Sorry. If your head coach is 2-10, the presumption is he has done a crappy job. If your OC has three terrible offenses, the presumption is he has done a terrible job. It is not incumbent on a fan who wants that coach replaced to demonstrate exactly how that coach's failings lead to the record. It is incumbent on the other side to explain the extenuating circumstances that show the coach can succeed despite the results to date.

I'm happy to listen. Inherited personnel issues. Injuries beyond the norm. Etc. But it is on those that want to keep a coach with poor results to make those arguments. And those arguments are not speculative "could be" arguments. They need to be "these are the problems leading to poor results and this is how they are getting fixed so that this coach will succeed". It doesn't matter whose fault anything is. All that matters is that Cal maximizes its chances for success.

I've been on the fence on Baldwin for a long time. Hung on the positive side until the Cheez It Bowl than moved to the negative side. I am somewhat sympathetic to some arguments on the positive side, but those are the arguments that need to be convincing. On the negative side, the record speaks for itself.

If he stays, with a ton of experienced personnel returning, with 4 years to have recruited, etc., the offense has to be GOOD. Not better. Not average. Not "good enough so the defense can win". Good in its own right. Taking positive steps to contribute to wins. I don't care what happens. I don't care if the entire starting lineup gets mono. No excuses. If Wilcox can't see this offense getting there, might as well make the change now.
evanluck
How long do you want to ignore this user?
XXXBEAR said:



Nope. Finished second (while picked for fifth) in the North. We are a team on the rise. The next two years will be the proof. We will turn close losses into wins and close the gap with the elite teams through improved recruitment due to our better results on the field.
That's the attitude we need as fans to positively contribute the the success that we all want Cal Football to experience. I do think you can easily envision the pieces falling together the next couple years. We bring back most everyone on the offense and although we lose some exceptional players on defense, it just feels like as a unit the D will still be solid, maybe even more balanced talent and contribution-wise across the group.

I believe in what Wilcox is building. It's not happening fast but you can see the foundation for something special!

Go Bears!
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

Pigskin Pete said:

GBear4Life said:


At the end of the day it's just apparent to me that personnel doesn't carry much weight here. It's ALWAYS a result of the coordinator/coach's competence but ONLY when it aligns with what we already perceive to be true (even though it's difficult to gauge anyways). If we think the coach sucks, any success is the result of the players stepping up.

I think many here played competitive team sports in HS, and it astonishes me to read that kind of perspective that dismisses personnel so much given this experience we've had.
It's the coaches' job to get good players. In college sports everything is ALWAYS the coaches' fault. Don't like it? Go coach in the pros where you can blame your GM for not getting you players that can execute your intricate system. Otherwise go sell insurance or something that you can be good at because you're obviously not good enough to be a college coordinator.

Enough different talent has passed through the system in three years that it's pretty conclusively either Baldwin's or Wilcox's fault that the offense stinks. Wilcox has more job security and one half of his team performs well, so he'll get one chance to fix it. And if for some reason Baldwin doesn't leave, Wilcox will pay the price if Baldwin continues being one of the worst P5 offensive coordinators.

Loyalty doesn't mean piss when you're in a production based line of work. Win or GTFO.
I was amazed when I first joined the board in the Holmoe era with the paralysis by analysis that goes on especially with those that always, always, always want to "support the team". Their idea is that results are not enough evidence to make a change. You have to trace every failing directly to the coach.

Sorry. If your head coach is 2-10, the presumption is he has done a crappy job. If your OC has three terrible offenses, the presumption is he has done a terrible job. It is not incumbent on a fan who wants that coach replaced to demonstrate exactly how that coach's failings lead to the record. It is incumbent on the other side to explain the extenuating circumstances that show the coach can succeed despite the results to date.

I'm happy to listen. Inherited personnel issues. Injuries beyond the norm. Etc. But it is on those that want to keep a coach with poor results to make those arguments. And those arguments are not speculative "could be" arguments. They need to be "these are the problems leading to poor results and this is how they are getting fixed so that this coach will succeed". It doesn't matter whose fault anything is. All that matters is that Cal maximizes its chances for success.

I've been on the fence on Baldwin for a long time. Hung on the positive side until the Cheez It Bowl than moved to the negative side. I am somewhat sympathetic to some arguments on the positive side, but those are the arguments that need to be convincing. On the negative side, the record speaks for itself.

If he stays, with a ton of experienced personnel returning, with 4 years to have recruited, etc., the offense has to be GOOD. Not better. Not average. Not "good enough so the defense can win". Good in its own right. Taking positive steps to contribute to wins. I don't care what happens. I don't care if the entire starting lineup gets mono. No excuses. If Wilcox can't see this offense getting there, might as well make the change now.
Speaking as a Baldwinphile, I agree 100% with your last paragraph. As many of us speculated earlier this year, the 2020 season is shaping up to be a true examination of Wilcox as a head coach. The schedule is friendly, the offense returns en masse and the D should be solid. As I said in another post, nine wins would not be a surprise....
oskidunker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Only three pac12 teams have winning records in conference. We are not the only ones with a losing record.
Last year is over,” Fox said. “Today we start to fight forward. We build for greater days.”
Cave Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oskidunker said:

Only three pac12 teams have winning records in conference. We are not the only ones with a losing record.
That only makes our conference record look worse to me
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cave Bear said:

oskidunker said:

Only three pac12 teams have winning records in conference. We are not the only ones with a losing record.
That only makes our conference record look worse to me
Another way of looking at it is that even with the losing conference record, Cal finished in the top half of the conference (whereas last year we were just outside of it).
Cal84
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

MathTeacherMike said:

I think Wilcox it solid, but short sighted. Wilcox is a 6-6,, 6-7, 7-6 type of coach. Most Cal fans seem to be content with that.

Recent evidence doesn't suggest they are. Sonny Dykes was that kind of coach and he got fired. People are just waiting and seeing if Wilcox can improve on his baseline.
I don't think most Cal fans would be happy with 6-6, if the team was 6-6 the prior year. If the team was 4-8 the prior year, then yeah, I think most Cal fans would be happy with 6-6. The point is that performance is relative, and primarily relative to the recent past. Now in our present case is this year better than last? Hmmm....maybe?

The real issue in my mind is that eventually after a number of .500 or barely above .500 seasons, expectations will ramp up. And at that point, I have to ask rhetorically, what justification does one have to expect better than average results (relative to other P12 teams, not to history) when we provide below average financial support to football (again relative to other P12 teams)?

So MathTeacherMike's might be more to the point if it was stated, "Most Cal Athletics administrators seem to be content with that".
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal84 said:

The real issue in my mind is that eventually after a number of .500 or barely above .500 seasons, expectations will ramp up. And at that point, I have to ask rhetorically, what justification does one have to expect better than average results (relative to other P12 teams, not to history) when we provide below average financial support to football (again relative to other P12 teams)?
The evidence is that once Tedford started winning and drove attendance, the investment increased as well. We got a remodeled stadium and new athletic center. That's how it works here.
Cal84
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Cal84 said:

The real issue in my mind is that eventually after a number of .500 or barely above .500 seasons, expectations will ramp up. And at that point, I have to ask rhetorically, what justification does one have to expect better than average results (relative to other P12 teams, not to history) when we provide below average financial support to football (again relative to other P12 teams)?
The evidence is that once Tedford started winning and drove attendance, the investment increased as well. We got a remodeled stadium and new athletic center. That's how it works here.
So your evidence is that if Cal is successful it plays catch up with the top tier teams in terms of infrastructure? That is not a stirring argument in favor of Cal being able to be a systemically top tier team. Let me ask you - in terms of the 12 P12 schools, where do you think Cal ranks in terms of financial support to football?
oskirules
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What if we say Cal lost 5 games, 4 to teams with winning records, 3 to teams currently ranked. Does that float the boat?
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal84 said:

sycasey said:

Cal84 said:

The real issue in my mind is that eventually after a number of .500 or barely above .500 seasons, expectations will ramp up. And at that point, I have to ask rhetorically, what justification does one have to expect better than average results (relative to other P12 teams, not to history) when we provide below average financial support to football (again relative to other P12 teams)?
The evidence is that once Tedford started winning and drove attendance, the investment increased as well. We got a remodeled stadium and new athletic center. That's how it works here.
So your evidence is that if Cal is successful it plays catch up with the top tier teams in terms of infrastructure? That is not a stirring argument in favor of Cal being able to be a systemically top tier team. Let me ask you - in terms of the 12 P12 schools, where do you think Cal ranks in terms of financial support to football?
My argument would be that in order to truly "catch up" with the other top conference teams there needs to be sustained winning. Yes, we are waging an uphill battle in doing so, but that seems to be the path. I think it's possible. We have seen evidence that investment can increase when the team starts showing it can win.

I also think that there has been a different attitude since Tedford. We've been flailing a bit since he suffered his downslide after 2009, but the flailing at least indicates the school is actively searching for another winner and not just accepting a losing program as it did for most of the prior decades. So honestly I'm not sure what to expect when we hit on one again. My suspicion is that the support will come more readily, but it's a little bit of uncharted waters here.
Cal84
How long do you want to ignore this user?
>My argument would be that in order to truly "catch up" with the other top conference teams there needs to be sustained winning. Yes, we are waging an uphill battle in doing so, but that seems to be the path. I think it's possible. We have seen evidence that investment can increase when the team starts showing it can win.

I can't argue with this. It's just my frustration that we fight an uphill battle...
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

Star this post if you do not care (and then reply to explain why not)!!!
Because we know we are not all the way there. Until we get to 9/10/11 wins it is likely that we will rarely beat teams with winning records.
socaltownie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

Pigskin Pete said:

GBear4Life said:


At the end of the day it's just apparent to me that personnel doesn't carry much weight here. It's ALWAYS a result of the coordinator/coach's competence but ONLY when it aligns with what we already perceive to be true (even though it's difficult to gauge anyways). If we think the coach sucks, any success is the result of the players stepping up.

I think many here played competitive team sports in HS, and it astonishes me to read that kind of perspective that dismisses personnel so much given this experience we've had.
It's the coaches' job to get good players. In college sports everything is ALWAYS the coaches' fault. Don't like it? Go coach in the pros where you can blame your GM for not getting you players that can execute your intricate system. Otherwise go sell insurance or something that you can be good at because you're obviously not good enough to be a college coordinator.

Enough different talent has passed through the system in three years that it's pretty conclusively either Baldwin's or Wilcox's fault that the offense stinks. Wilcox has more job security and one half of his team performs well, so he'll get one chance to fix it. And if for some reason Baldwin doesn't leave, Wilcox will pay the price if Baldwin continues being one of the worst P5 offensive coordinators.

Loyalty doesn't mean piss when you're in a production based line of work. Win or GTFO.
I was amazed when I first joined the board in the Holmoe era with the paralysis by analysis that goes on especially with those that always, always, always want to "support the team". Their idea is that results are not enough evidence to make a change. You have to trace every failing directly to the coach.

Sorry. If your head coach is 2-10, the presumption is he has done a crappy job. If your OC has three terrible offenses, the presumption is he has done a terrible job. It is not incumbent on a fan who wants that coach replaced to demonstrate exactly how that coach's failings lead to the record. It is incumbent on the other side to explain the extenuating circumstances that show the coach can succeed despite the results to date.

I'm happy to listen. Inherited personnel issues. Injuries beyond the norm. Etc. But it is on those that want to keep a coach with poor results to make those arguments. And those arguments are not speculative "could be" arguments. They need to be "these are the problems leading to poor results and this is how they are getting fixed so that this coach will succeed". It doesn't matter whose fault anything is. All that matters is that Cal maximizes its chances for success.

I've been on the fence on Baldwin for a long time. Hung on the positive side until the Cheez It Bowl than moved to the negative side. I am somewhat sympathetic to some arguments on the positive side, but those are the arguments that need to be convincing. On the negative side, the record speaks for itself.

If he stays, with a ton of experienced personnel returning, with 4 years to have recruited, etc., the offense has to be GOOD. Not better. Not average. Not "good enough so the defense can win". Good in its own right. Taking positive steps to contribute to wins. I don't care what happens. I don't care if the entire starting lineup gets mono. No excuses. If Wilcox can't see this offense getting there, might as well make the change now.
The problem Oaktown is that at 90% of the schools we compete against the football coach is essentially a god among men in the pecking order at the university. Want Bubba to throw the ball? Well sure coach. We can teach him his ABCs eventually.

So no, you do NOT and can not trace every failing to the HC at CAL. It is simple the case that the Bears TRY to play D1 football with at least a 2 win handicap. Not impossible but damm hard.

Cause riddle me this batman. I am almost POSSITVE that Money doesn't get in under the new rules and I wouldn't be adverse to betting a top dog that neither does Butte Community College's finest. There goes the argument that "cal has won in the past"
Pigskin Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oskirules said:

What if we say Cal lost 5 games, 4 to teams with winning records, 3 to teams currently ranked. Does that float the boat?
Oh please, can we concoct average scenarios that we'll find palatable?

**** that. Win or GTFO.
Pigskin Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:


We've been flailing a bit since he suffered his downslide after 2006
Fixed it for you. 2009 was nothing to get excited about and 2008 was an aberration in the period from 2007 to 2013.
Oakbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
don't know about the number of teams having winning records as the key stat

but Sagarin has us #45 playing the 27th toughest scedule .. kind of depends who your losing teams are.. the pac 12 didn't really have any 'weak' losing teams,
Pigskin Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oakbear said:

don't know about the number of teams having winning records as the key stat

but Sagarin has us #45 playing the 27th toughest scedule .. kind of depends who your losing teams are.. the pac 12 didn't really have any 'weak' losing teams,
The Pac 12 didn't really have any good teams other than the two that are playing in the conference championship.
Cal84
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The argument would be that WE were a pretty good (but not elite) team until we got decimated by injuries. Keep in mind we held a reasonable Ole Miss offense to 20 points - they put 31 on Bama the very next week. Sure we had no depth and thus couldn't sustain our fast start over the course of a grinding season, but #45 doesn't seem ridiculous to me. Hell, we are ranked #33 in the AP poll.
Pigskin Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal84 said:

The argument would be that WE were a pretty good (but not elite) team until we got decimated by injuries. Keep in mind we held a reasonable Ole Miss offense to 20 points - they put 31 on Bama the very next week. Sure we had no depth and thus couldn't sustain our fast start over the course of a grinding season, but #45 doesn't seem ridiculous to me. Hell, we are ranked #33 in the AP poll.
I don't play the Cal fan what if game.
Cal84
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's not what if - we are ranked #33 in the AP poll THIS WEEK.
Pigskin Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal84 said:

It's not what if - we are ranked #33 in the AP poll THIS WEEK.
#33 out of 130.

Cal89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As someone noted above, Sagarin has us with the 27th toughest schedule, and we are currently ranked 33rd in the AP poll. The 8 points per game we scored in October cost us at least one game, quite possibly two. With some semblance of health, we look to be top 25 material...

Considering Cal's roster is comprised of recruiting classes that averages just outside the top 40 over the past four years, based upon average star rankings, JW and staff are delivering upside. And, there is more being left on the table, obviously - the poor offensive production.

Win the bowl game, and show continued improvement offensively, and we'll have good reason to be encouraged about 2020.

Sig test...
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pigskin Pete said:

sycasey said:


We've been flailing a bit since he suffered his downslide after 2006
Fixed it for you. 2009 was nothing to get excited about and 2008 was an aberration in the period from 2007 to 2013.

2009 was an 8-win season with an exciting Big Game victory. I'll include it if I like thanks.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pigskin Pete said:


It's the coaches' job to get good players. In college sports everything is ALWAYS the coaches' fault. Don't like it? Go coach in the pros where you can blame your GM for not getting you players that can execute your intricate system. Otherwise go sell insurance or something that you can be good at because you're obviously not good enough to be a college coordinator.

Enough different talent has passed through the system in three years that it's pretty conclusively either Baldwin's or Wilcox's fault that the offense stinks. Wilcox has more job security and one half of his team performs well, so he'll get one chance to fix it. And if for some reason Baldwin doesn't leave, Wilcox will pay the price if Baldwin continues being one of the worst P5 offensive coordinators.

Loyalty doesn't mean piss when you're in a production based line of work. Win or GTFO.
What's the coach's fault again?

And which coach? HC or coordinator.

So is all success also because of them? Or can fans choose which ever narrative they won't despite knowing JACK?

Not one person denies the reality of what IS: head coaches get fired when W-L don't meet (whomever's) expectation, and coordinators get fired when their unit's production doesn't meet the HC's expectations.

What I'm objecting to is that in either case the W-L variable is actually reflective of the coach's "ability" or "value as a coach". Even delusional fans and pressured Administrators don't believe that otherwise 80% of coaches would have no career since most of them have "failed" in their careers but were rehired elsewhere
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.