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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

oskidunker said:

---

Only three pac12 teams have winning records in conference. We are not the only ones with a losing record.

---

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

---

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.

---

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)?

---

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.

---

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?

---

Big C said:

---

Star this post if you do not care (and then reply to explain why not)!!!

---

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.

---

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?

---

sycasey said:

---

We've been flailing a bit since he suffered his downslide after 2006

---

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,

---

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.

---

Cal84 said:

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---