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.