71Bear said:

---

Overall, many posters, including me, had Cal going 7-5. Therefore, the Bears hit our predicted target. Based on how the 7-5 was achieved, it is still fair to go back and suggest it could have been better (or worse).

IMO, Cal would have exceeded the target had Garbers not gone down with an injury. Therefore, my biggest criticism was Wilcox's failure to find a #2 ready to play in case of injury. You simply do not go into a season without a competent #2 at the most important position on the team.
On the plus side, despite experiencing a "regression to the mean" pertaining to turnovers, the D held up well, especially the LB corps.
Special teams were a bit shaky. Hopefully, next season, Cal can find another "Doug Brien" from the high school ranks to come in and deliver better than the 65% FG success rate we saw this season.

Overall, I give the season a "meets expectations" evaluation. However, I would also suggest that the program is on notice that next year expectations will ramp up considerably due to the favorable "even year schedule" and the number of returnees. 9 wins? Why not?

---

I disagree with the methodology most are using here. To me "meets expectations" should not be a function of what I predict we would do the day before the season started compared to what we did. If that is your methodology, if you suck your expectations suck. So meeting expectations means you suck at the same level you thought. Exceeding can mean you sucked a little less. That isn't success.

I think you need to look at what you expect from a coach when he is hired. I think a fair expectation is that he produces a winning record in conference in 3 years. We didn't do have that, so I'm going to say narrowly failed to meet expectations. I can't give 3 years without a winning record in conference a meets expectations.

That doesn't mean I don't believe we would have done better without some injuries. Doesn't mean I'm pessimistic. I'm actually very optimistic for next year. I support the staff, but their record is what it is. If Cal doesn't have a winning record in conference next year, they have to seriously contemplate a change. If we do something like 3-9, a change needs to be made.

I don't think that happens. I think we go 6-3 or better in conference. I believe our roster is slowly but surely getting deeper and better. But at some point the results have to come regardless of injuries or anything else. For me, a losing record in conference 3 years in or later always fails to meet expectations. Failing to meet expectations one year is not a catastrophe, but I don't think defining it otherwise is healthy.

I am going to go against the grain slightly and say the season actually did all three - met, exceeded and missed expectations.

On the whole, a 7-5 season met my expectations going into the season. Road games at Ole Miss, UCLA and Stanford looked especially tough in the pre-season, but we had the defensive talent for 6-6, 7-5 or 8-4 had things broken well. So, the end result met my expectations.

Coming out of the Ole Miss game 4-0 and humming in many ways, finishing 7-5 significantly missed my revised expectations. We had the promise of a magical season (magical for Cal, of course... I wasn't thinking national championship).

However, when we were sitting 4-4 and coming off a massive drubbing at the hands of Utah (not to mention a brutal loss to Oregon State), I didn't think we would get to six wins, let alone seven, so sitting at 7-5 exceeded my mid-season expectations.

Given how the team has played the last two games and assuming everyone stays healthy through the bowl practices, my expectations are to finish 8-5 and have some momentum going into the off-season. Anything less than that will be a disappointment.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

UrsineMaximus said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

UrsineMaximus said:

---

missed. regardless of injuries the development and recruiting on the offense side of the ball has been piss poor for three years. the coaches own that including Wilcox. but the coaches on the offense have failed in "multiple" ways. no way around that regardless of W/L.

---

Before the first game was played how many wins did you expect the team to have this season?

---

I did not predict W/L. I was only interested in player development and depth especially on the offense side of the ball although I was curious about the DL. Suffice it to say that the offense and specifically the staff did not meet my expectations on development.

---

Disagree as to the offense especially the QB: Garbers.
He had major problems as QB. BB took on the added responsibility of QB coach. It paid off BIG TIME. Garbers was a new man this year.

---

This is the only positive comment on Beau Baldwin I have seen all season on this Forum. Beau had an unproven QB, an offensive line with only one planned starter able to play, no proven receivers, and a running back a little banged up. He somehow resurrected Garbers, cobbled together an O-line, trained enough receivers to put together a patchwork offense which could win 7 games. Maybe he should get no credit for this, and should have done a whole lot better, but I'm happy with the offensive results this year, given all the problems Baldwin was faced with, most not of his making, and the total lack of fan support for him. Not only lack of support, but many calls for his head on a platter. Maybe he comes back, maybe not. But he was not the offensive Andy Buh, by a long shot. I hope he can keep the offense on track to reverse the embarrassment of last year's bowl game.

GivemTheAxe said:

---

UrsineMaximus said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

UrsineMaximus said:

---

missed. regardless of injuries the development and recruiting on the offense side of the ball has been piss poor for three years. the coaches own that including Wilcox. but the coaches on the offense have failed in "multiple" ways. no way around that regardless of W/L.

---

Before the first game was played how many wins did you expect the team to have this season?

---

I did not predict W/L. I was only interested in player development and depth especially on the offense side of the ball although I was curious about the DL. Suffice it to say that the offense and specifically the staff did not meet my expectations on development.

---

Disagree as to the offense especially the QB: Garbers.
He had major problems as QB. BB took on the added responsibility of QB coach. It paid off BIG TIME. Garbers was a new man this year.

---

Couldn't disagree more, Garbers' mechanics have regressed since high school (go look at his high school tape). Where Garbers has excelled is at running, in fact, in some games he led the team in rushing. Which would be fine if that was BB's system, it's not, so granted Chase has carried the team at times. Still not a good offense nor good player development over the past 3 years.

SFCityBear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

UrsineMaximus said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

UrsineMaximus said:

---

missed. regardless of injuries the development and recruiting on the offense side of the ball has been piss poor for three years. the coaches own that including Wilcox. but the coaches on the offense have failed in "multiple" ways. no way around that regardless of W/L.

---

Before the first game was played how many wins did you expect the team to have this season?

---

I did not predict W/L. I was only interested in player development and depth especially on the offense side of the ball although I was curious about the DL. Suffice it to say that the offense and specifically the staff did not meet my expectations on development.

---

Disagree as to the offense especially the QB: Garbers.
He had major problems as QB. BB took on the added responsibility of QB coach. It paid off BIG TIME. Garbers was a new man this year.

---

This is the only positive comment on Beau Baldwin I have seen all season on this Forum. Beau had an unproven QB, an offensive line with only one planned starter able to play, no proven receivers, and a running back a little banged up. He somehow resurrected Garbers, cobbled together an O-line, trained enough receivers to put together a patchwork offense which could win 7 games. Maybe he should get no credit for this, and should have done a whole lot better, but I'm happy with the offensive results this year, given all the problems Baldwin was faced with, most not of his making, and the total lack of fan support for him. Not only lack of support, but many calls for his head on a platter. Maybe he comes back, maybe not. But he was not the offensive Andy Buh, by a long shot. I hope he can keep the offense on track to reverse the embarrassment of last year's bowl game.

---

Most of Cal's wins were against the weaker defenses in the Pac 12 or at best mediocre teams (don't all of our wins come against teams with losing records save Udbub??). Sure, the injuries hurt the team but BB is responsible for a lot more than W/L, for example: player development and recruiting. If you are a CEO and this level of management / performance meets your expectation than fine, so be it. The body of work over 3 + years is a failure or perhaps a C+ if you use the furd inflation method.

UrsineMaximus said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

GivemTheAxe said:

---

UrsineMaximus said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

UrsineMaximus said:

---

missed. regardless of injuries the development and recruiting on the offense side of the ball has been piss poor for three years. the coaches own that including Wilcox. but the coaches on the offense have failed in "multiple" ways. no way around that regardless of W/L.

---

Before the first game was played how many wins did you expect the team to have this season?

---

I did not predict W/L. I was only interested in player development and depth especially on the offense side of the ball although I was curious about the DL. Suffice it to say that the offense and specifically the staff did not meet my expectations on development.

---

Disagree as to the offense especially the QB: Garbers.
He had major problems as QB. BB took on the added responsibility of QB coach. It paid off BIG TIME. Garbers was a new man this year.

---

This is the only positive comment on Beau Baldwin I have seen all season on this Forum. Beau had an unproven QB, an offensive line with only one planned starter able to play, no proven receivers, and a running back a little banged up. He somehow resurrected Garbers, cobbled together an O-line, trained enough receivers to put together a patchwork offense which could win 7 games. Maybe he should get no credit for this, and should have done a whole lot better, but I'm happy with the offensive results this year, given all the problems Baldwin was faced with, most not of his making, and the total lack of fan support for him. Not only lack of support, but many calls for his head on a platter. Maybe he comes back, maybe not. But he was not the offensive Andy Buh, by a long shot. I hope he can keep the offense on track to reverse the embarrassment of last year's bowl game.

---

Most of Cal's wins were against the weaker defenses in the Pac 12 or at best mediocre teams (don't all of our wins come against teams with losing records save Udbub??). Sure, the injuries hurt the team but BB is responsible for a lot more than W/L, for example: player development and recruiting. If you are a CEO and this level of management / performance meets your expectation than fine, so be it. The body of work over 3 + years is a failure or perhaps a C+ if you use the furd inflation method.

Would you continue to be critical of BB if he had Jackson, Lynch, Best, Vereen and Rodgers as offensive players? He simply does not have 4-5 star players on offense. I question his playcalling but overall, I think he has done what he could with the talent he has.

---

johngalenhoward said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Slightly lower completion percentage, less effective running, more yards per reception (receivers had better yac?) the big improvement was he reduced the number of interceptions. Otherwise he has not changed as much as the narrative about him has changed.

---

First off, INTs is a crucial stat you seem to brush aside as trivial.

Secondly, if you have not seen major improvement in Garbers from last year to the end of this year then you are either trolling or blind. Your numbers are obviously cherry picked as you conveniently left out passer rating, number of snaps played, YPA, and improvement over the course of the season. Terrible analysis.

---

Me: "The big improvement was he reduced the number of interceptions"
How is that "brushing it aside as trivial"? I agree, that is critical. It is one of the things you look for going from freshman to sophomore year. A throw you can get away with against HS DBs is going to get picked in college.

My argument is he was better than people gave him credit for last year. He completed more than 60% of his passes. He throws to the open guy, based on the play call, based on who is open. The number of yards per catch depend on where the receiver is when Garbers throws it and where they end up.

2018 receptions player yards per catch
51 Laird 5.65
50 Wharton 10.04
34 Ways 11.26
30 Noa 12.30
20 Duncan 13.35
18 Bunting 10.83
16 Hawkins 11.06
11 Remigio. 5.64

254 Total. 9.53

2019 receptions player yards per catch
34 Remigio 14.03
25 Duncan 14.56
21 Clark 11.90
19 Dancy 7.89
19 Brown 7.84
14 Crawford 17.36
14 Polk 13.57
13 Reinwald 11.08
10 Tonges 19.70

182 Total 12.58

Our leading receiver last year was Laird with 51 catches for 5.65 ypc. That is going to lower you yards per catch considerably. Our top WRs: Wharton, Ways, and Noa were essentially possession receivers at 10-12 Ypc. Importantly Duncan was hurt, Remigio mostly caught screens and had the freshman dropsies.

This year we lost the three sure handed (but relatively slow) WRs and we did not throw as many screen passes, or when we did, WRs made more plays. The difference was our ability to stretch the field with Remigio, Duncan and Crawford (when healthy). Polk looks to have some speed too. Having that deep threat was the major missing component in the passing game the last two years. Chase's throws on long balls don't look that different, the WRs he's throwing to do.

My position last year was Chase was a good QB, especially for a RS freshman, and not our biggest issue on offense. He was wrongly criticized. He has definitely improved as one would expect, but not having Laird as the #1 receiver and increased speed at WR has been a bigger factor for his yards per catch stats. I think not having to split series with McIlwain helped as did playing all our non conference patsies and missing or playing little against 4 of the 5 strongest defenses (#4 Utah, #18 Oregon, #34 UW, #60 ASU and #73 USC) on our schedule.

Finishing big against #108 defense Stanford and #122 UCLA helped. Might even have saved Baldwin in some people's minds.

People forget Garbers had big games last year too because that was mostly in the beginning of the season.

With continued development of our WRs (and possibly a new OC) Garbers will look even better next year.

It seemed like last year turnovers were the biggest problem. Not just with Garbers but all the quarterbacks. I appreciate a quarterback who takes care of the ball and he certainly has. He has shown a lot in the last two games, on the road and against traditional rivals. This year met my expectations. The biggest difference between this year and last year is optimism. I have a reason to be excited about next year I wasn't happy with the way last year ended.

OaktownBear said:

---

I disagree with the methodology most are using here. To me "meets expectations" should not be a function of what I predict we would do the day before the season started compared to what we did. If that is your methodology, if you suck your expectations suck. So meeting expectations means you suck at the same level you thought. Exceeding can mean you sucked a little less. That isn't success.

I think you need to look at what you expect from a coach when he is hired. I think a fair expectation is that he produces a winning record in conference in 3 years. We didn't do have that, so I'm going to say narrowly failed to meet expectations. I can't give 3 years without a winning record in conference a meets expectations.

That doesn't mean I don't believe we would have done better without some injuries. Doesn't mean I'm pessimistic. I'm actually very optimistic for next year. I support the staff, but their record is what it is. If Cal doesn't have a winning record in conference next year, they have to seriously contemplate a change. If we do something like 3-9, a change needs to be made.

I don't think that happens. I think we go 6-3 or better in conference. I believe our roster is slowly but surely getting deeper and better. But at some point the results have to come regardless of injuries or anything else. For me, a losing record in conference 3 years in or later always fails to meet expectations. Failing to meet expectations one year is not a catastrophe, but I don't think defining it otherwise is healthy.

---

7-5 was my benchmark for a successful season this year, based on who they brought back and my expectation that the conference would be better than it was, primarily because I thought the schedule worked against us.

Year 4 is the year of no excuses. Almost everybody on your team was recruited by you. It's win or GTFO time. Which is why the question of "do you still support Wilcox if he retains Baldwin" is meaningless to me. Regardless of who his assistants are, it's time to have a winning conference record next year. If he can't do that, then I think it's time to start thinking about a new coach.

71Bear said:

---

Overall, many posters, including me, had Cal going 7-5. Therefore, the Bears hit our predicted target. Based on how the 7-5 was achieved, it is still fair to go back and suggest it could have been better (or worse).

IMO, Cal would have exceeded the target had Garbers not gone down with an injury. Therefore, my biggest criticism was Wilcox's failure to find a #2 ready to play in case of injury. You simply do not go into a season without a competent #2 at the most important position on the team.
On the plus side, despite experiencing a "regression to the mean" pertaining to turnovers, the D held up well, especially the LB corps.
Special teams were a bit shaky. Hopefully, next season, Cal can find another "Doug Brien" from the high school ranks to come in and deliver better than the 65% FG success rate we saw this season.

Overall, I give the season a "meets expectations" evaluation. However, I would also suggest that the program is on notice that next year expectations will ramp up considerably due to the favorable "even year schedule" and the number of returnees. 9 wins? Why not?

---

Going into the season, I felt there were several "50/50" games. Those games were
@ Ole Miss
ASU
@Furd
@UCLA

We went 3-1 in those games and that exceeded my expectations.
I think everyone can agree that beating UW in Seattle exceeded expectations, even though Washington was pretty tame this year.
Losing to Oregon and Utah and beating WSU met my expectations but getting blown out by USC and losing the way we did to OSU, regardless of the level of improvement of each team as the season progressed, definitely did not meet my expectations.

Garbers far exceeded my expectations and, late in the season, the young WRs also exceeded my expectations, however the TEs did not meet my expectations. And our punter Coutts was a complete disappointment.

As for the D, overall they met my expectations but I was disappointed in the open field tackling and the pass D and I worry about next year when we have to rely on folks other than Weaver to make tackles consistently throughout the season.

Baldwin met my expectations, which was not good and DeRuyter, I feel, slightly regressed. But I like the job Wilcox is doing overall.

I do not have greater expectations for Cal next season and I feel folks are really underestimating the impact of losing Weaver. About 50% of the Cal defense this season, could not make an open field tackle if their life depended on it. Paul, Weaver, Hawkins and Goode stood out. The others, not so much. Also, I do not feel like we can count on the top pac-12 teams being down again next season. Specially, I think Furd, UCLA and USC will be significantly improved. And I would not count on beating UW again, even though it is at home and even though we have Chris Petersen's number. Remember Petersen is retiring. I do think we can beat OSU and ASU next season however. So we should do about the same--maybe 6-6. But going to a bowl for a 3rd straight year is not too shabby.

Also, I agree with whoever posted that the pac-12 this year was much below expectations. Furd, UCLA, Washington and WSU all had seasons much below expectations and we were able to win all of those games. That made a huge difference. Considering how bad Furd was this season, we really should beaten them soundly. Instead, we squeaked it out barely. But beating Furd, UCLA and Washington all on the road not only exceeded my expectations, it made history. Because it has never happened before in a single season.

Overall, 7-5 exceeded my expectations, but, like I said, if I had known how bad UCLA, UW and Furd were going to be this season, I probably would have predicted an 8 or 9 win season instead of a 5 or 6 win season..

Actually the Pac 12 is up this year over last year, with better wins OOC and overall a better ranking.

The wins against a tougher schedule this year vs last year mean something. Winning on the road at Washington, Ole Miss, Furd (OK - Cal has more fans there) mean something. But at the end of the day, we are still 7-5 and still have a statistically poor offense.

All that being said, WSU has a great offense, and yet gets beat by UW and Cal fairly consistently. So that is a discussion point - is our defense holding our offense back. You need to look at efficiency ratings to make a determination about that, and that is difficult. We play fewer downs than other teams, and they play fewer downs when they play us. We hold teams to an average of 12 points below their average, so we need to be efficient about when we have the ball. That being said, I am sure that any analysis of our offense would be that it needs to get better.

How does that happen? Better recruiting for sure, but also player development (backup QB, more linemen, etc) and better depth.

Our defense regressed a bit as well, I think mainly because we went to a base 4 set DL package due to personnel changes, and that took away some of the blitzing capabilities that we had last year. Getting stronger in the middle of the line is key, and it seems like we have some recruits who can help us there. That will be key to getting back to a more destabilizing defense in the next years. But that was a factor of shallow depth again.

We are really into the second year of Wilcoxes recruits. I see greater depth in almost all phases of the game, except for the kickers. And I see recruiting getting better each year. We have not had that breakout recruit that we had with Marshawn and DeSean, but that will come as we win 10 games next year.

Go Bears!

Met expectations. This was a 7-5 team (according to me and many others) and that's what we still are at season's end, although we took a roundabout path to get there.

I never bought the excuse that the schedule was so hard ("Oh, it's an ODD year!"). Our A/B/C out-of-conference was more like B+/C/C. To the conference's credit, I will say that the Pac 12 had a "high floor" this season. (How 'bout dem Beavers!)

The injuries were something of a story, mid-season, but we ended up getting a lot of those guys back.

Second winning season (and bowl game) in a row. Victories over UW and UCLA and... we get the Axe back! Not bad, all things considered.

Time to parlay this into improved recruiting and taking the next step up. Next year, finishing 7-5 would be a disappointment. Not sure if we can win the conference, but we should be able to compete for it, for the first time in a long time.

Go Bears!

Big C said:

---

I never bought the excuse that the schedule was so hard ("Oh, it's an ODD year!"). Our A/B/C out-of conference was more like B+/C/C. To the conference's credit, I will say that the Pac 12 had a "high floor" this season. (How 'bout dem Beavers!)

---

Sagarin has Cal with the 27th toughest schedule in 2019, versus 54th in 2018.
https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/2019/team/

Massey has it rated similarly: 21st this year, 59th last year.
https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/fbs

Billingsley a bit different, but still stronger this year: 45th in 2019, 61st in 2018.
https://cfrc.com/ranking/billingsley-report-118/

Anderson & Hester has: 59th in 2019, 64th in 2018.
http://www.andersonsports.com/football/ACF_frnk.html

College Football Reference has us 34th in 2019, 61st in 2018.
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/california/2019.html
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/california/2018.html

So I do buy that the schedule was tougher this year. Just about all of the rankings confirm it to various degrees. Given that, I buy this year as an overall improvement on last year, pending the bowl game. Even the losing conference record has to be measured against the fact that only three teams had winning conference records in the Pac-12, period. Cal at least seems to be in the top half of the conference this year, versus last year being just outside of it.

71Bear said:

---

Overall, many posters, including me, had Cal going 7-5. Therefore, the Bears hit our predicted target. Based on how the 7-5 was achieved, it is still fair to go back and suggest it could have been better (or worse).

IMO, Cal would have exceeded the target had Garbers not gone down with an injury. Therefore, my biggest criticism was Wilcox's failure to find a #2 ready to play in case of injury. You simply do not go into a season without a competent #2 at the most important position on the team.
On the plus side, despite experiencing a "regression to the mean" pertaining to turnovers, the D held up well, especially the LB corps.
Special teams were a bit shaky. Hopefully, next season, Cal can find another "Doug Brien" from the high school ranks to come in and deliver better than the 65% FG success rate we saw this season.

Overall, I give the season a "meets expectations" evaluation. However, I would also suggest that the program is on notice that next year expectations will ramp up considerably due to the favorable "even year schedule" and the number of returnees. 9 wins? Why not?

---

My expectations vacillated from low to high at different stages.

I was cautiously optimistic before the season started.

I was delusional and thought about Rose Bowl (without saying it out loud) after the first four games.

I was expecting 4-8 after the Utah game.

What I am now is pleased with the results, and cautiously optimistic about next season

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

I never bought the excuse that the schedule was so hard ("Oh, it's an ODD year!"). Our A/B/C out-of conference was more like B+/C/C. To the conference's credit, I will say that the Pac 12 had a "high floor" this season. (How 'bout dem Beavers!)

---

Sagarin has Cal with the 27th toughest schedule in 2019, versus 54th in 2018.
https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/2019/team/

Massey has it rated similarly: 21st this year, 59th last year.
https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/fbs

Billingsley a bit different, but still stronger this year: 45th in 2019, 61st in 2018.
https://cfrc.com/ranking/billingsley-report-118/

Anderson & Hester has: 59th in 2019, 64th in 2018.
http://www.andersonsports.com/football/ACF_frnk.html

College Football Reference has us 34th in 2019, 61st in 2018.
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/california/2019.html
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/california/2018.html

So I do buy that the schedule was tougher this year. Just about all of the rankings confirm it to various degrees. Given that, I buy this year as an overall improvement on last year, pending the bowl game. Even the losing conference record has to be measured against the fact that only three teams had winning conference records in the Pac-12, period. Cal at least seems to be in the top half of the conference this year, versus last year being just outside of it.

---

As long as the conference uses its current scheduling plan, the odd years will always be tougher than the even years for Cal.

71Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Big C said:

---

I never bought the excuse that the schedule was so hard ("Oh, it's an ODD year!"). Our A/B/C out-of conference was more like B+/C/C. To the conference's credit, I will say that the Pac 12 had a "high floor" this season. (How 'bout dem Beavers!)

---

Sagarin has Cal with the 27th toughest schedule in 2019, versus 54th in 2018.
https://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/2019/team/

Massey has it rated similarly: 21st this year, 59th last year.
https://www.masseyratings.com/cf/fbs

Billingsley a bit different, but still stronger this year: 45th in 2019, 61st in 2018.
https://cfrc.com/ranking/billingsley-report-118/

Anderson & Hester has: 59th in 2019, 64th in 2018.
http://www.andersonsports.com/football/ACF_frnk.html

College Football Reference has us 34th in 2019, 61st in 2018.
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/california/2019.html
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/california/2018.html

So I do buy that the schedule was tougher this year. Just about all of the rankings confirm it to various degrees. Given that, I buy this year as an overall improvement on last year, pending the bowl game. Even the losing conference record has to be measured against the fact that only three teams had winning conference records in the Pac-12, period. Cal at least seems to be in the top half of the conference this year, versus last year being just outside of it.

---

As long as the conference uses its current scheduling plan, the odd years will always be tougher than the even years for Cal.

---

For the home/road situation usually yeah. In even years we get Oregon/UCLA/UW/Furd at home. In odd years we get USC/OSU/WSU. The former group is usually tougher than the latter. We get one more conference game at home in even years (though you can argue this doesn't matter much since Stanford doesn't have much home field advantage).

Though I think the biggest difference in scheduling was playing Arizona/Colorado last year and Utah/ASU this year. The latter group was stronger both years.

I think special teams was the area where Cal regressed the most. The punting was not consistent. The field goal kicking was not consistent. I don't know how many yards we gave up on kickoffs and punts, but the defense didn't feel consistent. Wilcox had so little faith in the kickoff returners behind Ashtyn Davis in the USC game that he had him in fair catching even after he was limping around on a sprained ankle.

Oski87 said:

---

Actually the Pac 12 is up this year over last year, with better wins OOC and overall a better ranking.

The wins against a tougher schedule this year vs last year mean something. Winning on the road at Washington, Ole Miss, Furd (OK - Cal has more fans there) mean something. But at the end of the day, we are still 7-5 and still have a statistically poor offense.

All that being said, WSU has a great offense, and yet gets beat by UW and Cal fairly consistently. So that is a discussion point - is our defense holding our offense back. You need to look at efficiency ratings to make a determination about that, and that is difficult. We play fewer downs than other teams, and they play fewer downs when they play us. We hold teams to an average of 12 points below their average, so we need to be efficient about when we have the ball. That being said, I am sure that any analysis of our offense would be that it needs to get better.

How does that happen? Better recruiting for sure, but also player development (backup QB, more linemen, etc) and better depth.

Our defense regressed a bit as well, I think mainly because we went to a base 4 set DL package due to personnel changes, and that took away some of the blitzing capabilities that we had last year. Getting stronger in the middle of the line is key, and it seems like we have some recruits who can help us there. That will be key to getting back to a more destabilizing defense in the next years. But that was a factor of shallow depth again.

We are really into the second year of Wilcoxes recruits. I see greater depth in almost all phases of the game, except for the kickers. And I see recruiting getting better each year. We have not had that breakout recruit that we had with Marshawn and DeSean, but that will come as we win 10 games next year.

Go Bears!

---

Sagarin Predictor rankings implicitly take into account the difficulty of the schedule for every game. Last year we were #56 this year we are #55.

Last year we were 1-0 against the Top 10 and 1-2 against the Top 30 (Beat Washington, lost to Stanford and WSU). This year we were 0-1 against the Top 10 and 1-3 against the Top 30 (lost to Utah, beat UW, lost to Oregon and SC). Our win over UW was "better" last year. We had one more loss against a good team this year. Our relatively narrow wins over our week OOC opponents actually hurt us.

The big difference is if you look at Sagarin's "Recent" where games are progressively weighted more heavily as the season goes on. Last year we finished #73 in Recent showing we got progressively worse as the season continued (culminating in the Cheezit). This year we finished #41 in Recent showing we got better over the course of the season and that #41 may more properly represent where we are at this point (ie a more significant improvement). A win against a quality bowl opponent will help as well.

calumnus said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

Actually the Pac 12 is up this year over last year, with better wins OOC and overall a better ranking.

The wins against a tougher schedule this year vs last year mean something. Winning on the road at Washington, Ole Miss, Furd (OK - Cal has more fans there) mean something. But at the end of the day, we are still 7-5 and still have a statistically poor offense.

All that being said, WSU has a great offense, and yet gets beat by UW and Cal fairly consistently. So that is a discussion point - is our defense holding our offense back. You need to look at efficiency ratings to make a determination about that, and that is difficult. We play fewer downs than other teams, and they play fewer downs when they play us. We hold teams to an average of 12 points below their average, so we need to be efficient about when we have the ball. That being said, I am sure that any analysis of our offense would be that it needs to get better.

How does that happen? Better recruiting for sure, but also player development (backup QB, more linemen, etc) and better depth.

Our defense regressed a bit as well, I think mainly because we went to a base 4 set DL package due to personnel changes, and that took away some of the blitzing capabilities that we had last year. Getting stronger in the middle of the line is key, and it seems like we have some recruits who can help us there. That will be key to getting back to a more destabilizing defense in the next years. But that was a factor of shallow depth again.

We are really into the second year of Wilcoxes recruits. I see greater depth in almost all phases of the game, except for the kickers. And I see recruiting getting better each year. We have not had that breakout recruit that we had with Marshawn and DeSean, but that will come as we win 10 games next year.

Go Bears!

---

Sagarin Predictor rankings implicitly take into account the difficulty of the schedule for every game. Last year we were #56 this year we are #55.

---

All of his rankings do that. The difference in Predictor is that it is wholly based on point differential (which hurts us this year since we got outscored overall).

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

Actually the Pac 12 is up this year over last year, with better wins OOC and overall a better ranking.

The wins against a tougher schedule this year vs last year mean something. Winning on the road at Washington, Ole Miss, Furd (OK - Cal has more fans there) mean something. But at the end of the day, we are still 7-5 and still have a statistically poor offense.

All that being said, WSU has a great offense, and yet gets beat by UW and Cal fairly consistently. So that is a discussion point - is our defense holding our offense back. You need to look at efficiency ratings to make a determination about that, and that is difficult. We play fewer downs than other teams, and they play fewer downs when they play us. We hold teams to an average of 12 points below their average, so we need to be efficient about when we have the ball. That being said, I am sure that any analysis of our offense would be that it needs to get better.

How does that happen? Better recruiting for sure, but also player development (backup QB, more linemen, etc) and better depth.

Our defense regressed a bit as well, I think mainly because we went to a base 4 set DL package due to personnel changes, and that took away some of the blitzing capabilities that we had last year. Getting stronger in the middle of the line is key, and it seems like we have some recruits who can help us there. That will be key to getting back to a more destabilizing defense in the next years. But that was a factor of shallow depth again.

We are really into the second year of Wilcoxes recruits. I see greater depth in almost all phases of the game, except for the kickers. And I see recruiting getting better each year. We have not had that breakout recruit that we had with Marshawn and DeSean, but that will come as we win 10 games next year.

Go Bears!

---

Sagarin Predictor rankings implicitly take into account the difficulty of the schedule for every game. Last year we were #56 this year we are #55.

---

All of his rankings do that. The difference in Predictor is that it is wholly based on point differential (which hurts us this year since we got outscored overall).

---

Yes, all of Sagarin's current ratings utilize points, which is how they are able to account for strength of schedule home and away. One thing, if your team or your opponents have a greater (or lesser) home field advantage than the national average (2.32 points) than Sagarin won't properly account for that. Also, if your team is in a lot of low scoring games (like Cal) using a national average will overestimate the home field advantage/disadvantage in your schedule.

The 'recent' ranking resonates.

I'm bullish on Cal for next year. Maybe the first time in a decade.

O is mostly frosh / soph. What appears to be our best qb since longshore or rogers. An ol that opened holes once healthy. Competent skill position players all over.

The D loses some, but has sufficient base that it shouldn't fall too far.

I may need to subscribe to premium again!

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Oski87 said:

---

Actually the Pac 12 is up this year over last year, with better wins OOC and overall a better ranking.

The wins against a tougher schedule this year vs last year mean something. Winning on the road at Washington, Ole Miss, Furd (OK - Cal has more fans there) mean something. But at the end of the day, we are still 7-5 and still have a statistically poor offense.

All that being said, WSU has a great offense, and yet gets beat by UW and Cal fairly consistently. So that is a discussion point - is our defense holding our offense back. You need to look at efficiency ratings to make a determination about that, and that is difficult. We play fewer downs than other teams, and they play fewer downs when they play us. We hold teams to an average of 12 points below their average, so we need to be efficient about when we have the ball. That being said, I am sure that any analysis of our offense would be that it needs to get better.

How does that happen? Better recruiting for sure, but also player development (backup QB, more linemen, etc) and better depth.

Our defense regressed a bit as well, I think mainly because we went to a base 4 set DL package due to personnel changes, and that took away some of the blitzing capabilities that we had last year. Getting stronger in the middle of the line is key, and it seems like we have some recruits who can help us there. That will be key to getting back to a more destabilizing defense in the next years. But that was a factor of shallow depth again.

We are really into the second year of Wilcoxes recruits. I see greater depth in almost all phases of the game, except for the kickers. And I see recruiting getting better each year. We have not had that breakout recruit that we had with Marshawn and DeSean, but that will come as we win 10 games next year.

Go Bears!

---

Sagarin Predictor rankings implicitly take into account the difficulty of the schedule for every game. Last year we were #56 this year we are #55.

---

All of his rankings do that. The difference in Predictor is that it is wholly based on point differential (which hurts us this year since we got outscored overall).

---

Yes, all of Sagarin's current ratings utilize points, which is how they are able to account for strength of schedule home and away. One thing, if your team or your opponents have a greater (or lesser) home field advantage than the national average (2.32 points) than Sagarin won't properly account for that. Also, if your team is in a lot of low scoring games (like Cal) using a national average will overestimate the home field advantage/disadvantage in your schedule.

---

Yeah, I just don't know that I'd elevate Predictor over everything else. Especially since all of his other rankings suggest that Cal was better this year and Predictor is the only one that suggests about the same.