Thank you for doing that!

Beardog26 said:

---

Blind loyalty to a coaching staff is definitely not a good thing. While I responded to the initial poster that I would support both Wilcox and Baldwin if the latter was retained, for the record I don't feel that should occur.

There have been a ton of injuries and, IMO, more good play calling/poor execution than many are willing to admit. That said, coaches, like corporate managers, are responsible for the final product. I believe three years is enough opportunity to have shown the capacity to accomplish this (which includes recruiting players capable of executing the game plan).

Where I suppose I differ from some is that I will choose to support the Bears, collectively, even if the head coach makes a decision that I don't personally see as wholly positive. This "loyalty" is not the kind which comprises idiocy, in my view. Its genesis probably derives from having played both for some pretty bad football teams and very good rugby teams at Cal. To me, the players were like my family and through the years I have come to know many of the players on subsequent Cal teams, to various degrees. Having lived through some very trying times as a Golden Bear student and athlete in the 1980s, I distinctly recall feeling down during many difficult times. As our then head trainer, Bob Orr (whose celebration of life reception will be later this month) reminded me many times: "Tough times never last ... tough people do!" Those words, and the support of my teammates, often helped guide me through tough times. I suspect some of my loyalty stems from the camaraderie and challenges those players/friends shared and strived to overcome. I don't think anyone would truthfully argue that then was the time to retain Joe Kapp as head coach. While he recruited and brought me to the best University in the world, and provided me with opportunities and a life that would've been far different had I gone to Harvard or Washington State (my other finalists), I completely agreed with the decision that was made to let him go in 1986.

But my desire to be loyal to the Golden Bears players, and their pursuit of happiness, leads me to support and cheer for them to be successful in everything they do, but especially on the field. The hard work, dedication and occasional psychological torment they endure, individually and collectively, lead me to support the Bears and their coaches, even when my better sense disagrees with some of the management decisions. I just cannot hope for their failure, refrain from buying tickets or making donations. While that makes a lot of sense in other matters, less close to my heart and in which I am not as emotionally invested, it is simply not my nature to withdraw that heartfelt support when things don't go exactly as I think they should or could have gone.

As noted in my initial post in this thread, to each their own. I totally understand why some feel differently and firmly grasp that there will always be a wide range of approaches to the "Cal being Cal" thing. In the end, I will choose to support Wilcox, and whoever is our OC next season, because I feel a kinship with the players (spiritual, perhaps, since I know only a few of them personally). That's just how I have always rolled in such matters. I don't think that makes me an idiot.

Go Bears!!

---

Well said BD26. You have way more internal experience than most anyone on the board and know the intricacies of what goes on. I respect your opinion and I understand the frustration of many a Cal fan. However above all, we all have the same goal in mind for Cal Football. Win. What holds us back most are self imposed institutional problems. I can tell you that some very awesome supporters are chipping away at it. So Wilcox needs his OKG to show the institution the players are serious both academically and athletically. That he can win up to a certain level and that he needs leeway to get to the next level without compromising graduation. The next level means more donations for both the athletic department and the institution itself. Go Bears!

OaktownBear said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Should Wilcox decide to re-sign Baldwin, do we support Baldwin or turn on Wilcox?

---

You have set up a false dichotomy. I'm sorry, but this is basically what you do every time. You simply have no comprehension that a person can be critical and supportive at the same time.

My feeling is that anyone that is universally negative or universally positive is rarely worth listening to. Until you go beyond David Puddy level "gotta support the team" analysis, your questions aren't worth answering.

And sorry, but universally supporting every move this program makes with its last 60 years of history is ultimately unsupportive. It's like saying to your kid "Everything you do is wonderful. Maybe you get D's because your teachers all suck." At some point you have to figuratively kick the kid's ass if you actually care about the kid.

---

Finally, your David Puddy comments don't resonate. Excessive blind faith is just not the tone of this community.

---

I didn't say excessive blind faith is the tone of this community. It was a comment about you and you alone. And it's not talking about blind faith. It's talking about a holier than thou attitude toward anyone who offers up criticism whether it is valid criticism or not. It is the idea you espoused that those who want a change are required to provide analysis beyond results and those who want status quo do not get the same requirement. It is about what you classify as neutral questions that are always pointed at critics and never at apologists. The fact that you think that negativity does not impact the administration's decisions but it does impact recruits is telling. That is an extremely hard argument to make. It is just another holier than thou way to say S T F U to anyone you disagree with. I don't care if you say it politely. The point is the same and it is obnoxious

---

We'll have to disagree on what's obnoxious. I'm trying to be thoughtful and respectful. I'm trying to ask questions that get past the ubiquitous, but overly simple argument here that only looks at the overall performance. That's not to be ignored, but what OC in the country was going to succeed with 80% of a budding line out? 40% of their starting line didn't play a snap. That's before adding the qb absences. You can personalize this all you like, but that's on you.

calumnus said:

---

510 Bear said:

---

Safe to say the last two games have muddied the waters in terms of what I think Wilcox "should" do - as well as reminding me that it's up to him, not us, to make the right call.

---

Stanford has the #108 defense in the country. UCLA has the #123 defense (in yards per play).

Stanford gave up 29.8 ppg this season. We scored 24.

UCLA gave up 34.8 ppg. We scored 28.

Our best games, with everybody heathy, are against the worst defenses and are below average.

---

So, you're saying we beat one decent, and several bad to really bad teams?

Well, yeah.

For the people in this thread saying they would support Wilcox no matter what he does with Baldwin....how many of you abandoned the program when Dykes was coach?

drizzlybears brother said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Should Wilcox decide to re-sign Baldwin, do we support Baldwin or turn on Wilcox?

---

You have set up a false dichotomy. I'm sorry, but this is basically what you do every time. You simply have no comprehension that a person can be critical and supportive at the same time.

My feeling is that anyone that is universally negative or universally positive is rarely worth listening to. Until you go beyond David Puddy level "gotta support the team" analysis, your questions aren't worth answering.

And sorry, but universally supporting every move this program makes with its last 60 years of history is ultimately unsupportive. It's like saying to your kid "Everything you do is wonderful. Maybe you get D's because your teachers all suck." At some point you have to figuratively kick the kid's ass if you actually care about the kid.

---

Finally, your David Puddy comments don't resonate. Excessive blind faith is just not the tone of this community.

---

I didn't say excessive blind faith is the tone of this community. It was a comment about you and you alone. And it's not talking about blind faith. It's talking about a holier than thou attitude toward anyone who offers up criticism whether it is valid criticism or not. It is the idea you espoused that those who want a change are required to provide analysis beyond results and those who want status quo do not get the same requirement. It is about what you classify as neutral questions that are always pointed at critics and never at apologists. The fact that you think that negativity does not impact the administration's decisions but it does impact recruits is telling. That is an extremely hard argument to make. It is just another holier than thou way to say S T F U to anyone you disagree with. I don't care if you say it politely. The point is the same and it is obnoxious

---

We'll have to disagree on what's obnoxious. I'm trying to be thoughtful and respectful. I'm trying to ask questions that get past the ubiquitous, but overly simple argument here that only looks at the overall performance. That's not to be ignored, but what OC in the country was going to succeed with 80% of a budding line out? 40% of their starting line didn't play a snap. That's before adding the qb absences. You can personalize this all you like, but that's on you.

---

Your question was:

Quote:

---

Should Wilcox decide to re-sign Baldwin, do we support Baldwin or turn on Wilcox?

---

There is zero thoughtful about that question. That is a loaded question and you know it. It is tantamount to "how long have you been beating your wife?" The question presumes I am either a good guy who supports Baldwin (thus agreeing with you) or I am a jackass who turns on Wilcox. There is no nuance and it serves only to (lamely) attempt to box people who disagree with you into a corner. How many people are going to say "Yup. I will choose to turn on Wilcox". How about:

Quote:

---

Should Wilcox decide to re-sign Baldwin, do we express our disagreement or do we support failure?

---

That is the flip side tenor of your question.

Previously you posted a series of questions that for some reason you directed only at those that want a change and then when people wouldn't answer saying that if they wouldn't answer, calls for change ring hollow. People didn't answer because of the way it was presented, not because they couldn't. The idea that people that want a change have to answer YOUR questions any more than you have to support your position is the problem.


Being thoughtful is not throwing out little questions at those who disagree with you. Being thoughtful is thinking about the issue, taking a position, and presenting your position and supporting facts.

I think Baldwin should stay because X, Y, and Z.

Not "to those who want a change please explain why and maybe I'll think about it".

I'm on the fence about Baldwin. I'm not on the fence about people deciding the other side has to prove their case. I'm happy to have the discussion. Make a case that people can respond to.

There is one question here. Does Baldwin (or any other coach on the team) give Cal the best chance to maximize success next year in comparison to all other available options. If yes, he stays. If no, he goes. The fact that he is sitting that chair right now is immaterial.

Your questions didn't spur a good discussion and they were never going to. It is hard to believe that is what you wanted when you failed so badly from the start.

drizzlybears brother said:

---

I myself am both critical and supportive

---

Beardog26 said:

---

I just cannot hope for their failure, refrain from buying tickets or making donations. While that makes a lot of sense in other matters, less close to my heart and in which I am not as emotionally invested, it is simply not my nature to withdraw that heartfelt support when things don't go exactly as I think they should or could have gone.

---

Anyone who thinks that posting "I just cannot hope for their failure" needs to be said just doesn't get it. At all.

I find myself incredulous that this has to be posted, but aside from people who are here just to stir the pot and aren't actually fans, NOBODY ROOTS FOR CAL TO FAIL. People that state otherwise are just trying to make themselves sound like better fans.

And as for buying tickets and donating, if that makes you feel good, do it. But don't imagine that you're supporting the players when you do that - you're supporting the institution which is a completely different thing.

The only thing that fans do sometimes on this forum that I don't like is when they put down the players (such as calling Garbers Chase Garbage earlier this year). If you want to say that a player isn't particularly good, that's fine, but leave it at an assessment of talent. I operate on the assumption that the players are all giving their best effort (even though that can't possibly be true, how would I be able to tell anyway?). If things go wrong, I direct blame at the guys getting paid to produce results, not the athletes.

But as I said before, this "I support the team no matter what" is just an exercise fans do to let us all know that they are the very best fans out of all of us. There's no such thing. Fans are just fans.

Pigskin

Appreciate your position. I think many fans would not support or lose faith Wilcox if we were 4-8. So the record matters. My son played for Wilcox so just like BD26 i know more details about the inner workings in and around football. So like BD26 I am more tempered and supportive of the trajectory of the team knowing where Wilcox wants to take this. He knows what is needed and critiques himself more than you know. Cal is in a long curve to get better. It is frustrating for all but that is how it is. Wilcox is fighting on many fronts.

A better question is what can Wilcox do given the institutional hurdles. I think recruiting is number one. Getting the offense to score over 30 points is second. Next year we may give up more points due to some departures. Therefore we better have a plan to compensate that on offense. I am not privy to the plan but that is what I would be working on.

Go Bears.

calumnus said:

---

510 Bear said:

---

Safe to say the last two games have muddied the waters in terms of what I think Wilcox "should" do - as well as reminding me that it's up to him, not us, to make the right call.

---

Stanford has the #108 defense in the country. UCLA has the #123 defense (in yards per play).

Stanford gave up 29.8 ppg this season. We scored 24.

UCLA gave up 34.8 ppg. We scored 28.

Our best games, with everybody heathy, are against the worst defenses and are below average.

---

Uh, not quite. Crawford missed both games and Duncan, one.

Did Will Craig play the last two games?

oski003 said:

---

Did Will Craig play the last two games?

---

No

Goobear said:

---

Pigskin

Appreciate your position. I think many fans would not support or lose faith Wilcox if we were 4-8. So the record matters. My son played for Wilcox so just like BD26 i know more details about the inner workings in and around football. So like BD26 I am more tempered and supportive of the trajectory of the team knowing where Wilcox wants to take this. He knows what is needed and critiques himself more than you know. Cal is in a long curve to get better. It is frustrating for all but that is how it is. Wilcox is fighting on many fronts.

A better question is what can Wilcox do given the institutional hurdles. I think recruiting is number one. Getting the offense to score over 30 points is second. Next year we may give up more points due to some departures. Therefore we better have a plan to compensate that on offense. I am not privy to the plan but that is what I would be working on.

Go Bears.

---

I think a lot of people would want the offensive coordinator position for what Baldwin makes. Other than that, I concur with your list of what he needs to do.

We'll see about the defense. There was a point in time where we weren't sure how we were going to replace other guys and then Weaver and Kunazysk stepped up, so you never know what the new guys will bring. May be great, may be a downgrade.

OaktownBear said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Should Wilcox decide to re-sign Baldwin, do we support Baldwin or turn on Wilcox?

---

You have set up a false dichotomy. I'm sorry, but this is basically what you do every time. You simply have no comprehension that a person can be critical and supportive at the same time.

My feeling is that anyone that is universally negative or universally positive is rarely worth listening to. Until you go beyond David Puddy level "gotta support the team" analysis, your questions aren't worth answering.

And sorry, but universally supporting every move this program makes with its last 60 years of history is ultimately unsupportive. It's like saying to your kid "Everything you do is wonderful. Maybe you get D's because your teachers all suck." At some point you have to figuratively kick the kid's ass if you actually care about the kid.

---

Finally, your David Puddy comments don't resonate. Excessive blind faith is just not the tone of this community.

---

I didn't say excessive blind faith is the tone of this community. It was a comment about you and you alone. And it's not talking about blind faith. It's talking about a holier than thou attitude toward anyone who offers up criticism whether it is valid criticism or not. It is the idea you espoused that those who want a change are required to provide analysis beyond results and those who want status quo do not get the same requirement. It is about what you classify as neutral questions that are always pointed at critics and never at apologists. The fact that you think that negativity does not impact the administration's decisions but it does impact recruits is telling. That is an extremely hard argument to make. It is just another holier than thou way to say S T F U to anyone you disagree with. I don't care if you say it politely. The point is the same and it is obnoxious

---

We'll have to disagree on what's obnoxious. I'm trying to be thoughtful and respectful. I'm trying to ask questions that get past the ubiquitous, but overly simple argument here that only looks at the overall performance. That's not to be ignored, but what OC in the country was going to succeed with 80% of a budding line out? 40% of their starting line didn't play a snap. That's before adding the qb absences. You can personalize this all you like, but that's on you.

---

Your question was:

Quote:

---

Should Wilcox decide to re-sign Baldwin, do we support Baldwin or turn on Wilcox?

---

There is zero thoughtful about that question. That is a loaded question and you know it. It is tantamount to "how long have you been beating your wife?" The question presumes I am either a good guy who supports Baldwin (thus agreeing with you) or I am a jackass who turns on Wilcox. There is no nuance and it serves only to (lamely) attempt to box people who disagree with you into a corner. How many people are going to say "Yup. I will choose to turn on Wilcox". How about:

Quote:

---

Should Wilcox decide to re-sign Baldwin, do we express our disagreement or do we support failure?

---

That is the flip side tenor of your question.

Previously you posted a series of questions that for some reason you directed only at those that want a change and then when people wouldn't answer saying that if they wouldn't answer, calls for change ring hollow. People didn't answer because of the way it was presented, not because they couldn't. The idea that people that want a change have to answer YOUR questions any more than you have to support your position is the problem.


Being thoughtful is not throwing out little questions at those who disagree with you. Being thoughtful is thinking about the issue, taking a position, and presenting your position and supporting facts.

I think Baldwin should stay because X, Y, and Z.

Not "to those who want a change please explain why and maybe I'll think about it".

I'm on the fence about Baldwin. I'm not on the fence about people deciding the other side has to prove their case. I'm happy to have the discussion. Make a case that people can respond to.

There is one question here. Does Baldwin (or any other coach on the team) give Cal the best chance to maximize success next year in comparison to all other available options. If yes, he stays. If no, he goes. The fact that he is sitting that chair right now is immaterial.

Your questions didn't spur a good discussion and they were never going to. It is hard to believe that is what you wanted when you failed so badly from the start.

---

For all the vitriol on this board it's my fairly simple questions that somehow got you sideways. You're the one throwing insults, yet I'm the inappropriate one. I don't know if you've confused me with someone or you misread something, but you're projecting stuff on me that I simply have not said. For one, you seem to think I'm a Baldwin supporter.

My question, which you're welcome to ignore, was simple - if Baldwin returns are you going to ***** about it or not? I don't pretend to understand this better than Wilcox, your replies suggest you don't share the same humility.

The other questions I asked were just getting at a deeper sense for where you stand on why the offense is bad. I think that it is in those questions where we might get at where Wilcox is coming from.

We agree the offense is bad, I see signs that might explain why Baldwin was retained.

I opened with the very question about why we think Wilcox retained him because that answer will determine how seriously we weigh Wilcox' judgement.

I asked about how long It should take to develop an offense because I believe offense is more difficult to build and takes more time.

I asked in doing so, which position groups might be most important because I believe that the line and QB come first, and that former can also take a lot of time, particularly if you inherit little and miss out on the bulk of your first chance at recruiting. These also happen to be where we were hardest hit this year making it all the harder to experience improvement.

I asked about whether you've seen any signs of hope at all from Baldwin because if not then there is no point in proceeding.

And I asked that if you did see it, under what conditions did you see it to assess whether those conditions are more likely to occur going forward or not.

There's nothing magical or sinister about anything I'm posing. I was just approaching it from an angle I hadn't seen previously presented.

You've been modestly hostile in each of your replies to me and I've tried to avoid responding in kind, but my patience with you is about out.

chazzed said:

---

m2bear said:

---

... is flipping the bird to the fan-base and saying all I care about is collecting a paycheck.

---

That seems like sound logic. I've always suspected that Wilcox is all about the benjamins and that he hates our fanbase.

---

He's definitely not all about the Benjamins and I respect that. He's not living a Sonny Dykes lifestyle. I do suspect that he is perfectionistic and critical of both himself and about know-it-all fans, and that he is also loyal and change-adverse. And a bit stubborn. Wilcox literally means Stubborn!

drizzlybears brother said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Should Wilcox decide to re-sign Baldwin, do we support Baldwin or turn on Wilcox?

---

You have set up a false dichotomy. I'm sorry, but this is basically what you do every time. You simply have no comprehension that a person can be critical and supportive at the same time.

My feeling is that anyone that is universally negative or universally positive is rarely worth listening to. Until you go beyond David Puddy level "gotta support the team" analysis, your questions aren't worth answering.

And sorry, but universally supporting every move this program makes with its last 60 years of history is ultimately unsupportive. It's like saying to your kid "Everything you do is wonderful. Maybe you get D's because your teachers all suck." At some point you have to figuratively kick the kid's ass if you actually care about the kid.

---

Finally, your David Puddy comments don't resonate. Excessive blind faith is just not the tone of this community.

---

I didn't say excessive blind faith is the tone of this community. It was a comment about you and you alone. And it's not talking about blind faith. It's talking about a holier than thou attitude toward anyone who offers up criticism whether it is valid criticism or not. It is the idea you espoused that those who want a change are required to provide analysis beyond results and those who want status quo do not get the same requirement. It is about what you classify as neutral questions that are always pointed at critics and never at apologists. The fact that you think that negativity does not impact the administration's decisions but it does impact recruits is telling. That is an extremely hard argument to make. It is just another holier than thou way to say S T F U to anyone you disagree with. I don't care if you say it politely. The point is the same and it is obnoxious

---

We'll have to disagree on what's obnoxious. I'm trying to be thoughtful and respectful. I'm trying to ask questions that get past the ubiquitous, but overly simple argument here that only looks at the overall performance. That's not to be ignored, but what OC in the country was going to succeed with 80% of a budding line out? 40% of their starting line didn't play a snap. That's before adding the qb absences. You can personalize this all you like, but that's on you.

---

Your question was:

Quote:

---

Should Wilcox decide to re-sign Baldwin, do we support Baldwin or turn on Wilcox?

---

There is zero thoughtful about that question. That is a loaded question and you know it. It is tantamount to "how long have you been beating your wife?" The question presumes I am either a good guy who supports Baldwin (thus agreeing with you) or I am a jackass who turns on Wilcox. There is no nuance and it serves only to (lamely) attempt to box people who disagree with you into a corner. How many people are going to say "Yup. I will choose to turn on Wilcox". How about:

Quote:

---

Should Wilcox decide to re-sign Baldwin, do we express our disagreement or do we support failure?

---

That is the flip side tenor of your question.

Previously you posted a series of questions that for some reason you directed only at those that want a change and then when people wouldn't answer saying that if they wouldn't answer, calls for change ring hollow. People didn't answer because of the way it was presented, not because they couldn't. The idea that people that want a change have to answer YOUR questions any more than you have to support your position is the problem.


Being thoughtful is not throwing out little questions at those who disagree with you. Being thoughtful is thinking about the issue, taking a position, and presenting your position and supporting facts.

I think Baldwin should stay because X, Y, and Z.

Not "to those who want a change please explain why and maybe I'll think about it".

I'm on the fence about Baldwin. I'm not on the fence about people deciding the other side has to prove their case. I'm happy to have the discussion. Make a case that people can respond to.

There is one question here. Does Baldwin (or any other coach on the team) give Cal the best chance to maximize success next year in comparison to all other available options. If yes, he stays. If no, he goes. The fact that he is sitting that chair right now is immaterial.

Your questions didn't spur a good discussion and they were never going to. It is hard to believe that is what you wanted when you failed so badly from the start.

---

For all the vitriol on this board it's my fairly simple questions that somehow got you sideways. You're the one throwing insults, yet I'm the inappropriate one. I don't know if you've confused me with someone or you misread something, but you're projecting stuff on me that I simply have not said. For one, you seem to think I'm a Baldwin supporter.

My question, which you're welcome to ignore, was simple - if Baldwin returns are you going to ***** about it or not? I don't pretend to understand this better than Wilcox, your replies suggest you don't share the same humility.

The other questions I asked were just getting at a deeper sense for where you stand on why the offense is bad. I think that it is in those questions where we might get at where Wilcox is coming from.

We agree the offense is bad, I see signs that might explain why Baldwin was retained.

I opened with the very question about why we think Wilcox retained him because that answer will determine how seriously we weigh Wilcox' judgement.

I asked about how long It should take to develop an offense because I believe offense is more difficult to build and takes more time.

I asked in doing so, which position groups might be most important because I believe that the line and QB come first, and that former can also take a lot of time, particularly if you inherit little and miss out on the bulk of your first chance at recruiting. These also happen to be where we were hardest hit this year making it all the harder to experience improvement.

I asked about whether you've seen any signs of hope at all from Baldwin because if not then there is no point in proceeding.

And I asked that if you did see it, under what conditions did you see it to assess whether those conditions are more likely to occur going forward or not.

There's nothing magical or sinister about anything I'm posing. I was just approaching it from an angle I hadn't seen previously presented.

You've been modestly hostile in each of your replies to me and I've tried to avoid responding in kind, but my patience with you is about out.

---

It's that your postings come across as bait. To mix my metaphors, you come across as a trap door spider.

That's because all of these items have been discussed ad nauseum before you up and presented them as if de novo. And, when people call you out on it in one way or another, you get all huffy and defensive.

Rushinbear said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

drizzlybears brother said:

---

Should Wilcox decide to re-sign Baldwin, do we support Baldwin or turn on Wilcox?

---

You have set up a false dichotomy. I'm sorry, but this is basically what you do every time. You simply have no comprehension that a person can be critical and supportive at the same time.

My feeling is that anyone that is universally negative or universally positive is rarely worth listening to. Until you go beyond David Puddy level "gotta support the team" analysis, your questions aren't worth answering.

And sorry, but universally supporting every move this program makes with its last 60 years of history is ultimately unsupportive. It's like saying to your kid "Everything you do is wonderful. Maybe you get D's because your teachers all suck." At some point you have to figuratively kick the kid's ass if you actually care about the kid.

---

Finally, your David Puddy comments don't resonate. Excessive blind faith is just not the tone of this community.

---

I didn't say excessive blind faith is the tone of this community. It was a comment about you and you alone. And it's not talking about blind faith. It's talking about a holier than thou attitude toward anyone who offers up criticism whether it is valid criticism or not. It is the idea you espoused that those who want a change are required to provide analysis beyond results and those who want status quo do not get the same requirement. It is about what you classify as neutral questions that are always pointed at critics and never at apologists. The fact that you think that negativity does not impact the administration's decisions but it does impact recruits is telling. That is an extremely hard argument to make. It is just another holier than thou way to say S T F U to anyone you disagree with. I don't care if you say it politely. The point is the same and it is obnoxious

---

We'll have to disagree on what's obnoxious. I'm trying to be thoughtful and respectful. I'm trying to ask questions that get past the ubiquitous, but overly simple argument here that only looks at the overall performance. That's not to be ignored, but what OC in the country was going to succeed with 80% of a budding line out? 40% of their starting line didn't play a snap. That's before adding the qb absences. You can personalize this all you like, but that's on you.

---

Your question was:

Quote:

---

Should Wilcox decide to re-sign Baldwin, do we support Baldwin or turn on Wilcox?

---

There is zero thoughtful about that question. That is a loaded question and you know it. It is tantamount to "how long have you been beating your wife?" The question presumes I am either a good guy who supports Baldwin (thus agreeing with you) or I am a jackass who turns on Wilcox. There is no nuance and it serves only to (lamely) attempt to box people who disagree with you into a corner. How many people are going to say "Yup. I will choose to turn on Wilcox". How about:

Quote:

---

Should Wilcox decide to re-sign Baldwin, do we express our disagreement or do we support failure?

---

That is the flip side tenor of your question.

Previously you posted a series of questions that for some reason you directed only at those that want a change and then when people wouldn't answer saying that if they wouldn't answer, calls for change ring hollow. People didn't answer because of the way it was presented, not because they couldn't. The idea that people that want a change have to answer YOUR questions any more than you have to support your position is the problem.


Being thoughtful is not throwing out little questions at those who disagree with you. Being thoughtful is thinking about the issue, taking a position, and presenting your position and supporting facts.

I think Baldwin should stay because X, Y, and Z.

Not "to those who want a change please explain why and maybe I'll think about it".

I'm on the fence about Baldwin. I'm not on the fence about people deciding the other side has to prove their case. I'm happy to have the discussion. Make a case that people can respond to.

There is one question here. Does Baldwin (or any other coach on the team) give Cal the best chance to maximize success next year in comparison to all other available options. If yes, he stays. If no, he goes. The fact that he is sitting that chair right now is immaterial.

Your questions didn't spur a good discussion and they were never going to. It is hard to believe that is what you wanted when you failed so badly from the start.

---

For all the vitriol on this board it's my fairly simple questions that somehow got you sideways. You're the one throwing insults, yet I'm the inappropriate one. I don't know if you've confused me with someone or you misread something, but you're projecting stuff on me that I simply have not said. For one, you seem to think I'm a Baldwin supporter.

My question, which you're welcome to ignore, was simple - if Baldwin returns are you going to ***** about it or not? I don't pretend to understand this better than Wilcox, your replies suggest you don't share the same humility.

The other questions I asked were just getting at a deeper sense for where you stand on why the offense is bad. I think that it is in those questions where we might get at where Wilcox is coming from.

We agree the offense is bad, I see signs that might explain why Baldwin was retained.

I opened with the very question about why we think Wilcox retained him because that answer will determine how seriously we weigh Wilcox' judgement.

I asked about how long It should take to develop an offense because I believe offense is more difficult to build and takes more time.

I asked in doing so, which position groups might be most important because I believe that the line and QB come first, and that former can also take a lot of time, particularly if you inherit little and miss out on the bulk of your first chance at recruiting. These also happen to be where we were hardest hit this year making it all the harder to experience improvement.

I asked about whether you've seen any signs of hope at all from Baldwin because if not then there is no point in proceeding.

And I asked that if you did see it, under what conditions did you see it to assess whether those conditions are more likely to occur going forward or not.

There's nothing magical or sinister about anything I'm posing. I was just approaching it from an angle I hadn't seen previously presented.

You've been modestly hostile in each of your replies to me and I've tried to avoid responding in kind, but my patience with you is about out.

---

It's that your postings come across as bait. To mix my metaphors, you come across as a trap door spider.

That's because all of these items have been discussed ad nauseum before you up and presented them as if de novo. And, when people call you out on it in one way or another, you get all huffy and defensive.

---

Well my posts are specifically intended to challenge us, so I can see how that could put people off, but they're not gotcha questions. And it would seem my tone may be off, so I'll take a look at that.

I wasn't aware that this topic had been covered as I was attempting, but I'll admit that I spend less and less time on growls. It's not UCLA's BRO board, but it's heading in that direction.

I'm curious; what are the institutional barriers? I fully support JW and would like to know more about this. Maybe this is one of the few places that us alumni can have some influence.

Go Bears!

I know that you have insights that most of us on this board don't, nonetheless well said.

CalBearPete said:

---

I know that you have insights that most of us on this board don't, nonetheless well said.

---

Here are some, most of you know

1) Limited Choices on Grad School Choices
2) No Sports Management Program
3) Hard 3.0 to get into Grad School without any consideration of how the student has done academically post freshman year
4) Faculty support for football not evolving enough although Knowlton told me he is working on it
5) Too many sports to pay for so FB Budget is affected
6) Entrance requirements limit the pool of players to be recruited

So despite all these issues FB is in an upward trend but it takes longer to get there. The Cameron Institute should be a big help going forward.

Thanks; this is helpful. I believe that we're either in Division 1A football to excel like we do in every other endeavor at Cal or we should bail out of football at Division 1A (not the desired option). Of course we should and can excel within the bounds of a top notch academic institution which makes it more challenging. But isn't that the kind of challenge Cal can meet? I think that is the message we all should be carrying to the chancellor and others in the administration at Cal. Damn, no more half ass!

CalBearPete said:

---

Thanks; this is helpful. I believe that we're either in Division 1A football to excel like we do in every other endeavor at Cal or we should bail out of football at Division 1A (not the desired option). Of course we should and can excel within the bounds of a top notch academic institution which makes it more challenging. But isn't that the kind of challenge Cal can meet? I think that is the message we all should be carrying to the chancellor and others in the administration at Cal. Damn, no more half ass!

---

Yes for sure. That's why I said Wilcox is fighting on many fronts. He gets it and knows what needs to be done. Winning most important of all.

Completely agree. CalBearPete and you each make very good points. Hopefully JW, JK and enough alumni donors and supporters are able to persuade the admin and enough faculty of the wisdom and long term success, to the University, academics and athletic department, that will accompany this approach.

Go Bears!!

Goobear said:

---

CalBearPete said:

---

Thanks; this is helpful. I believe that we're either in Division 1A football to excel like we do in every other endeavor at Cal or we should bail out of football at Division 1A (not the desired option). Of course we should and can excel within the bounds of a top notch academic institution which makes it more challenging. But isn't that the kind of challenge Cal can meet? I think that is the message we all should be carrying to the chancellor and others in the administration at Cal. Damn, no more half ass!

---

Yes for sure. That's why I said Wilcox is fighting on many fronts. He gets it and knows what needs to be done. Winning most important of all.

---

This may sound naive but making some of the changes you mentioned does not seem too difficult for Cal and our current administration. Of course things take time at large bureaucracies like the University of California but if Cal really adopts the attitude that we are going to commit to creating excellence in athletics like we dedicate to everything else at Cal we can make meaningful improvements. Why can't the Athletic Department and a select committee of alumni, faculty, and coaches make this comprehensive pitch to the administration? Maybe they already have and we are on our way?

I love this university and what it has done for me as a graduate and for the world through countless and varied contributions to the knowledge base of our society. Once again, doing it to the best of our ability goes for athletics as well.

Go Bears

With all the guys back next year and a favorable schedule, if the offense stinks it up again it's going to be bad, this year we were scapegoating Beau, next year would be Wilcox.

Strykur said:

---

With all the guys back next year and a favorable schedule, if the offense stinks it up again it's going to be bad, this year we were scapegoating Beau, next year would be Wilcox.

---

This is probably true.

calumnus said:

---

510 Bear said:

---

Safe to say the last two games have muddied the waters in terms of what I think Wilcox "should" do - as well as reminding me that it's up to him, not us, to make the right call.

---

Stanford has the #108 defense in the country. UCLA has the #123 defense (in yards per play).

Stanford gave up 29.8 ppg this season. We scored 24.

UCLA gave up 34.8 ppg. We scored 28.

Our best games, with everybody heathy, are against the worst defenses and are below average.

---

And that is why I would love to see us get a team like Iowa in our bowl game to play against a very good defense. Especially now that our offense is pretty much healed up (definitely so compared to a month ago) so that in itself would negate many excuses if our O does not perform well.

Strykur said:

---

With all the guys back next year and a favorable schedule, if the offense stinks it up again it's going to be bad, this year we were scapegoating Beau, next year would be Wilcox.

---

If the offense is bad next year, Wilcox takes the blame regardless of who the offensive coordinator is because he failed to address the problem.

CalBearPete said:

---

Thanks; this is helpful. I believe that we're either in Division 1A football to excel like we do in every other endeavor at Cal or we should bail out of football at Division 1A (not the desired option). Of course we should and can excel within the bounds of a top notch academic institution which makes it more challenging. But isn't that the kind of challenge Cal can meet? I think that is the message we all should be carrying to the chancellor and others in the administration at Cal. Damn, no more half ass!

---

Here's the thing. Despite all those challenges Dykes (Franklin) was able to have the #6 offense in the nation, lead the PAC-12 in offense. He had no clue on defense, but the players he (his staff) recruited became one the top defenses in the country under the new coaches. The key is having excellent coaching on both sides of the ball (and special teams)which includes being effective recruiters. Yes, we still need to work on all those institutional issues for even greater success, but it starts and ends with the coaches coaching the players they recruit.