Should Wilcox decide to re-sign Baldwin, do we support Baldwin or turn on Wilcox?
drizzlybears brother said:
Should Wilcox decide to re-sign Baldwin, do we support Baldwin or turn on Wilcox?
I agree 100%.Beardog26 said:
While BB has not been a real good OC in my eyes over the past three seasons, I would choose to support both him and Wilcox if that were the decision, just as I support the Golden Bears in every game they play.
m2bear said:
... is flipping the bird to the fan-base and saying all I care about is collecting a paycheck.
FIFYBig C said:
In the past ten days, Wilcox has tightly strapped himself into the driver's seat. Outside of a few million complaints here, we will take the OC he gives us and we will like it.
I'll remain pro-Wilcox and anti-Baldwindrizzlybears brother said:
Should Wilcox decide to re-sign Baldwin, do we support Baldwin or turn on Wilcox?
Exactly!! Well said...Big C said:
In the past ten days, Wilcox has tightly strapped himself into the driver's seat. Outside of a few hundred complaints here, we will take the OC he gives us and we will like it.
You mean, as head coach, he shouldn't listen to us???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.
Your award for Best Fan will be in the mail shortly.Beardog26 said:
While BB has not been a real good OC in my eyes over the past three seasons, I would choose to support both him and Wilcox if that were the decision, just as I support the Golden Bears in every game they play.
Are you this needlessly snide in real life, or just behind a screen?Pigskin Pete said:Your award for Best Fan will be in the mail shortly.Beardog26 said:
While BB has not been a real good OC in my eyes over the past three seasons, I would choose to support both him and Wilcox if that were the decision, just as I support the Golden Bears in every game they play.
Beardog26 said:
While BB has not been a real good OC in my eyes over the past three seasons, I would choose to support both him and Wilcox if that were the decision, just as I support the Golden Bears in every game they play.
It's really very simple.drizzlybears brother said:
Should Wilcox decide to re-sign Baldwin, do we support Baldwin or turn on Wilcox?
CAL4LIFE said:
Coaches come and go. I support Cal Football.
Bobodeluxe said:
Many posters here, when there were many, considered Tedford a guru. LOL
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.
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.
Duh. Cracks me up that people feel they have to state that on the forum, as if every interested party on this forum doesn't want Cal to go undefeated every year and cares more about their feelings about the coaches being proved right than Cal succeeding.heartofthebear said:It's really very simple.drizzlybears brother said:
Should Wilcox decide to re-sign Baldwin, do we support Baldwin or turn on Wilcox?
We support Cal.
True. The best way to support Cal basketball in Year 2 of Wyking Jones when it was obvious in Year 1 that he was going to be every bit as bad a hire as most predicted on the day of his hire was to not buy tickets and not show up for games. Because of that, we now have a qualified coach. He may not have been the best guy who was willing to come for what we would pay, but at least he's qualified to do the job.Quote:Quote:
Over the years, I have found that the best way to support Cal is to boycott Cal when Cal is making decisions that are self defeating.
Regardless of what he does with his coaching staff, this is Year 4. Your program is in place. Almost the entire team was recruited by you. Any mistakes you made along the way (Baldwin, though it was a reasonable hire at the time) must be rectified and it's time to have a winning conference record. If you can't do that by Year 4, it's extremely unlikely you ever will and you're just another mediocre head coach who doesn't have what it takes to win at the P5 level.Quote:Quote:
If Wilcox decides to re-sign Baldwin, Cal will have a very short rope with me going forward.
Others may feel and act similarly.
Nah. Just the expectation that Cal will always Cal if it has a choice between Cal and not Cal. Nobody knows for sure and if they are spouting off as if they know, they are likely full of it (and likely it's the usual suspects).Quote:Quote:
It is very clear to me from this forum that many here feel strongly that Wilcox will keep Baldwin.
I am not sure the reasons for this, but I assume that it is based on something significant.
3 years of numbers says that it's either Baldwin's fault or Wilcox's. No one else can answer for it and unpaid student athletes definitely don't take the blame, nor can the injury excuse be used every year. If you don't have adequate depth, you should have recruited better.Quote:Quote:
And I am beginning to think that it may not be Baldwin's fault.
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.drizzlybears brother said:
Should Wilcox decide to re-sign Baldwin, do we support Baldwin or turn on Wilcox?
I'm sorry that you don't like the questions I ask. This last one was a quick sort of thumbs up/thumbs down question, but the others I've asked have been open ended that you are free to answer (or not) in any way you see fit.OaktownBear said: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.drizzlybears brother said:
Should Wilcox decide to re-sign Baldwin, do we support Baldwin or turn on Wilcox?
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.
oski003 said:
Should BI decide to let drizzlybears brother keep posting, do we support drizzlybears brother or turn on BI?
We like drizzlybears brother, he's awesome!oski003 said:
Should BI decide to let drizzlybears brother keep posting, do we support drizzlybears brother or turn on BI?
What grade are you in?Uthaithani said:
Loyalty is for idiots.
So are low expectations and apologies for mediocrity.
As far as I'm concerned, if Wilcox continues to stand behind the worst offense in the nation three years running, Cal should dump both of them and upgrade coaching by making a move for Ron Rivera now that he's been released from the Panthers.
This 7-5 nonsense and suffering with the worst offense in the nation year after year is baloney. Time for an upgrade. If Wilcox won't do it, the AD should.
Personally, I'd love to see Wilcox replaced by Rivera, but I'll take a new OC as consolation.
And to hell with Bald-lose. I'll never get behind him.
dimitrig said: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.
Well... wait.
First you use yards per play and then you use points per game.
Can you please compare using the same units?
How did Cal do in yards per play versus Stanford and UCLA versus the average opponent? (I don't know the answer.)
Ok, ran the numbers. Stanford gives up 6.3 ypp we had 6.4 ypp so we were somewhat above average.
UCLA gives up 6.7 ypp we were 6.3 ypp so we more significantly below average.
Overall, when taken together, somewhat below average for the two games. I'll be the first to admit that considering Stanford and UCLA's schedule, "somewhat below average offense" was an accomplishment for us.