Next Question

3,948 Views | 65 Replies | Last: 4 days ago by calumnus
drizzlybears brother
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Should Wilcox decide to re-sign Baldwin, do we support Baldwin or turn on Wilcox?
Beardog26
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
wallyball2003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
drizzlybears brother said:

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

Talk about a false dichotomy...and who is this monolithic "we"?
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
I agree 100%.
CAL4LIFE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Coaches come and go. I support Cal Football.
CALiforniALUM
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's more about the journey than the result for me. The only result that is certain is death.
Bear19
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm looking forward to the rhetoric excoriating Wilcox if Baldwin comes back. It should be quite entertaining, inventive, since the posters are likely to be Cal grads and have matriculated at the world's greatest public University.

I'm also looking forward to Cal matriculating the ball down the field in the upcoming bowl game (honors to Hank Stram).
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
m2bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'll take my time and money elsewhere. Keeping Baldwin shows a commitment to losing and not winning. Sports is nothing more than entertainment to me and I've seen this same movie for the last 3 years. It's lost its magic.

Keeping the worse OC in all of College Football the last 3 years... is flipping the bird to the fan-base and saying all I care about is collecting a paycheck.
chazzed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big 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.
FIFY
Cave Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
drizzlybears brother said:

Should Wilcox decide to re-sign Baldwin, do we support Baldwin or turn on Wilcox?
I'll remain pro-Wilcox and anti-Baldwin
Bobodeluxe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Many posters here, when there were many, considered Tedford a guru. LOL
calftball
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
Exactly!! Well said...
510 Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
72CalBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
You mean, as head coach, he shouldn't listen to us???
Pigskin Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
Your award for Best Fan will be in the mail shortly.
Beardog26
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Forgive the loyalty. Having played for and co-captained the team in the past, that's just how it works for me. To each their own.
Cave Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pigskin Pete said:

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.
Your award for Best Fan will be in the mail shortly.
Are you this needlessly snide in real life, or just behind a screen?
NVBear78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.



+1,000,000
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
drizzlybears brother said:

Should Wilcox decide to re-sign Baldwin, do we support Baldwin or turn on Wilcox?
It's really very simple.
We support Cal.
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.

If Wilcox decides to re-sign Baldwin, Cal will have a very short rope with me going forward.
Others may feel and act similarly.

Noticeable drops in attendance has and will get the attention of the administration and changes will be made.

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.

And I am beginning to think that it may not be Baldwin's fault.
It may be that Wilcox wants a very conservative offense because he thinks that that is the only way to have a strong D. Even if this was true I'd be against it. But someone who believes that, is someone I can't support because it indicates a very cynical philosophy about football that I think is ultimately very self-defeating.

History has shown that explosive offenses and good defenses can exist together. Plus, a reputation for a conservative offense will repel the better offensive players and cause others to transfer. That could be what has already been happening.

I'm really done with the philosophy at Cal that one side of the ball has to sacrifice itself so the other side of the ball can be successful. First it was the offense over the defense under Dykes and now it seems to be the opposite under Wilcox.

I like Wilcox and I am preying it is not a systemic or philosophical problem but rather just a problem that can be corrected by replacing our OC.

Now, I did recently post that I would be willing to retain Baldwin if his offense continues to operate similar to the way it did on Saturday night. But that means he has to recruit the right personnel so that kind of offense can continue and I'm not so sure he can.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
CAL4LIFE said:

Coaches come and go. I support Cal Football.


Go Bears!
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bobodeluxe said:

Many posters here, when there were many, considered Tedford a guru. LOL


Well, going by results, he sure appeared to be one, until he didn't anymore. Very common with gurus.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.

dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.)






Pigskin Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
heartofthebear said:

drizzlybears brother said:

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


It's really very simple.
We support Cal.
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.
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.

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:


If Wilcox decides to re-sign Baldwin, Cal will have a very short rope with me going forward.
Others may feel and act similarly.

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.

If we have another losing conference record next year, it will be up to the fans to push Cal to take action. The only thing that has consistently ever motivated the university to change a mediocre coach is lack of ticket sales.
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.

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:

And I am beginning to think that it may not be Baldwin's fault.

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.

Next year, Earn It goes out the window. It's Win or

OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
drizzlybears brother
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
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.

That you believe I "simply have no comprehension" that people can simultaneously be critical and supportive is your own creation, as I myself am both critical and supportive.

The majority of what I post is agnostic, and a bit of devil's advocate. Excessive positivity is it's own problem, but not nearly to the extent of it's opposite. Too much of the negativity posted here is probably just people venting, but it can come at a cost. There are different ways to be critical, some more productive than others. Advocating the boycott of poor performance, for instance, I see as self-defeating, as is the excessive negativity that at times overwhelms these boards.

Nothing written here influences either our staff, or our administration. You will not solve any of your frustrations by what you write on this forum. Full stop. Our players, recruiting targets, and their families do visit these boards, and it's there where we are irrefutably at risk with negativity.

Finally, your David Puddy comments don't resonate. Excessive blind faith is just not the tone of this community.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Should BI decide to let drizzlybears brother keep posting, do we support drizzlybears brother or turn on BI?
Uthaithani
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
CAL4LIFE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

Should BI decide to let drizzlybears brother keep posting, do we support drizzlybears brother or turn on BI?
drizzlybears brother
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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!
drizzlybears brother
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
What grade are you in?
Beardog26
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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!!
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.





Page 1 of 2
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.