"There is something off about Cal’s talent identification...", or at least Calfans. The talent isn't as good, as deep, and as (important) varied as it needs to be to consistently math up with the wide variety of opponents they encounter over the course of a season, and sometimes a game. But when they do for a game or series, expectations…
"There is something off about Cal’s talent identification...", or at least Calfans. The talent isn't as good, as deep, and as (important) varied as it needs to be to consistently math up with the wide variety of opponents they encounter over the course of a season, and sometimes a game. But when they do for a game or series, expectations automatically and immediately ratchet up to unsustainable levels with the spotty/limited talent on hand.
Gotta admit, I'm getting pretty tired of you coming here and condescending to me.
My point in the article was pretty clear: The same players, plus multiple portal additions, produced worse results. I don't think I'm being a massive homer to think that it was a somewhat surprising result.
Not really surprising to me. Bad head coaches generally don't get better with time. It's not like he is going to set up a cot in the bowels of Memorial like Tedford did to put in more late night study to make the team better. And btw, I would like to know a little bit more about the guy I am investing my fandom in. I know that Tedford lived in Danville with his wife and kids. Sonny enjoyed his wife's homespun chicken spaghetti. Where does Wilcox live? Is he in a relationship? What does he enjoy doing when not coaching? If those questions are out of bounds, then I submit an advanced apology.
Quite the contrary, you made the point (multiple times) elsewhere; the strength of opposition took an expected sizable step up, and as a result, arguable better player personnel/performance still produced worse results as far as measurables go. You can't really evaluate Cal, or anyone else, on a year over year basis without simultaneously evaluating the relative opposition encountered. Many fan bases assume experience + transfers = better performance in terms of measurables and relative rankings when it is not that one dimensional.
Perhaps I misunderstood, but my interpretation of your comments over the years is that Cal fans are naïve to ever project improvement because the level of talent on the roster is so low. Which, if I'm understanding correctly, I would find ironic coming from an Oregon State fan - if there's any team that has shown the value of good scouting and development other than Utah of late, it would be the Beavers. They cobbled together a fringe Pac-12 title contender from talent that is functionally indistinguishable from Cal by the recruiting sites.
"There is something off about Cal’s talent identification...", or at least Calfans. The talent isn't as good, as deep, and as (important) varied as it needs to be to consistently math up with the wide variety of opponents they encounter over the course of a season, and sometimes a game. But when they do for a game or series, expectations automatically and immediately ratchet up to unsustainable levels with the spotty/limited talent on hand.
Gotta admit, I'm getting pretty tired of you coming here and condescending to me.
My point in the article was pretty clear: The same players, plus multiple portal additions, produced worse results. I don't think I'm being a massive homer to think that it was a somewhat surprising result.
Not really surprising to me. Bad head coaches generally don't get better with time. It's not like he is going to set up a cot in the bowels of Memorial like Tedford did to put in more late night study to make the team better. And btw, I would like to know a little bit more about the guy I am investing my fandom in. I know that Tedford lived in Danville with his wife and kids. Sonny enjoyed his wife's homespun chicken spaghetti. Where does Wilcox live? Is he in a relationship? What does he enjoy doing when not coaching? If those questions are out of bounds, then I submit an advanced apology.
Quite the contrary, you made the point (multiple times) elsewhere; the strength of opposition took an expected sizable step up, and as a result, arguable better player personnel/performance still produced worse results as far as measurables go. You can't really evaluate Cal, or anyone else, on a year over year basis without simultaneously evaluating the relative opposition encountered. Many fan bases assume experience + transfers = better performance in terms of measurables and relative rankings when it is not that one dimensional.
Perhaps I misunderstood, but my interpretation of your comments over the years is that Cal fans are naïve to ever project improvement because the level of talent on the roster is so low. Which, if I'm understanding correctly, I would find ironic coming from an Oregon State fan - if there's any team that has shown the value of good scouting and development other than Utah of late, it would be the Beavers. They cobbled together a fringe Pac-12 title contender from talent that is functionally indistinguishable from Cal by the recruiting sites.