I loved Justin Wilcox, mainly because I'm a defensive guy and I love watching 13-10 defensive struggles, which was happening more often in the 2018 season. But I consider the game this week a must win.
I wasn't old enough to remember Holmoe, but it looks like Wilcox's tenure is lining up with it just a bit. There should be no reason they lose to Colorado or Arizona. If they lose to Colorado this week, I don't think they are winning another game this year. It feels like I came in a "Golden" age of Cal football where they were competive year in and year out for a while. Honestly, now I feel spoiled listening to Old Blue Stories about what the 70's and the 80's and the 90's were like.
I would like Wilcox to stay, but I would need a reason to believe he would turn it around, and considering the Administration and everything... I don't have a reason to believe they will. I think they would all go in 2022.
The article didn't mention the penalties. One after the other against Cal against Oregon. And the missed snap for FG against Washington that would have won the game at the buzzer... My heart can't take it.
The story of the Wilcox era has been the QB position. Year 1 was spent with a serviceable but mistake prone QB - 5 wins seemed appropriate. Year 2 through now us fans and the coaching staff have injected way too much hope into an inconsistent QB who looks great some days and makes basic mistakes on other days. The day Musgrave showed up he said this is my quarterback's team and has been calling plays like that his entire tenure. The 7 play sequence at the end of the Oregon game was as if we have Lamar Jackson starting for us and we will win or lose with him and only him running or throwing the ball on the money plays. I think Wilcox will have a lot of regrets here when he looks back on the last 4.5 years. Every time I see Ole Miss on tv I can't help but think of what Matt Corral looked like in 2019 and what he looks like now; experience has not translated into anywhere close to that kind of meaningful improvement in Berkeley. The guy coaching down on the Farm for all his flaws has been quick to recognize when it's time to try something new at that position. Will we?
It's honestly been a disappointment, There had been so many problems especially playing inconsistently against teams. Almost beat Oregon, yet losing to Nevada at home. The culture needs to change especially when things hasn't changed in the past 10 or so years.
Playing up or down to the level of our opponents is one of the big problems. I honestly don't know how Wilcox can break this cycle. But it's clear our coaching is not developing players so they can execute come crunch time. Overall, it's been a very hard year to stomach.
I became a Bears fan in 1977, when I came up to Berkeley as a freshman, and it had been less than 20 years since Cal's last Rose Bowl appearance. "We dominate the Pac 8" was one of the cheers then, but now it's 44 years later and the Pac 8 became the Pac 10 and the Pac 12, and still the Blue and Gold has never won the league championship and I'm an old man. It was always like this after the 1950s-60s, fans: the Golden Bears playing really well, really credibly, but with some wonderful exceptions (like a triple-overtime victory in Memorial Stadium back in the late 1990s), still so able to explode on the launchpad or find some way to lose late in the game. After a hundred heartbreakers I kind of gave up, call me a bad Old Blue if you wish, but I just walked away from fandom 10=15 years ago and pay little attention now.
Perhaps some of young "New Blues" will live to see Cal crushing all opposition en route to dynastic league dominance. But I don't think that I will, and in that surrender I have found inner peace on Saturdays.
Well said Avi, needless to say. You cut to the quick, again and again. Name the problem, again and again. Sure wish you didn't have to write this, and instead were penning a tribute to greatness, but these are the time we face. Like I've been saying, I've gone from sunshine pumper to Old Blue in this season.
JORDAN KUNASZYK. Don’t ignore that name. The point of the spear for the best defense of the Wilcox era. Also, the Sonny hate is tiresome. He inherited a shit show created by his predecessor, and recruited far better than has been given credit for. Now, this guy is trying to win with no players on either side of the ball who are the least bit feared by the opposition. To cut him loose would set back a reeling program even further. If some of the youngsters can develop, hope. If not, doom, but no one wants to coach at Cal.
I don't know, $3 million per year? I'll take a shot at it. I suspect a few others more qualified than i would also. Also, doubling down on something that's not working--when you're already at the very bottom--seems like insane decision-making.
Kinda meh and jump on the bandwagon article here, Avinash.
Wilcox has made some hire mistakes. His greatest one isn’t even mentioned in this article or any other articles regardless of fan site. That hire would be Greatwood. I think we can agree that the toughest position to matriculate from high school ball to college is the OL. The position is often the hardest to develop and for every 4 recruits perhaps 1 will ever play any meaningful snaps for a program. GW was at the tail end of his career, and he only recruited one blue chip who, for now, seems to be a below average lineman (Craig). So, other than Wilcox paying GW a handsome salary for a few years, Cal got absolutely nothing for it, and it set back the OL thus the program by at least 4 years. Greatwood’s OLs weren’t all that great and the philosophy of teaching each linemen multiple positions when they couldn’t play one position above average has proven to be wasted time. Angus wasn’t an upgrade, and he is absolutely one of the coaches who should be gone by the end of the year. If I recall he signed a 2 year contract so Cal should absorb his remaining year. Hell Angus should have been fired after the Wazzu game.
I can’t help but think that should Wilcox be let go (I hope he isn’t) this year or next that somewhere in the back of his mind he will lament sticking with Garbers as his only QB for 5 years and not fixing the OL problem.
Cal is and can only be a developmental program. Therefore, Cal will have deep valleys and foot hill peaks until and when they can recruit marginally better players. That process is well on its way especially on defense and specifically at defensive line. The linebacking crew is solid and developing. GA recruited nobody when he was here and left the cupboard bare so that lands on him for the state of the DBs. On offense we have recruited well at receiver and going into this cycle looked really good at QB and RB. So, clearly the recruiting was/is getting better. Except for OL and to a lesser extent DB. Without an OL Cal will continue to fail on offense ~ get rid of Angus (if I haven’t already mentioned that). The plan and the process ~ given Cal’s limitations in recruiting ~ is a solid one, it’s too bad our poor record lost some critical recruits this cycle.
Yes, Wilcox must grow a pair of cajones and make changes at the end of the year. Previously I trusted Wilcox had the ability to make good decisions, recently I have begun to waver on that trust.
Avinash, perhaps Cal has a “high hill to climb” but as you yourself indicated that hill is literally 46 yards!!
I wish I knew more about the day-to-day workings of Cal football under Wilcox. What is the strength and conditionitng program like, especially compared to peers? What is the pitch that the coaches sell to recruits? What I'm getting as is the question: Is Wilcox building a program that can successfuly develop players to their full potential? Because if so, and it's just a down year, then keep the guy. I like Wilcox, to be clear. But I don't get the sense that a player who comes to Cal will leave being the best they can be.
Unless we finish 1-11 or 2-10, I don’t see Wilcox making any changes to his staff. He is going to justify his decision to bring everyone back based on how all our losses were close and if we only got a bounce here or there we would have a winning record.
Thanks for nominating me to do work. However, I am retired and prefer to use my time trading futures contracts and selling equity premium. So, I am happily busy.
Not to worry, however, cuz the WFC staff produces weekly performance results and I'm sure they will have year end totals at the close of the season. (Didn't WFC just publish an "almost mid way" report?)
I have no idea who Cal could hire but finding an OL equivalent to Browning would be a good place to start, i.e. young, energetic, communicator, teacher, and helleva recruiter.
Once the PFF grades come out this week, I will have my mid-year awards, which are aptly named: "The G(r)EAT Awards". Albeit I already know who my "POTY...so far" is.
You just know this is going to end like Big Game in 2017 and 2020 where we outplay Stanford only to lose because of discipline...and I'm not ready for it.
Disagree about a "functional offense." Their offense is garbage, don't let the Arizona game fool you. They've been competing solely on the strength of their defense. (Sounds like a different team we know from a few years ago).
Señor CH - I highly respect your opinions and knowledge and have very much enjoyed consuming your content for quite a while now, but I am feeling very, very, very burned by how you absolutely trashed Wazzu's defense, and I blindly followed and felt so reassured, before they showed up looking like the '85 Chicago Bears against us. :) Fool me twice, shame ME!
You're right, and I hate it too. I still stand by my opinions about other teams, but my problem this season has been way overestimating how well Cal would do. Consider this: Cal put up 24 points in regulation against Washington, who is 38th in the FBS in points allowed. How Cal only managed 6 points against a much weaker Washington State defense (currently 73rd in points allowed, although even that ranking is significantly aided by Cal's 6-point stinker: the fewest points Wazzu's defense allowed prior to that game was 24 to FCS Portland State). Cal held Wazzu to 21 points, which should have been more than enough to win... I mean, even an FCS team did better on offense against Wazzu than that.
If there's anyone you should be disappointed in, it should be Cal; I still feel like I have been reporting accurately. 😝 I have since learned my lesson in my Cal predictions, though. For example, Arizona lost to an FCS team this season, and hasn't won a game in two years. Will they manage their first win against Cal? We'll find out (i.e. I can't confidently predict Cal will win any games any more).
Assuming turnovers are even, the game will be close on Saturday. Cal will probably look good in the 1st quarter and jump out to a lead, like we mostly have all season. 2nd and 3rd quarters will see Cals offense stagnate. All the while Colorado will slowly chip away at our lead.
The only way this is a blowout is if Cals defense can get 2-3 turnovers.
Well yeah, I didn’t want to mention that this team, as bad as it has been in the red zone and as bad as it has been in generating turnovers, has been terrible in converting the few we have gotten into points.
Actually does anyone know how many turnovers we have converted into points? It can’t be many.
Harbaugh: "We're going to win with character, but we're also going to win with cruelty." Wilcox: "We'll try to win with character but overall stick with my friends." Maybe I'm wrong on this but it's possible: If Wilcox wants to win he'll need to adopt cruelty. Not only for his staff and his players but for how he approaches the game.
Well put. As others have noted, Year One Wilcox came and came hard for people. Year Two: same. Then, Year 3 is like the top of a slippery slope. Maybe that's an exaggeration, and 2020 was hardly a season to develop experience: but, why not play aggressively on D and O in Year 5? All the personnel could be coached up. He did it in Year One. Year Two. Even Year Three. Maybe it really is the coaching staff. It's beyond "getting old." Let's get beyond ugly wins, coach aggressively, and see what's on the scoreboard at the end.
I voiced a similar concern in a previous thread. In years 1 - 3 it is OK to be gritty and win ugly. Starting in year 4 the mentality should be we are going to kick some ass and dominate our opponents. Once you get stuck in the rut of "winning ugly" philosophy that becomes your identity and expectation. So yeah, Wilcox needs to change his battle cry.
I kinda liked Dykes' philosophy that in a 4-year major rebuild, you go from losing big to losing close to winning close to winning big. Dykes got stuck somewhere in the middle and Wilcox had a couple years of winning close before regressing back to losing close. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if he's capable of turning things around and getting up to that winning big category.
Can't disagree with you more about Wilcox. It comes down to talent. In the Oregun game, we had 3 star recruits going against 5 star athletes and damn near beat them. I hate seeing the 1-5 record as much as anyone else, but what Cal needs in both football and basketball (and has since 1959) is consistency in coaching. Losing Wilcox will just put the program back another two steps. He is committed to Cal despite all of the additional obstacles the unique Berkeley experience presents, and Cal should be committed to him.
It took John Wooden 11 years to get his program rolling (and Sam Gilbert). The pandemic wiped out any momentum that was made. Give him time and relax.
Coaches recruit talent. There's not a GM in college football. The reality is that we have typically had more talent on the field than we do now even in lean years. That's on Wilcox. TCU and WSU also had 3-star talent and they beat us. That's also on Wilcox. Cal has harbored long-tenured coaches in the past. Look at Tedford and Braun. Those tenures started hot and ultimately fizzled longer than they should have. Yes, it took John Wooden some time to win championships, but even his pre-dominant teams were really good. It's not like they were hanging on to Fox. They were winning 18-24 games routinely! They just couldn't get past Newell's teams. That's a far cry from sticking around at the bottom--which is what Fox and Wilcox are doing.
Not really, that’s mostly BYU that gets the majority of Mormon talent and players. Not to say Utah doesn’t get a few LDS players.
Plus, if older players equaled better results than Cal is underachieving even more as we have some super seniors in Daltoso, Drayden, Garbers, Crawford, Clark, and Baquette all starting this season.
A long winded way to say we should fire Wilcox because he won’t be able to turn it around:
TL;DR of this article:
“Because I think we can count on one hand the number of college football coaches who’ve flat-lined at 2-10/3-9 in Year 5 with a squad laden with veterans and somehow righted the ship afterwards.”
Surprisingly we haven’t played very well at Memorial under Wilcox. This Saturday's game will probably be closer than it should be and if we actually lose, all bets are off on us winning another game. We all know how we find ways to lose in Tucson, I don’t need to remind you of that, as you certainly know.
Considering we've played well below our luck factor this year, you'd imagine a reversion to the mean should be coming, particularly since our second half is much easier than the first.
Great article, Avi...just a question on how much does the luck factor influence the wins and losses, tho? Sure, the blocked punt v Wazzu was a bad break - that stuff doesn't happen very often. But TCU inexplicably taking a handoff 50 yards at the end of the 1H isn't bad luck, it's a bad execution and/or poor coaching...bad snaps on PAT's aren't bad luck...same thing for a dropped pass by Nikko on a catchable end zone pass with 30 secs...
This team is 1-5 largely bc they don't execute, and there are players with similar skillsets in FBS football programs all across the country that DO. So even tho the schedule lightens up, Wilcox's teams have shown a 4 year trend of playing up or down to the level of competition, so expecting these remaining games to be anything other than dog fights seems off.
The unsettling thing about Friday's game is that Cal could have just as easily gotten the same disappointing results v. 3-star players in Corvallis that they did v. 5-star guys in Eugene.
Mostly about level of competition. This conference isn't very strong but Washington, Oregon are still probably in the upper-tier talent wise. Dunno what was up with us against Wazzu. Arizona, Stanford, and Colorado are our three easiest opponents this year, Oregon State grades out about the same as WSU, USC/UCLA around Oregon's level.
If we play similarly, it should be enough to win at least 3.
The Bears are comical - but Mr. Kunnath’s writing is excellent. Go Bears! 🐻
I loved Justin Wilcox, mainly because I'm a defensive guy and I love watching 13-10 defensive struggles, which was happening more often in the 2018 season. But I consider the game this week a must win.
I wasn't old enough to remember Holmoe, but it looks like Wilcox's tenure is lining up with it just a bit. There should be no reason they lose to Colorado or Arizona. If they lose to Colorado this week, I don't think they are winning another game this year. It feels like I came in a "Golden" age of Cal football where they were competive year in and year out for a while. Honestly, now I feel spoiled listening to Old Blue Stories about what the 70's and the 80's and the 90's were like.
I would like Wilcox to stay, but I would need a reason to believe he would turn it around, and considering the Administration and everything... I don't have a reason to believe they will. I think they would all go in 2022.
The article didn't mention the penalties. One after the other against Cal against Oregon. And the missed snap for FG against Washington that would have won the game at the buzzer... My heart can't take it.
The story of the Wilcox era has been the QB position. Year 1 was spent with a serviceable but mistake prone QB - 5 wins seemed appropriate. Year 2 through now us fans and the coaching staff have injected way too much hope into an inconsistent QB who looks great some days and makes basic mistakes on other days. The day Musgrave showed up he said this is my quarterback's team and has been calling plays like that his entire tenure. The 7 play sequence at the end of the Oregon game was as if we have Lamar Jackson starting for us and we will win or lose with him and only him running or throwing the ball on the money plays. I think Wilcox will have a lot of regrets here when he looks back on the last 4.5 years. Every time I see Ole Miss on tv I can't help but think of what Matt Corral looked like in 2019 and what he looks like now; experience has not translated into anywhere close to that kind of meaningful improvement in Berkeley. The guy coaching down on the Farm for all his flaws has been quick to recognize when it's time to try something new at that position. Will we?
It's honestly been a disappointment, There had been so many problems especially playing inconsistently against teams. Almost beat Oregon, yet losing to Nevada at home. The culture needs to change especially when things hasn't changed in the past 10 or so years.
Playing up or down to the level of our opponents is one of the big problems. I honestly don't know how Wilcox can break this cycle. But it's clear our coaching is not developing players so they can execute come crunch time. Overall, it's been a very hard year to stomach.
I became a Bears fan in 1977, when I came up to Berkeley as a freshman, and it had been less than 20 years since Cal's last Rose Bowl appearance. "We dominate the Pac 8" was one of the cheers then, but now it's 44 years later and the Pac 8 became the Pac 10 and the Pac 12, and still the Blue and Gold has never won the league championship and I'm an old man. It was always like this after the 1950s-60s, fans: the Golden Bears playing really well, really credibly, but with some wonderful exceptions (like a triple-overtime victory in Memorial Stadium back in the late 1990s), still so able to explode on the launchpad or find some way to lose late in the game. After a hundred heartbreakers I kind of gave up, call me a bad Old Blue if you wish, but I just walked away from fandom 10=15 years ago and pay little attention now.
Perhaps some of young "New Blues" will live to see Cal crushing all opposition en route to dynastic league dominance. But I don't think that I will, and in that surrender I have found inner peace on Saturdays.
Dude. It's so frustrating. I've only been a Cal fan since 2005, but it's been years since we have had a complete team. It's just so frustrating.
“Mediocre” suggests a .500 record. We’re 1-5. That does not suggest mediocre.
Well said Avi, needless to say. You cut to the quick, again and again. Name the problem, again and again. Sure wish you didn't have to write this, and instead were penning a tribute to greatness, but these are the time we face. Like I've been saying, I've gone from sunshine pumper to Old Blue in this season.
JORDAN KUNASZYK. Don’t ignore that name. The point of the spear for the best defense of the Wilcox era. Also, the Sonny hate is tiresome. He inherited a shit show created by his predecessor, and recruited far better than has been given credit for. Now, this guy is trying to win with no players on either side of the ball who are the least bit feared by the opposition. To cut him loose would set back a reeling program even further. If some of the youngsters can develop, hope. If not, doom, but no one wants to coach at Cal.
I don't know, $3 million per year? I'll take a shot at it. I suspect a few others more qualified than i would also. Also, doubling down on something that's not working--when you're already at the very bottom--seems like insane decision-making.
Kinda meh and jump on the bandwagon article here, Avinash.
Wilcox has made some hire mistakes. His greatest one isn’t even mentioned in this article or any other articles regardless of fan site. That hire would be Greatwood. I think we can agree that the toughest position to matriculate from high school ball to college is the OL. The position is often the hardest to develop and for every 4 recruits perhaps 1 will ever play any meaningful snaps for a program. GW was at the tail end of his career, and he only recruited one blue chip who, for now, seems to be a below average lineman (Craig). So, other than Wilcox paying GW a handsome salary for a few years, Cal got absolutely nothing for it, and it set back the OL thus the program by at least 4 years. Greatwood’s OLs weren’t all that great and the philosophy of teaching each linemen multiple positions when they couldn’t play one position above average has proven to be wasted time. Angus wasn’t an upgrade, and he is absolutely one of the coaches who should be gone by the end of the year. If I recall he signed a 2 year contract so Cal should absorb his remaining year. Hell Angus should have been fired after the Wazzu game.
I can’t help but think that should Wilcox be let go (I hope he isn’t) this year or next that somewhere in the back of his mind he will lament sticking with Garbers as his only QB for 5 years and not fixing the OL problem.
Cal is and can only be a developmental program. Therefore, Cal will have deep valleys and foot hill peaks until and when they can recruit marginally better players. That process is well on its way especially on defense and specifically at defensive line. The linebacking crew is solid and developing. GA recruited nobody when he was here and left the cupboard bare so that lands on him for the state of the DBs. On offense we have recruited well at receiver and going into this cycle looked really good at QB and RB. So, clearly the recruiting was/is getting better. Except for OL and to a lesser extent DB. Without an OL Cal will continue to fail on offense ~ get rid of Angus (if I haven’t already mentioned that). The plan and the process ~ given Cal’s limitations in recruiting ~ is a solid one, it’s too bad our poor record lost some critical recruits this cycle.
Yes, Wilcox must grow a pair of cajones and make changes at the end of the year. Previously I trusted Wilcox had the ability to make good decisions, recently I have begun to waver on that trust.
Avinash, perhaps Cal has a “high hill to climb” but as you yourself indicated that hill is literally 46 yards!!
I wish I knew more about the day-to-day workings of Cal football under Wilcox. What is the strength and conditionitng program like, especially compared to peers? What is the pitch that the coaches sell to recruits? What I'm getting as is the question: Is Wilcox building a program that can successfuly develop players to their full potential? Because if so, and it's just a down year, then keep the guy. I like Wilcox, to be clear. But I don't get the sense that a player who comes to Cal will leave being the best they can be.
Unless we finish 1-11 or 2-10, I don’t see Wilcox making any changes to his staff. He is going to justify his decision to bring everyone back based on how all our losses were close and if we only got a bounce here or there we would have a winning record.
Thanks for nominating me to do work. However, I am retired and prefer to use my time trading futures contracts and selling equity premium. So, I am happily busy.
Not to worry, however, cuz the WFC staff produces weekly performance results and I'm sure they will have year end totals at the close of the season. (Didn't WFC just publish an "almost mid way" report?)
I have no idea who Cal could hire but finding an OL equivalent to Browning would be a good place to start, i.e. young, energetic, communicator, teacher, and helleva recruiter.
Once the PFF grades come out this week, I will have my mid-year awards, which are aptly named: "The G(r)EAT Awards". Albeit I already know who my "POTY...so far" is.
POTY = Player of the Year
You just know this is going to end like Big Game in 2017 and 2020 where we outplay Stanford only to lose because of discipline...and I'm not ready for it.
I’m mentally preparing myself for the fluky Tucson loss and U of A students rushing the field to celebrate their only victory.
Oh this is a done deal. This team will find a way, somehow.
Sat v. the Buffs is gonna be closer than people think as well.
Closer? Hell no. They have a functional offense, so we lose, again.
Disagree about a "functional offense." Their offense is garbage, don't let the Arizona game fool you. They've been competing solely on the strength of their defense. (Sounds like a different team we know from a few years ago).
Señor CH - I highly respect your opinions and knowledge and have very much enjoyed consuming your content for quite a while now, but I am feeling very, very, very burned by how you absolutely trashed Wazzu's defense, and I blindly followed and felt so reassured, before they showed up looking like the '85 Chicago Bears against us. :) Fool me twice, shame ME!
You're right, and I hate it too. I still stand by my opinions about other teams, but my problem this season has been way overestimating how well Cal would do. Consider this: Cal put up 24 points in regulation against Washington, who is 38th in the FBS in points allowed. How Cal only managed 6 points against a much weaker Washington State defense (currently 73rd in points allowed, although even that ranking is significantly aided by Cal's 6-point stinker: the fewest points Wazzu's defense allowed prior to that game was 24 to FCS Portland State). Cal held Wazzu to 21 points, which should have been more than enough to win... I mean, even an FCS team did better on offense against Wazzu than that.
If there's anyone you should be disappointed in, it should be Cal; I still feel like I have been reporting accurately. 😝 I have since learned my lesson in my Cal predictions, though. For example, Arizona lost to an FCS team this season, and hasn't won a game in two years. Will they manage their first win against Cal? We'll find out (i.e. I can't confidently predict Cal will win any games any more).
Agreed.
Assuming turnovers are even, the game will be close on Saturday. Cal will probably look good in the 1st quarter and jump out to a lead, like we mostly have all season. 2nd and 3rd quarters will see Cals offense stagnate. All the while Colorado will slowly chip away at our lead.
The only way this is a blowout is if Cals defense can get 2-3 turnovers.
Hmmm, we had 2 last Friday and our offense got exactly zero points off of those turnovers. Perhaps we need 3 - 4 of them just to be safe.
I don’t think we converted our turnovers against Nevada and WSU into points.
2-3 turnovers that lead directly to points
Well yeah, I didn’t want to mention that this team, as bad as it has been in the red zone and as bad as it has been in generating turnovers, has been terrible in converting the few we have gotten into points.
Actually does anyone know how many turnovers we have converted into points? It can’t be many.
Harbaugh: "We're going to win with character, but we're also going to win with cruelty." Wilcox: "We'll try to win with character but overall stick with my friends." Maybe I'm wrong on this but it's possible: If Wilcox wants to win he'll need to adopt cruelty. Not only for his staff and his players but for how he approaches the game.
Well put. As others have noted, Year One Wilcox came and came hard for people. Year Two: same. Then, Year 3 is like the top of a slippery slope. Maybe that's an exaggeration, and 2020 was hardly a season to develop experience: but, why not play aggressively on D and O in Year 5? All the personnel could be coached up. He did it in Year One. Year Two. Even Year Three. Maybe it really is the coaching staff. It's beyond "getting old." Let's get beyond ugly wins, coach aggressively, and see what's on the scoreboard at the end.
I voiced a similar concern in a previous thread. In years 1 - 3 it is OK to be gritty and win ugly. Starting in year 4 the mentality should be we are going to kick some ass and dominate our opponents. Once you get stuck in the rut of "winning ugly" philosophy that becomes your identity and expectation. So yeah, Wilcox needs to change his battle cry.
I kinda liked Dykes' philosophy that in a 4-year major rebuild, you go from losing big to losing close to winning close to winning big. Dykes got stuck somewhere in the middle and Wilcox had a couple years of winning close before regressing back to losing close. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if he's capable of turning things around and getting up to that winning big category.
Can't disagree with you more about Wilcox. It comes down to talent. In the Oregun game, we had 3 star recruits going against 5 star athletes and damn near beat them. I hate seeing the 1-5 record as much as anyone else, but what Cal needs in both football and basketball (and has since 1959) is consistency in coaching. Losing Wilcox will just put the program back another two steps. He is committed to Cal despite all of the additional obstacles the unique Berkeley experience presents, and Cal should be committed to him.
It took John Wooden 11 years to get his program rolling (and Sam Gilbert). The pandemic wiped out any momentum that was made. Give him time and relax.
Coaches recruit talent. There's not a GM in college football. The reality is that we have typically had more talent on the field than we do now even in lean years. That's on Wilcox. TCU and WSU also had 3-star talent and they beat us. That's also on Wilcox. Cal has harbored long-tenured coaches in the past. Look at Tedford and Braun. Those tenures started hot and ultimately fizzled longer than they should have. Yes, it took John Wooden some time to win championships, but even his pre-dominant teams were really good. It's not like they were hanging on to Fox. They were winning 18-24 games routinely! They just couldn't get past Newell's teams. That's a far cry from sticking around at the bottom--which is what Fox and Wilcox are doing.
We recruit at the same level as TCU and definitely overrecruit Nevada and Wazzu. It is not just about talent.
That's right. Whittingham has been putting together 9-win seasons with three-star talent for most of the past decade.
Let's be fair: 3-star talent that is on average 2 years older than everyone else. Not really apples to apples.
Not really, that’s mostly BYU that gets the majority of Mormon talent and players. Not to say Utah doesn’t get a few LDS players.
Plus, if older players equaled better results than Cal is underachieving even more as we have some super seniors in Daltoso, Drayden, Garbers, Crawford, Clark, and Baquette all starting this season.
Ahh, gotcha. I thought it was both.
I lived in Dallas for 8 years. We do not recruit (cheat) anywhere near the level TCU does.
A long winded way to say we suck?
A long winded way to say we should fire Wilcox because he won’t be able to turn it around:
TL;DR of this article:
“Because I think we can count on one hand the number of college football coaches who’ve flat-lined at 2-10/3-9 in Year 5 with a squad laden with veterans and somehow righted the ship afterwards.”
I'm fairly confident Cal can do better than 2-10/3-9 if we keep playing the way we're playing. But it's definitely been very tough so far.
Surprisingly we haven’t played very well at Memorial under Wilcox. This Saturday's game will probably be closer than it should be and if we actually lose, all bets are off on us winning another game. We all know how we find ways to lose in Tucson, I don’t need to remind you of that, as you certainly know.
Considering we've played well below our luck factor this year, you'd imagine a reversion to the mean should be coming, particularly since our second half is much easier than the first.
Great article, Avi...just a question on how much does the luck factor influence the wins and losses, tho? Sure, the blocked punt v Wazzu was a bad break - that stuff doesn't happen very often. But TCU inexplicably taking a handoff 50 yards at the end of the 1H isn't bad luck, it's a bad execution and/or poor coaching...bad snaps on PAT's aren't bad luck...same thing for a dropped pass by Nikko on a catchable end zone pass with 30 secs...
This team is 1-5 largely bc they don't execute, and there are players with similar skillsets in FBS football programs all across the country that DO. So even tho the schedule lightens up, Wilcox's teams have shown a 4 year trend of playing up or down to the level of competition, so expecting these remaining games to be anything other than dog fights seems off.
The unsettling thing about Friday's game is that Cal could have just as easily gotten the same disappointing results v. 3-star players in Corvallis that they did v. 5-star guys in Eugene.
Mostly about level of competition. This conference isn't very strong but Washington, Oregon are still probably in the upper-tier talent wise. Dunno what was up with us against Wazzu. Arizona, Stanford, and Colorado are our three easiest opponents this year, Oregon State grades out about the same as WSU, USC/UCLA around Oregon's level.
If we play similarly, it should be enough to win at least 3.