I cannot see Cal ahead of Oregon State by any measure. Oregon State appears to have made the right choice with Jonathan Smith, an offensive minded guy in an offensive conference. His team has made dramatic improvements every year he has been there and has beaten Cal two straight years. Were there some fluke elements in both those wins over Cal? Sure, just as there were plenty of fluke elements in Cal's two consecutive wins over Washington.
Cal gave away this year's loss to Oregon State with over the top conservative play calling in the third quarter. So while Cal may have more overall talent than OSU, coaching has a lot to do with it. Oregon State ranked in the top 10 in a recent study of college programs that make the most of the talent they have. I believe that Utah was at the very top of that list.
I would agree with that, but I can also see how it's close. Oregon State lost plenty of games, but they had close losses and had a big upset over Oregon.
I mean, I've been pumping up OSU for the past 2 years as I think they are a dangerous team headed in the right direction, but that doesn't mean they are currently better than Cal. I rank teams based on who I think would be the favorite in a given matchup, but everyone knows that upsets can still happen, as OSU has shown us the past 2 years. But I don't think that means that OSU is a better team than Cal... I also agree with you that OSU makes the most of the talent they have, but yet they're 2-10, 5-7, and 2-5 under Jonathan Smith-- so what does that tell you about the overall talent they have? It's the proverbial "squeezing blood from a stone." Sure, Smith is doing a great job of it, but the deck is stacked against him. OSU faced a short-handed Cal squad and had to break out all the tricks in the book to eek out a victory. If Cal and OSU played 100 times, who do you think wins the majority of those matchups? OSU?
Oregon State lost a bunch of close games this season, which is another indication they are headed in the right direction. Yeah.....Jonathan Smith's overall record ain't that great, but Wilcox is a pretty terrible 9-20 in conference play, and had the good fortune of playing North Carolina and Mississippi in non conference play when they weren't good at all. I mean, both of the opposing head coaches in those games have been shown the front door.
It sort of reminds me of when Holmoe beat Oklahoma in back to back games during his tenure and also beat USC three times in a row. History shows he was a disaster at Cal. I am just not sold on Wilcox yet because he doesn't seem to get the offensive side of the ball.
That's because it isn't true; Justin Wilcox is 9-13 in conference play in the past 3 years. Wilcox also went 2-7 in his first year of conference play, bringing that total to 11-20, but the Pac-12 was relatively strong in 2017, with 3 of Cal's conference opponents ranked in the top 10 and Stanford at #20. That was the year we blew out #8 Wazzu 37-3, by the way. And 3 of Cal's conference losses were decided by 3 points or less, so it wasn't like we weren't competitive or something. Wilcox then led us to winning records in 2018 and 2019, and we hadn't had consecutive winning records since Tedford in 2008-2009, so I frankly find his entire Wilcox criticism absurd, especially after his high praise for Jonathan Smith for moving "OSU in the right direction."
I like Wilcox and I think we're generally trending in the right direction, but if we're looking at performance at this resolution, then I would acknowledge that he's also benefitted from a weak Pac-12. Stanfurd was at an all-time low when we beat them; USC is getting Helton'd and made two critical, unforced errors when we beat them.
I mean, this just sounds like circular logic to me; if we beat good teams, it's because they were down, and when we lose to bad teams, it's because we are bad.
Under Wilcox:
2017: blew out #8 Wazzu
2018: beat Pac-12 champ Washington (and USC, I don't care how "bad" they are relative to their history)
2019: beat #14 Washington
2020: beat Pac-12 champ Oregon
If we can beat the best teams in the Pac-12, it doesn't seem like a stretch to assume we can start string those wins together and actually compete for the Pac-12 title. It's been ages since Cal was even relatively competitive with the top of the Pac-12 (the Aaron Rodgers era?). Hell, we need a #1 NFL Draft pick just to lead us to an 8-5 season and Armed Forces Bowl victory this decade. I think Wilcox has done more than any Cal fan could have reasonably expected so far, outside of this current season.
I know it's common national narrative, but I don't really subscribe to the idea of a "weak" Pac-12. I think the Pac-12 is better top-to-bottom than most conferences, it's just that it lacks a clear playoff contending team to command national attention, which we haven't had since Pete Carroll's USC or Chip Kelly's Oregon, and hence most casual observers think that the Pac-12 is worse as a whole. The Pac-12 actually has the 2nd best OOC record (1st is the SEC), but no one really cares about that-- people don't think about West Virginia, they think about Oklahoma, they think Ohio State instead of Minnesota, they think Clemson instead of Boston College, and so on, so no one really cares if the average Pac-12 team can beat the average OOC team. When people talk about conference strength, I tend to think of the entire conference, and not just the top team, and I think that's relevant because we're talking about a team in the middle of the conference. I think it's harder to maintain an undefeated record when every game is closer to a coin flip than when you just need to beat 1 or 2 other conference rivals and can sleepwalk through the rest of your games. Also makes a bigger impact on your season when it comes to things like, say, an injury to your starting QB.
Complete and total mulligan in hindsight. But Wilcox did recruit well, which is a nice surprise for future seasons. That's about the only thing that worked out for the team, even though it was largely an off-the-field accomplishment.
I have not seen any of Zach Wilson this year, but I watched a bit of Zach Wilson last year (I think they played three Pac-12 opponents that year and at least one in 2018), and I did not think he was a good quarterback at all. But in 2020, he led BYU to an 11-1 record with 33 TDs/3 INT (plus 10 rushing TDs!) after an 11 TD/9 INT record in 2019, so I am guessing he must have improved SIGNIFICANTLY since I last saw him.
Thanks for putting these together all season, Leland. I always look forward to reading these on Tuesday mornings (or the occasional Wednesday).
I cannot see Cal ahead of Oregon State by any measure. Oregon State appears to have made the right choice with Jonathan Smith, an offensive minded guy in an offensive conference. His team has made dramatic improvements every year he has been there and has beaten Cal two straight years. Were there some fluke elements in both those wins over Cal? Sure, just as there were plenty of fluke elements in Cal's two consecutive wins over Washington.
Cal gave away this year's loss to Oregon State with over the top conservative play calling in the third quarter. So while Cal may have more overall talent than OSU, coaching has a lot to do with it. Oregon State ranked in the top 10 in a recent study of college programs that make the most of the talent they have. I believe that Utah was at the very top of that list.
I would agree with that, but I can also see how it's close. Oregon State lost plenty of games, but they had close losses and had a big upset over Oregon.
I mean, I've been pumping up OSU for the past 2 years as I think they are a dangerous team headed in the right direction, but that doesn't mean they are currently better than Cal. I rank teams based on who I think would be the favorite in a given matchup, but everyone knows that upsets can still happen, as OSU has shown us the past 2 years. But I don't think that means that OSU is a better team than Cal... I also agree with you that OSU makes the most of the talent they have, but yet they're 2-10, 5-7, and 2-5 under Jonathan Smith-- so what does that tell you about the overall talent they have? It's the proverbial "squeezing blood from a stone." Sure, Smith is doing a great job of it, but the deck is stacked against him. OSU faced a short-handed Cal squad and had to break out all the tricks in the book to eek out a victory. If Cal and OSU played 100 times, who do you think wins the majority of those matchups? OSU?
Oregon State lost a bunch of close games this season, which is another indication they are headed in the right direction. Yeah.....Jonathan Smith's overall record ain't that great, but Wilcox is a pretty terrible 9-20 in conference play, and had the good fortune of playing North Carolina and Mississippi in non conference play when they weren't good at all. I mean, both of the opposing head coaches in those games have been shown the front door.
It sort of reminds me of when Holmoe beat Oklahoma in back to back games during his tenure and also beat USC three times in a row. History shows he was a disaster at Cal. I am just not sold on Wilcox yet because he doesn't seem to get the offensive side of the ball.
That's because it isn't true; Justin Wilcox is 9-13 in conference play in the past 3 years. Wilcox also went 2-7 in his first year of conference play, bringing that total to 11-20, but the Pac-12 was relatively strong in 2017, with 3 of Cal's conference opponents ranked in the top 10 and Stanford at #20. That was the year we blew out #8 Wazzu 37-3, by the way. And 3 of Cal's conference losses were decided by 3 points or less, so it wasn't like we weren't competitive or something. Wilcox then led us to winning records in 2018 and 2019, and we hadn't had consecutive winning records since Tedford in 2008-2009, so I frankly find his entire Wilcox criticism absurd, especially after his high praise for Jonathan Smith for moving "OSU in the right direction."
I like Wilcox and I think we're generally trending in the right direction, but if we're looking at performance at this resolution, then I would acknowledge that he's also benefitted from a weak Pac-12. Stanfurd was at an all-time low when we beat them; USC is getting Helton'd and made two critical, unforced errors when we beat them.
I mean, this just sounds like circular logic to me; if we beat good teams, it's because they were down, and when we lose to bad teams, it's because we are bad.
Under Wilcox:
2017: blew out #8 Wazzu
2018: beat Pac-12 champ Washington (and USC, I don't care how "bad" they are relative to their history)
2019: beat #14 Washington
2020: beat Pac-12 champ Oregon
If we can beat the best teams in the Pac-12, it doesn't seem like a stretch to assume we can start string those wins together and actually compete for the Pac-12 title. It's been ages since Cal was even relatively competitive with the top of the Pac-12 (the Aaron Rodgers era?). Hell, we need a #1 NFL Draft pick just to lead us to an 8-5 season and Armed Forces Bowl victory this decade. I think Wilcox has done more than any Cal fan could have reasonably expected so far, outside of this current season.
I know it's common national narrative, but I don't really subscribe to the idea of a "weak" Pac-12. I think the Pac-12 is better top-to-bottom than most conferences, it's just that it lacks a clear playoff contending team to command national attention, which we haven't had since Pete Carroll's USC or Chip Kelly's Oregon, and hence most casual observers think that the Pac-12 is worse as a whole. The Pac-12 actually has the 2nd best OOC record (1st is the SEC), but no one really cares about that-- people don't think about West Virginia, they think about Oklahoma, they think Ohio State instead of Minnesota, they think Clemson instead of Boston College, and so on, so no one really cares if the average Pac-12 team can beat the average OOC team. When people talk about conference strength, I tend to think of the entire conference, and not just the top team, and I think that's relevant because we're talking about a team in the middle of the conference. I think it's harder to maintain an undefeated record when every game is closer to a coin flip than when you just need to beat 1 or 2 other conference rivals and can sleepwalk through the rest of your games. Also makes a bigger impact on your season when it comes to things like, say, an injury to your starting QB.
No, that it was both untrue and misleading.
Complete and total mulligan in hindsight. But Wilcox did recruit well, which is a nice surprise for future seasons. That's about the only thing that worked out for the team, even though it was largely an off-the-field accomplishment.
this list doesnt have Cal at #1. List invalid
I just want to find 11,780 votes.
If you don't count all the illegitimate points scored against Cal, it's clear that Cal was undefeated this season. #PointFraud
I have not seen any of Zach Wilson this year, but I watched a bit of Zach Wilson last year (I think they played three Pac-12 opponents that year and at least one in 2018), and I did not think he was a good quarterback at all. But in 2020, he led BYU to an 11-1 record with 33 TDs/3 INT (plus 10 rushing TDs!) after an 11 TD/9 INT record in 2019, so I am guessing he must have improved SIGNIFICANTLY since I last saw him.
I'm gonna need you to look at more rando quarterbacks and assess them for me. Thx!