Jeff Tedford had a winning overall record in all of his first 8 seasons, and 9 out of 11 total seasons. He had .500 or above conference record in 7 of those seasons.
The difference is that Utah is a roster loaded with 3-star recruits, and USC is a roster loaded with 5-star future NFL players (USC has fallen off in regards to recruiting, losing a lot of ground to UW/Oregon, but that's Helton's responsibility too). Helton did alright his first two years with the previous regime's recruits (namely, 3rd-overall pick QB Sam Darnold, who specialized in scrambling around the pocket and improvising himself), but now that they're gone, he's doing even worse.
It's like a chess match where one side gets to replace some of their pawns for extra queens. If you're still losing despite starting with such a huge advantage, it's probably a sign that you're not a very good chess player. Comparing USC to Utah is apples to oranges, and an insult to Whittingham. Whittingham is a guy who started with extra pawns in place of his other pieces, and still outplayed others despite the disadvantage. Or to continue with this analogy, he's the one who worked those pawns over to the other side of the board to turn them into queens in the first place. A couple examples of Utah players currently in the NFL: Star Lotulelei, Terrell Burgess, Julian Blackmon, Bradlee Anae, John Penisini, Leki Fotu, Javelin Guidry, Francis Bernard, Zack Moss, Tyler Huntley... every single one of them was a 3-star recruit. I think you'd have a harder time naming a 4-star player Utah had that's now in the NFL.
If a roster of 3-stars is beating a roster of 5-stars, I don't know who else you could possibly point the finger at besides the coach.
If you're comparing wins and losses between teams, you can't also ignore the talent disparity between them. Stanford has unfortunately been very good under Shaw, but they've been trending downwards in recent years. If USC recruited like the blue blood it used to be, the talent gap between them and most teams would be like comparing an FBS to an FCS school. If you were talking about a coach of an FBS program that had a 42-26 record against FCS schools, you'd probably think they weren't a good coach. Even if you're losing to "good" FCS schools (the UC Davis, Weber State, Sacramento State, or Stanfords of the world), you're losing despite having an entire roster of athletes that are bigger, faster, stronger... a lot of things need to go right for the underdog to win that sort of game, and the fact that it happens somewhat regularly is probably an indication that there's something wrong.
To further drive the point home about the talent disparity between the two teams: USC was a 17+ point favorite over Stanford (that's already factoring in David Shaw's coaching). For comparison's sake, Cal is not even going to be that big of a favorite this Saturday against FCS Sacramento State. Cal will be somewhere around a 10-13 point favorite. How long do you think Wilcox would last at Cal if he were to lose to the Sacramento States of our schedule?
Overall, it was a good week for the conference. The Oregon win was huge in repairing the Pac-12's national reputation. Heck, even Cal put up a good fight when a lot of folks were predicting a blow-out. The trend of close down to the wire games continues, though in the past two seasons we've been unlucky in several of them, whereas in 2019 we had a rabbit's foot.
Dropping the Beavs despite them easily covering against a bad Hawaii team, really? I can understand ranking us above Wazzu but OSU had full control of that game the whole time. Y'all a bunch of homers (and I love you for it).
I don't think anyone was dropping OSU so much as moving up other lower-ranked teams above them. Personally, I kept my bottom the same except Colorado who deserved to move up, and many other people had Stanford and Cal below OSU. The Stanford move is obvious, but I think moving Cal above OSU despite the close loss is fair; TCU is a lot better than Hawaii, and (OSU black magic aside) I'd bet that Cal would be the favorites over OSU.
Exactly. Oregon State didn't drop so much as other teams moved up. Oregon State lost to Purdue by 7 and we lost to TCU by 2 (and were an errant snap away from being tied)--I think that nigh-tie is more impressive.
For our next coach, if we make a change from Wilcox at some point, I say that we lean into the Keep Berkeley Weird theme and hire Kevin Kelley. This dude is perfect for us.
That's just crazy. But they said the same thing about the run and shoot offense in 1980, then the West Coast offense, but mathematically if you have four or five more drives then you will score more points. Not sure if our AD would roll the dice but at this point in our despair over Cal fandom, why not try to shake things up? The worst thing that would happen is firing the coach after four or five years. Well guess what, we do that anyway...
I love that he uses data for his game plan. I think we don't leverage the fact that Berkeley is an intellectual powerhouse, and that translates onto the field. Not just with good grades, but through innovation in how we play football. That's cohesive branding...and you just might get professors on board. Wouldn't that be something?
Jeff Tedford had a winning overall record in all of his first 8 seasons, and 9 out of 11 total seasons. He had .500 or above conference record in 7 of those seasons.
"And Shaw has coached less seasons than Tedford, 10 versus Tedford's 11"
You are the one that said Shaw has a winning record in 9 of 11 seasons.
Also you should become Stanfrud fan since you love Shaw so much.
I just stated a fact as well.
The difference is that Utah is a roster loaded with 3-star recruits, and USC is a roster loaded with 5-star future NFL players (USC has fallen off in regards to recruiting, losing a lot of ground to UW/Oregon, but that's Helton's responsibility too). Helton did alright his first two years with the previous regime's recruits (namely, 3rd-overall pick QB Sam Darnold, who specialized in scrambling around the pocket and improvising himself), but now that they're gone, he's doing even worse.
It's like a chess match where one side gets to replace some of their pawns for extra queens. If you're still losing despite starting with such a huge advantage, it's probably a sign that you're not a very good chess player. Comparing USC to Utah is apples to oranges, and an insult to Whittingham. Whittingham is a guy who started with extra pawns in place of his other pieces, and still outplayed others despite the disadvantage. Or to continue with this analogy, he's the one who worked those pawns over to the other side of the board to turn them into queens in the first place. A couple examples of Utah players currently in the NFL: Star Lotulelei, Terrell Burgess, Julian Blackmon, Bradlee Anae, John Penisini, Leki Fotu, Javelin Guidry, Francis Bernard, Zack Moss, Tyler Huntley... every single one of them was a 3-star recruit. I think you'd have a harder time naming a 4-star player Utah had that's now in the NFL.
If a roster of 3-stars is beating a roster of 5-stars, I don't know who else you could possibly point the finger at besides the coach.
If you're comparing wins and losses between teams, you can't also ignore the talent disparity between them. Stanford has unfortunately been very good under Shaw, but they've been trending downwards in recent years. If USC recruited like the blue blood it used to be, the talent gap between them and most teams would be like comparing an FBS to an FCS school. If you were talking about a coach of an FBS program that had a 42-26 record against FCS schools, you'd probably think they weren't a good coach. Even if you're losing to "good" FCS schools (the UC Davis, Weber State, Sacramento State, or Stanfords of the world), you're losing despite having an entire roster of athletes that are bigger, faster, stronger... a lot of things need to go right for the underdog to win that sort of game, and the fact that it happens somewhat regularly is probably an indication that there's something wrong.
To further drive the point home about the talent disparity between the two teams: USC was a 17+ point favorite over Stanford (that's already factoring in David Shaw's coaching). For comparison's sake, Cal is not even going to be that big of a favorite this Saturday against FCS Sacramento State. Cal will be somewhere around a 10-13 point favorite. How long do you think Wilcox would last at Cal if he were to lose to the Sacramento States of our schedule?
Overall, it was a good week for the conference. The Oregon win was huge in repairing the Pac-12's national reputation. Heck, even Cal put up a good fight when a lot of folks were predicting a blow-out. The trend of close down to the wire games continues, though in the past two seasons we've been unlucky in several of them, whereas in 2019 we had a rabbit's foot.
Another thought: As in life, you make your own luck by being prepared and taking opportunities when they arrive, something Cal needs to improve on.
Dropping the Beavs despite them easily covering against a bad Hawaii team, really? I can understand ranking us above Wazzu but OSU had full control of that game the whole time. Y'all a bunch of homers (and I love you for it).
I don't think anyone was dropping OSU so much as moving up other lower-ranked teams above them. Personally, I kept my bottom the same except Colorado who deserved to move up, and many other people had Stanford and Cal below OSU. The Stanford move is obvious, but I think moving Cal above OSU despite the close loss is fair; TCU is a lot better than Hawaii, and (OSU black magic aside) I'd bet that Cal would be the favorites over OSU.
In particular, TCU in Fort Worth at 93 degrees is a lot tougher than Hawaii in Corvallis.
Exactly. Oregon State didn't drop so much as other teams moved up. Oregon State lost to Purdue by 7 and we lost to TCU by 2 (and were an errant snap away from being tied)--I think that nigh-tie is more impressive.
For our next coach, if we make a change from Wilcox at some point, I say that we lean into the Keep Berkeley Weird theme and hire Kevin Kelley. This dude is perfect for us.
https://247sports.com/Article/College-football-Kevin-Kelley-no-punt-onside-kick-Presbyterian-College-Pulaski-Academy-170571404/
That's just crazy. But they said the same thing about the run and shoot offense in 1980, then the West Coast offense, but mathematically if you have four or five more drives then you will score more points. Not sure if our AD would roll the dice but at this point in our despair over Cal fandom, why not try to shake things up? The worst thing that would happen is firing the coach after four or five years. Well guess what, we do that anyway...
I love that he uses data for his game plan. I think we don't leverage the fact that Berkeley is an intellectual powerhouse, and that translates onto the field. Not just with good grades, but through innovation in how we play football. That's cohesive branding...and you just might get professors on board. Wouldn't that be something?