Perhaps if Cal had won enough ACC games, SMU or Syracuse wouldn’t be allowed to upset us. Coaching and Cal were responsible for all those close ACC losses, not the ACC commissioner. I might, for a second entertain such conspiracy theories if Cal were actually ever good under Wilcox and Wilcox could actually produce a winning conference r…
Perhaps if Cal had won enough ACC games, SMU or Syracuse wouldn’t be allowed to upset us. Coaching and Cal were responsible for all those close ACC losses, not the ACC commissioner. I might, for a second entertain such conspiracy theories if Cal were actually ever good under Wilcox and Wilcox could actually produce a winning conference record but it is just the same ol’ Winless Wilcox in conference play. No need for the ACC commissioner to implement some grand conspiracy to keep Cal from winning the ACC when we Wilcox will do it himself.
Perhaps if Cal had won enough ACC games, SMU or Syracuse wouldn’t be allowed to upset us. Coaching and Cal were responsible for all those close ACC losses, not the ACC commissioner. I might, for a second entertain such conspiracy theories if Cal were actually ever good under Wilcox and Wilcox could actually produce a winning conference record but it is just the same ol’ Winless Wilcox in conference play. No need for the ACC commissioner to implement some grand conspiracy to keep Cal from winning the ACC when we Wilcox will do it himself.
Maybe he was betting on “Winless Wilcox,” when we got too close with Miami and he “dropped the quarter”