Look, guys. It is hopeless! And Ben, what on Earth are you smoking? SMU has a very good, very mobile QB and Cal has clearly demonstrated that a QB like that is capable of tearing out defense apart. They have a big back to go with a really good QB and receivers who can get separation and make big plays. This one is very likely to be over by the end of the first quarter, certainly by half time, if Cal plays like it did last week against WF. And we have no running game. None, Zilch. And looking at the WF films alone will tell the SMU DCs all they need to know about how to come after JKS or Jackson. Doesn't matter who is our QB, SMU is going to overwhelm them with a pass rush that our OL will not be able to stop. It is hard to believe that Cal will have had time to correct all the mistakes evident in last week's WF game. At least I hope we don't continue the trend of running the kickoffs out of the end zone to the 15 yard line!
I think we are beyond this. What does tangible improvement mean? 5% better? What must our rate of improvement be from week to week this year and next to get to where we are a P4 power? Or at least to a point where we won't be relegated. After what anyone has seen in 7 games does anyone really expect week over week rate of improvement at the level required to get us where we need to be by the end of next season? NFW.
I'll push back on this just a bit (...I know, you are stunned bro). WF was an unmitigated disaster on every level. But in the other 6 games we were either in it late or won, and in the context of dealing with debilitating injuries all around the field. The pivot to McCann showed good judgement and a willingness not to be stubborn in supporting Somerville. You have expressed your opinion here clearly, but I do feel that there is scope for improvement, even if incremental. And frankly, calls for dumping Josh now notwithstanding, that ain't gonna happen, so let's look for growth.
To me (and WTF do I know!) the risk of relegation is not lessoned by making a coaching change now, let alone the fiscal nightmare it creates.
Good comment, but the reason for my position is not just because of wins and losses> The quality if play and execution I have witnessed from our team, as a former player, is abysmal. This reflects really poor coaching from the top down. The game decision making has been terrible. And finally, the situation with JKS against WF is just the icing on the cake.
Look at UCLA. I believe we actually started the season with better talent then them. They execute great. They have from the first game. They call excellent plays on offense, keeping defenses guessing. We are not even close to being at their level. Bob Chesney has turned them into an undefeated top 10 team in his first season as HC. Meanwhile, our execution is far worse than under Wilcox.
You can look at the few areas that might be positive, excluding all the bad, and make a case for keeping the current coaching staff. But when I look at all the metrics I'd say its time for a change.
Metrics
**California (Cal Golden Bears) is a pass-heavy team that ranks well in passing volume but poorly in rushing, with total offense, scoring, and defense generally in the middle-to-lower half of FBS (out of roughly 134–138 teams) through 7 games in the 2026 season (3-4 record).**[](<https://www.footballdb.com/college-football/teams/fbs/california>)
Data is current as of mid-to-late October 2026 (through the Wake Forest game on Oct. 17). Rankings can vary slightly by source depending on whether they use gross vs. net yards, exact game inclusion, or update timing. Here are the key FBS rankings from consistent sources like CFB Update, The Football Database, Sports-Reference, CBS, and ESPN-related reports:[](<https://cfbupdate.com/team-stats/california?season=2026>)
- **Punting**: Average ~43.3 yards/punt (solid, mid-to-upper half range).
- **Field goals**: 7/11 (63.6%).
- **Returns**: Punt return average is low (~5.2); kickoff returns are modest (~18.8).
- Advanced metrics (e.g., SP+ or similar) place special teams around 96th (slightly below average). Red-zone offense success rate is relatively strong (~87%), while penalties are high (among the worst in FBS, often ranked 130th+ in penalty yards/game).
In short, Cal ranks near the top 15–20 in passing offense volume, near the bottom 5–10 in rushing offense, and roughly 75th–110th in total offense, scoring offense, total defense, and scoring defense. The profile is that of a one-dimensional (pass-oriented) offense paired with a defense that is better against the pass than the run and overall middle-of-the-pack or slightly below. Rankings will shift with remaining games.
I root for chaos as as well...Go Bears, defy expectations!
If Brousseau starts and plays most of the game we will lose by 38 points. If JKS starts, we will lose by 14 points.
"Always look on the bright side of life...."
Brilliant!
Only way we win is if lopa is smu’s leading receiver
Look, guys. It is hopeless! And Ben, what on Earth are you smoking? SMU has a very good, very mobile QB and Cal has clearly demonstrated that a QB like that is capable of tearing out defense apart. They have a big back to go with a really good QB and receivers who can get separation and make big plays. This one is very likely to be over by the end of the first quarter, certainly by half time, if Cal plays like it did last week against WF. And we have no running game. None, Zilch. And looking at the WF films alone will tell the SMU DCs all they need to know about how to come after JKS or Jackson. Doesn't matter who is our QB, SMU is going to overwhelm them with a pass rush that our OL will not be able to stop. It is hard to believe that Cal will have had time to correct all the mistakes evident in last week's WF game. At least I hope we don't continue the trend of running the kickoffs out of the end zone to the 15 yard line!
Just hoping for some tangible improvement; both Offense (even with the many key injuries) and Defense (they have much to improve on from last week)
I think we are beyond this. What does tangible improvement mean? 5% better? What must our rate of improvement be from week to week this year and next to get to where we are a P4 power? Or at least to a point where we won't be relegated. After what anyone has seen in 7 games does anyone really expect week over week rate of improvement at the level required to get us where we need to be by the end of next season? NFW.
I'll push back on this just a bit (...I know, you are stunned bro). WF was an unmitigated disaster on every level. But in the other 6 games we were either in it late or won, and in the context of dealing with debilitating injuries all around the field. The pivot to McCann showed good judgement and a willingness not to be stubborn in supporting Somerville. You have expressed your opinion here clearly, but I do feel that there is scope for improvement, even if incremental. And frankly, calls for dumping Josh now notwithstanding, that ain't gonna happen, so let's look for growth.
To me (and WTF do I know!) the risk of relegation is not lessoned by making a coaching change now, let alone the fiscal nightmare it creates.
Good comment, but the reason for my position is not just because of wins and losses> The quality if play and execution I have witnessed from our team, as a former player, is abysmal. This reflects really poor coaching from the top down. The game decision making has been terrible. And finally, the situation with JKS against WF is just the icing on the cake.
Look at UCLA. I believe we actually started the season with better talent then them. They execute great. They have from the first game. They call excellent plays on offense, keeping defenses guessing. We are not even close to being at their level. Bob Chesney has turned them into an undefeated top 10 team in his first season as HC. Meanwhile, our execution is far worse than under Wilcox.
You can look at the few areas that might be positive, excluding all the bad, and make a case for keeping the current coaching staff. But when I look at all the metrics I'd say its time for a change.
Metrics
**California (Cal Golden Bears) is a pass-heavy team that ranks well in passing volume but poorly in rushing, with total offense, scoring, and defense generally in the middle-to-lower half of FBS (out of roughly 134–138 teams) through 7 games in the 2026 season (3-4 record).**[](<https://www.footballdb.com/college-football/teams/fbs/california>)
Data is current as of mid-to-late October 2026 (through the Wake Forest game on Oct. 17). Rankings can vary slightly by source depending on whether they use gross vs. net yards, exact game inclusion, or update timing. Here are the key FBS rankings from consistent sources like CFB Update, The Football Database, Sports-Reference, CBS, and ESPN-related reports:[](<https://cfbupdate.com/team-stats/california?season=2026>)
### Offense
| Category | Stat | Approx. FBS Rank |
|---------------------------|---------------|------------------|
| Total yards/game | 378.4 | 76th–79th |
| Passing yards/game | 288.1 | 15th |
| Rushing yards/game | 90.3 | 134th–137th |
| Points/game | 23.9 | 96th–100th |
| Yards/play | 5.35 | ~109th |
| Yards/rush | 3.3 | ~128th–130th |
| Yards/pass attempt | ~6.7 | ~110th |
| Completion % | ~65% | ~50th |
| 3rd-down conversion % | 37.5% | ~83rd–86th |
| 4th-down conversion % | ~28% | ~125th–127th |
Cal generates volume through the air (high attempt volume) but is inefficient on a per-play basis and has one of the weakest rushing attacks in FBS.[](<https://wtop.com/college-sports/2026/10/no-23-smu-and-cal-meet-in-acc-play/>)
### Defense
| Category | Stat | Approx. FBS Rank |
|--------------------------------|---------------|------------------|
| Total yards allowed/game | ~386–388 | 104th–108th |
| Passing yards allowed/game | ~194–207 | 63rd–68th |
| Rushing yards allowed/game | ~180–181 | 108th–111th |
| Points allowed/game | 27.7 | 104th–105th |
| Yards/play allowed | ~5.9–6.0 | ~105th |
| Opp. 3rd-down conversion % | ~42% | ~105th–107th |
Pass defense is relatively better than run defense. The unit has struggled to stop the run and is around average or slightly below overall.[](<https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/teams/CAL/california-golden-bears/>)
### Special Teams and Other Notes
- **Punting**: Average ~43.3 yards/punt (solid, mid-to-upper half range).
- **Field goals**: 7/11 (63.6%).
- **Returns**: Punt return average is low (~5.2); kickoff returns are modest (~18.8).
- Advanced metrics (e.g., SP+ or similar) place special teams around 96th (slightly below average). Red-zone offense success rate is relatively strong (~87%), while penalties are high (among the worst in FBS, often ranked 130th+ in penalty yards/game).
- Overall efficiency metrics (yards/play, EPA-style measures) are generally mediocre to below average on both sides of the ball.[](<https://www.collegefootballratings.com/2026/california>)
In short, Cal ranks near the top 15–20 in passing offense volume, near the bottom 5–10 in rushing offense, and roughly 75th–110th in total offense, scoring offense, total defense, and scoring defense. The profile is that of a one-dimensional (pass-oriented) offense paired with a defense that is better against the pass than the run and overall middle-of-the-pack or slightly below. Rankings will shift with remaining games.