[Austroturf]

Which brings me to...Wilcox.   Wilcox clearly is a miracle worker.   If he can win at UCB with that crew and that administration then he can win anywhere!   I am sure a number of ACC, SEC and NFL teams will be calling soon.   


I can't help but wonder if UCB will discover that they too are not alone.  Jeff Wilcox has never stayed anywhere for more than 4 years in his professional career.   3 years at UCB is probably enough.

Until two weeks ago, the Cal internet sites were ready to tar and feather Beau Baldwin and Wilcox too if he didn't fire Baldwin. This wasn't just a few haters. This was about everybody. I wouldn't anoint Wilcox just yet. Cal is improved. They are slightly better than we are, and as has been noted here at length, we aren't very good right now. Let's see Cal in The Rose Bowl and then I will buy in. Until then, so far, so good for him.

Agreed.  In Dykes' last season, the Bears went 5-7 and missed a bowl.  Wilcox matched that record in his first year (2017), then improved to 7-6 in 2018 with a bowl appearance (a loss in the Cheez-It Bowl to TCU), and this year he is sitting at 6-5 with UCLA this coming Saturday at the Rose Bowl.  So I would not call his track record miracle-worthy at this point.  A ten-win season would be something special; a Pac-12 crown even more so.

[Austroturf]

Which brings me to...Wilcox.   Wilcox clearly is a miracle worker.   If he can win at UCB with that crew and that administration then he can win anywhere!   I am sure a number of ACC, SEC and NFL teams will be calling soon.   


I can't help but wonder if UCB will discover that they too are not alone.  Jeff Wilcox has never stayed anywhere for more than 4 years in his professional career.   3 years at UCB is probably enough.

Until two weeks ago, the Cal internet sites were ready to tar and feather Beau Baldwin and Wilcox too if he didn't fire Baldwin. This wasn't just a few haters. This was about everybody. I wouldn't anoint Wilcox just yet. Cal is improved. They are slightly better than we are, and as has been noted here at length, we aren't very good right now. Let's see Cal in The Rose Bowl and then I will buy in. Until then, so far, so good for him.

Agreed.  In Dykes' last season, the Bears went 5-7 and missed a bowl.  Wilcox matched that record in his first year (2017), then improved to 7-6 in 2018 with a bowl appearance (a loss in the Cheez-It Bowl to TCU), and this year he is sitting at 6-5 with UCLA this coming Saturday at the Rose Bowl.  So I would not call his track record miracle-worthy at this point.  A ten-win season would be something special; a Pac-12 crown even more so.

[chimera]

I am so disappointed.  I saw the title of this thread and thought space aliens had been discovered.  That would have been a great way to forget all about football.  No aliens.  So sad...

[chimera]

I am so disappointed.  I saw the title of this thread and thought space aliens had been discovered.  That would have been a great way to forget all about football.  No aliens.  So sad...

[Farm93]

Let's see Cal in The Rose Bowl and then I will buy in. Until then, so far, so good for him.

UCB is not alone, and that is why UCB won't be going to the Rose Bowl.

Wilcox can get his 2019 team to 8-5. 

Will he leave in 2019 or in 2020?  

That's the problem with trying to find a good coach.   They are hard to find and almost impossible to keep for most Pac-12 programs.   There is no way a coach with aspirations of coaching greatness will stay at UCB for more then 1-2 successful seasons in this era.  There's simply too much money, fame and prestige available elsewhere.

BTW - Stanford is in a similar situation, as we have seen over the last 5 decades, unless the coach has very strong ties to the university.

[Farm93]

Let's see Cal in The Rose Bowl and then I will buy in. Until then, so far, so good for him.

UCB is not alone, and that is why UCB won't be going to the Rose Bowl.

Wilcox can get his 2019 team to 8-5. 

Will he leave in 2019 or in 2020?  

That's the problem with trying to find a good coach.   They are hard to find and almost impossible to keep for most Pac-12 programs.   There is no way a coach with aspirations of coaching greatness will stay at UCB for more then 1-2 successful seasons in this era.  There's simply too much money, fame and prestige available elsewhere.

BTW - Stanford is in a similar situation, as we have seen over the last 5 decades, unless the coach has very strong ties to the university.

[BostonCard]

I am so disappointed.  I saw the title of this thread and thought space aliens had been discovered.  That would have been a great way to forget all about football.  No aliens.  So sad...

CHimera, see my response to Phogge, who was likewise disappointed in the lack of aliens in the thread.

BC

[BostonCard]

I am so disappointed.  I saw the title of this thread and thought space aliens had been discovered.  That would have been a great way to forget all about football.  No aliens.  So sad...

CHimera, see my response to Phogge, who was likewise disappointed in the lack of aliens in the thread.

BC

[Goose]

Will he leave in 2019 or in 2020?  



That's the problem with trying to find a good coach.   They are hard to find and almost impossible to keep for most Pac-12 programs.   There is no way a coach with aspirations of coaching greatness will stay at UCB for more then 1-2 successful seasons in this era.  There's simply too much money, fame and prestige available elsewhere.

I am not so sure of that. If Wilcox is clearly "the answer", I think Cal will come up with whatever money they must in order to keep him, at least for a while. There are offers he couldn't refuse, but I do think he could easily have four or five real good years at Cal. OTOH, next year he must rebuild his defense. It could be not so easy to go 8-5 next year. It also seems that recruiting hasn't been stellar either, so who knows?

---

 But it is clear that our year-end rankings have been declining overall, and the number of losses we accumulate in a given season has been increasing (at least on a rolling average).  At the same time, our recruiting rankings have not noticeably declined, so that alone would argue against a downward performance trend.

Not necessarily. The fact we are losing more games can be equally attributed to other teams upward performance trend, not us getting worse. I think in reality there is some of both. Washington was bad for a long time. Oregon State was a total mess. WSU was all offense/no defense for quite a while (no more). Cal under Dykes was all offense as well. and never did get a defense. All we really had to worry about was Oregon. Things are harder now than they were. That makes a big difference.

Just to be clear: what are you referring to when you say "not necessarily"?

What I mean is that our play could be just be just as good as it was in the past on an "absolute" scale, but our opponents are playing better than they did in the past. Our record may be worse not because we are worse but rather because our opponents are better. In other words, a declining record doesn't necessarily mean we are getting worse. It could be our opponents are better. To some significant extent, I think this is true. Certainly OSU and UW are better against Stanford as well as against other teams.

I am not saying that a declining record isn't a problem. I am saying a declining record doesn't by itself prove we are worse than in previous years. There are other factors, like our opponents, to consider.

[Goose]

Will he leave in 2019 or in 2020?  



That's the problem with trying to find a good coach.   They are hard to find and almost impossible to keep for most Pac-12 programs.   There is no way a coach with aspirations of coaching greatness will stay at UCB for more then 1-2 successful seasons in this era.  There's simply too much money, fame and prestige available elsewhere.

I am not so sure of that. If Wilcox is clearly "the answer", I think Cal will come up with whatever money they must in order to keep him, at least for a while. There are offers he couldn't refuse, but I do think he could easily have four or five real good years at Cal. OTOH, next year he must rebuild his defense. It could be not so easy to go 8-5 next year. It also seems that recruiting hasn't been stellar either, so who knows?

---

 But it is clear that our year-end rankings have been declining overall, and the number of losses we accumulate in a given season has been increasing (at least on a rolling average).  At the same time, our recruiting rankings have not noticeably declined, so that alone would argue against a downward performance trend.

Not necessarily. The fact we are losing more games can be equally attributed to other teams upward performance trend, not us getting worse. I think in reality there is some of both. Washington was bad for a long time. Oregon State was a total mess. WSU was all offense/no defense for quite a while (no more). Cal under Dykes was all offense as well. and never did get a defense. All we really had to worry about was Oregon. Things are harder now than they were. That makes a big difference.

Just to be clear: what are you referring to when you say "not necessarily"?

What I mean is that our play could be just be just as good as it was in the past on an "absolute" scale, but our opponents are playing better than they did in the past. Our record may be worse not because we are worse but rather because our opponents are better. In other words, a declining record doesn't necessarily mean we are getting worse. It could be our opponents are better. To some significant extent, I think this is true. Certainly OSU and UW are better against Stanford as well as against other teams.

I am not saying that a declining record isn't a problem. I am saying a declining record doesn't by itself prove we are worse than in previous years. There are other factors, like our opponents, to consider.

[CTcard]

Stanford had one of the top defenses in the conference in 2015.  I remember that I used to do the per drive stats back then, and the key was that we had one of the best offenses in the country on a per drive basis, and one of the best defenses in the conference if not the country on that basis.



BC

---

Even in 2017 we had a very good defense.



BC

I like the points per drive stats, particularly for comparing to other teams over a season. I don't know why they aren't a more common stat in football - they are in basketball for example.



The best site I know for per drive stats is bcftoys.com



These aren't adjusted for strength of schedule. That's roughly what FEI is.



PPD Defense  |  FEI (rank only)

2007  2.01  56th  |  56th

2008  2.32  83rd  |  83rd

2009  2.42  86th  |  99th

2010  1.40   9th   |  10th
-------------------------------

2011  1.78  36th  |  25th

2012  1.38  13th  |    8th

2013  1.57  17th  |  13th

2014  1.41    8th  |    8th

2015  1.93  43rd  |  52nd

2016  1.57  14th  |  20th

2017  2.10  58th  |  60th

2018  1.98  49th  |  47th

2019  2.60  94th  |  86th



Offense PPD  |  FEI (rank only)

2007  1.39 103rd  |  105th

2008  2.11  53rd   |  31st

2009  3.05   6th    |   4th

2010  3.72   2nd   |   1st  
--------------------------------

2011  3.58   2nd   |   3rd

2012  2.08  72nd  |  52nd

2013  2.61  30th   |  30th

2014  2.31  49th   |  45th

2015  3.56   2nd   |   4th

2016  2.23  60th   |  78th

2017  2.78  18th   |  17th

2018  2.41  38th   |  39th

2019  1.80  96th   |  83rd


It's not very clear from these numbers whether the problems have been more centered on offense of defense.

It's very hard to analyze any specific details of the current team's problems beyond the absolutely disastrous injuries. There's never been a Stanford team that could withstand this kind of attrition, and few teams anywhere. Maybe that's due to S&C, or maybe its random.

[CTcard]

Stanford had one of the top defenses in the conference in 2015.  I remember that I used to do the per drive stats back then, and the key was that we had one of the best offenses in the country on a per drive basis, and one of the best defenses in the conference if not the country on that basis.



BC

---

Even in 2017 we had a very good defense.



BC

I like the points per drive stats, particularly for comparing to other teams over a season. I don't know why they aren't a more common stat in football - they are in basketball for example.



The best site I know for per drive stats is bcftoys.com



These aren't adjusted for strength of schedule. That's roughly what FEI is.



PPD Defense  |  FEI (rank only)

2007  2.01  56th  |  56th

2008  2.32  83rd  |  83rd

2009  2.42  86th  |  99th

2010  1.40   9th   |  10th
-------------------------------

2011  1.78  36th  |  25th

2012  1.38  13th  |    8th

2013  1.57  17th  |  13th

2014  1.41    8th  |    8th

2015  1.93  43rd  |  52nd

2016  1.57  14th  |  20th

2017  2.10  58th  |  60th

2018  1.98  49th  |  47th

2019  2.60  94th  |  86th



Offense PPD  |  FEI (rank only)

2007  1.39 103rd  |  105th

2008  2.11  53rd   |  31st

2009  3.05   6th    |   4th

2010  3.72   2nd   |   1st  
--------------------------------

2011  3.58   2nd   |   3rd

2012  2.08  72nd  |  52nd

2013  2.61  30th   |  30th

2014  2.31  49th   |  45th

2015  3.56   2nd   |   4th

2016  2.23  60th   |  78th

2017  2.78  18th   |  17th

2018  2.41  38th   |  39th

2019  1.80  96th   |  83rd


It's not very clear from these numbers whether the problems have been more centered on offense of defense.

It's very hard to analyze any specific details of the current team's problems beyond the absolutely disastrous injuries. There's never been a Stanford team that could withstand this kind of attrition, and few teams anywhere. Maybe that's due to S&C, or maybe its random.

[BostonCard]

Thanks for the data; I seem to have completely misremembered 2015's defense, which was pretty average for the Harbaugh/Shaw years.

The average absolute year-to-year change for the defense is 0.39 pts/drive.  If we hit that average in the right direction (we arguably have no way to go but up), we are looking at giving up 2.2 pts/drive, which is still not good.  The average year-to-year change in offensive pts/drive is 0.74 (interesting that there is more year to year variability in the offense than the defense).  If we hit that, we would approach the average offense during the Harbaugh/Shaw years.

In looking at net points/drive, 2019 marks the first time since 2008 that we have been negative (not surprisingly, it is also the first time since 2008 that we've had a losing record).  2019 marked the biggest drop in net points/drive (offensive - defensive) since before Harbaugh; we went from +0.43 pts/drive to -0.8 pts/drive.  The only comparable drop was from 2011 to 2012 (from 1.8 to 0.7 net points per drive), which coincided with Andrew Luck's departure (which knocked off a full 1.5 points our offensive efficiency, though our defensive pts/drive improved).  This year, as you point out, it has been both the offense and defense that have stunk; our offensive points per drive of 1.8 was the lowest since 2007 (before Gerhart, who I think was injured most of the year).  Our defensive points per drive of 2.6 was our worst in the Harbaugh/Shaw era.

BC

[BostonCard]

Thanks for the data; I seem to have completely misremembered 2015's defense, which was pretty average for the Harbaugh/Shaw years.

The average absolute year-to-year change for the defense is 0.39 pts/drive.  If we hit that average in the right direction (we arguably have no way to go but up), we are looking at giving up 2.2 pts/drive, which is still not good.  The average year-to-year change in offensive pts/drive is 0.74 (interesting that there is more year to year variability in the offense than the defense).  If we hit that, we would approach the average offense during the Harbaugh/Shaw years.

In looking at net points/drive, 2019 marks the first time since 2008 that we have been negative (not surprisingly, it is also the first time since 2008 that we've had a losing record).  2019 marked the biggest drop in net points/drive (offensive - defensive) since before Harbaugh; we went from +0.43 pts/drive to -0.8 pts/drive.  The only comparable drop was from 2011 to 2012 (from 1.8 to 0.7 net points per drive), which coincided with Andrew Luck's departure (which knocked off a full 1.5 points our offensive efficiency, though our defensive pts/drive improved).  This year, as you point out, it has been both the offense and defense that have stunk; our offensive points per drive of 1.8 was the lowest since 2007 (before Gerhart, who I think was injured most of the year).  Our defensive points per drive of 2.6 was our worst in the Harbaugh/Shaw era.

BC