10-14-2018, 09:44 AM
Head over to Bear Insider. They're so mad they forgot they hated us...at least for this weekend.
Fire Wilcox!
Fire Wilcox!
Want to feel better?
Head over to Bear Insider. They're so mad they forgot they hated us...at least for this weekend.
Fire Wilcox!
Fire Wilcox!
10-14-2018, 09:47 AM
Another thing to feel better about. All of our opponents thus far won yesterday.
Oregon and USC are probably the favorites to play in the CCG. We beat them both.
Oregon and USC are probably the favorites to play in the CCG. We beat them both.
10-14-2018, 10:07 AM
The way UC lost to Arizona was a killer. The way that UCLA lost to the Huskies gave them hope. Kelly slept walked through his Niner’s season. If he really gets involved watch out.
UC’s offense’s needs tons of help. No speed back, no dynamic WR, no TE’s. A QB who at best is a change of pace. A mess.
UC’s offense’s needs tons of help. No speed back, no dynamic WR, no TE’s. A QB who at best is a change of pace. A mess.
The way UC lost to Arizona was a killer. The way that UCLA lost to the Huskies gave them hope. Kelly slept walked through his Niner’s season. If he really gets involved watch out.
UC’s offense’s needs tons of help. No speed back, no dynamic WR, no TE’s. A QB who at best is a change of pace. A mess.
UC’s offense’s needs tons of help. No speed back, no dynamic WR, no TE’s. A QB who at best is a change of pace. A mess.
(10-14-2018, 09:44 AM)CowboyIndian Wrote: Head over to Bear Insider. They're so mad they forgot they hated us...at least for this weekend.
Fire Wilcox!
This is precious:
Quote:I think it is a bit disingenuous to call Cal the Pac 12 doormat. Cal is more akin to an old ratty t shirt left by the door that has dreams of someday being good enough to be an actual doormat.
Oh, and it's the high academic standards that are keeping the Bears down:
Quote:The DYE (DIE) was cast when Chancellor Dirks needlessly raised the academic standards so high that our standards are actually higher than UCLA. AD Williams did not object. He could have objected but he didn't. Until and unless we lower our standards to equal those of UCLA we can expect the same results on thge football field for years to come.
He "needlessly" raised the academic standards. What was their APR?
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
(10-14-2018, 09:44 AM)CowboyIndian Wrote: Head over to Bear Insider. They're so mad they forgot they hated us...at least for this weekend.
Fire Wilcox!
This is precious:
Quote:I think it is a bit disingenuous to call Cal the Pac 12 doormat. Cal is more akin to an old ratty t shirt left by the door that has dreams of someday being good enough to be an actual doormat.
Oh, and it's the high academic standards that are keeping the Bears down:
Quote:The DYE (DIE) was cast when Chancellor Dirks needlessly raised the academic standards so high that our standards are actually higher than UCLA. AD Williams did not object. He could have objected but he didn't. Until and unless we lower our standards to equal those of UCLA we can expect the same results on thge football field for years to come.
He "needlessly" raised the academic standards. What was their APR?
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
10-14-2018, 12:28 PM
(10-14-2018, 11:41 AM)martyup Wrote: Oh, and it's the high academic standards that are keeping the Bears down:
Quote:The DYE (DIE) was cast when Chancellor Dirks needlessly raised the academic standards so high that our standards are actually higher than UCLA. AD Williams did not object. He could have objected but he didn't. Until and unless we lower our standards to equal those of UCLA we can expect the same results on the football field for years to come.
Their aspiration is to be like a school that has not won a conference championship in 20 years and has not won a Rose Bowl in 30+?
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
(10-14-2018, 11:41 AM)martyup Wrote: Oh, and it's the high academic standards that are keeping the Bears down:
Quote:The DYE (DIE) was cast when Chancellor Dirks needlessly raised the academic standards so high that our standards are actually higher than UCLA. AD Williams did not object. He could have objected but he didn't. Until and unless we lower our standards to equal those of UCLA we can expect the same results on the football field for years to come.
Their aspiration is to be like a school that has not won a conference championship in 20 years and has not won a Rose Bowl in 30+?
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
10-14-2018, 12:37 PM
Quote:The DYE (DIE) was cast when Chancellor Dirks needlessly raised the academic standards so high that our standards are actually higher than UCLA. AD Williams did not object. He could have objected but he didn't. Until and unless we lower our standards to equal those of UCLA we can expect the same results on thge football field for years to come.
He "needlessly" raised the academic standards. What was their APR?
[/quote]
This is sad to see. Unlike many here, I don't draw joy from Cal being at or near the bottom of the Pac-12. I actually want to see our rivals be a second-tier Pac-12 school; good enough for the rivalry to mean something and for Big Game to feature a battle between two bowl eligible teams (and preferably two ranked teams). Of course, I want to beat them, and keep their Rose Bowl-less streak alive. But I don't want them to be Pac-12 bottom feeders, and I definitely don't want this false dichotomy between academic standards and football success to be perpetuated.
BC
Quote:The DYE (DIE) was cast when Chancellor Dirks needlessly raised the academic standards so high that our standards are actually higher than UCLA. AD Williams did not object. He could have objected but he didn't. Until and unless we lower our standards to equal those of UCLA we can expect the same results on thge football field for years to come.
He "needlessly" raised the academic standards. What was their APR?
[/quote]
This is sad to see. Unlike many here, I don't draw joy from Cal being at or near the bottom of the Pac-12. I actually want to see our rivals be a second-tier Pac-12 school; good enough for the rivalry to mean something and for Big Game to feature a battle between two bowl eligible teams (and preferably two ranked teams). Of course, I want to beat them, and keep their Rose Bowl-less streak alive. But I don't want them to be Pac-12 bottom feeders, and I definitely don't want this false dichotomy between academic standards and football success to be perpetuated.
BC
Well said Bos, agree on all fronts. How do we benefit from having a "doormat" for a rival? I want to beat up on good teams where the wins mean something and the conference gets respect. I fear the real possibility we could end the regular season with only 1 or 2 teams ranked in the top 25. As it is, in the AP we have 3 and the third is WSU at 25th...
Well said Bos, agree on all fronts. How do we benefit from having a "doormat" for a rival? I want to beat up on good teams where the wins mean something and the conference gets respect. I fear the real possibility we could end the regular season with only 1 or 2 teams ranked in the top 25. As it is, in the AP we have 3 and the third is WSU at 25th...
10-14-2018, 08:01 PM
(10-14-2018, 12:28 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote:(10-14-2018, 11:41 AM)martyup Wrote: Oh, and it's the high academic standards that are keeping the Bears down:
Quote:The DYE (DIE) was cast when Chancellor Dirks needlessly raised the academic standards so high that our standards are actually higher than UCLA. AD Williams did not object. He could have objected but he didn't. Until and unless we lower our standards to equal those of UCLA we can expect the same results on the football field for years to come.
Their aspiration is to be like a school that has not won a conference championship in 20 years and has not won a Rose Bowl in 30+?
c.a.l last RB appearance 1959
c.a.l last RB win 1938
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
(10-14-2018, 12:28 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote:(10-14-2018, 11:41 AM)martyup Wrote: Oh, and it's the high academic standards that are keeping the Bears down:
Quote:The DYE (DIE) was cast when Chancellor Dirks needlessly raised the academic standards so high that our standards are actually higher than UCLA. AD Williams did not object. He could have objected but he didn't. Until and unless we lower our standards to equal those of UCLA we can expect the same results on the football field for years to come.
Their aspiration is to be like a school that has not won a conference championship in 20 years and has not won a Rose Bowl in 30+?
c.a.l last RB appearance 1959
c.a.l last RB win 1938
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
(10-14-2018, 12:47 PM)2006alum Wrote: Well said Bos, agree on all fronts. How do we benefit from having a "doormat" for a rival? I want to beat up on good teams where the wins mean something and the conference gets respect. I fear the real possibility we could end the regular season with only 1 or 2 teams ranked in the top 25. As it is, in the AP we have 3 and the third is WSU at 25th...
I think this is one of those thoughts that becomes more relevant if, say, we were 6-0 with 2-3 wins over creampuffs. Then we could compare ourselves to teams like UCF and wonder just how good we really are. And we could complain about lack of respect for the conference.
It's always hard to say if the "traditional" lack of respect shown the Pac-12 is due to 1) our 9-game conference schedule, causing us to beat up on each other one more time than some other conferences; 2) relative lack of exposure to the East Coast media due to the time zone difference and the TV money forcing us to play at night more often than not; 3) overall OOC performance and SOS (I don't have data on this); 4) this is a down year for the conference overall; 5) no "super" teams this year in the conference (i.e. too much parity); or 6) all of the above.
Re #5, a lot of us can remember when the conference seemed to be U$C and the 7 (or 9) dwarfs. Had there been playoffs back in those days, I'm sure $C would have been there often. And the feeling some of us have that beating $C means more than beating other "rivals" stems from those days.
Of course, W's and L's are the first measure of performance, but SOS doesn't seem to be helping our reputation much. A bad home loss wipes away a lot of good stuff.
FYI this week the two ESPN gurus, Sherman and Bonagura, currently have U-Dub and Oregon vying for a Rose Bowl slot vs Michigan. One of them picks Stanford for the Vegas Bowl, and the other has us going to the Cheez-it Bowl (I kid you not). That translates to 6th or 7th in the conference, behind Rose, Alamo, Sun, Holiday, and Chicken, ouch.
(10-14-2018, 12:47 PM)2006alum Wrote: Well said Bos, agree on all fronts. How do we benefit from having a "doormat" for a rival? I want to beat up on good teams where the wins mean something and the conference gets respect. I fear the real possibility we could end the regular season with only 1 or 2 teams ranked in the top 25. As it is, in the AP we have 3 and the third is WSU at 25th...
I think this is one of those thoughts that becomes more relevant if, say, we were 6-0 with 2-3 wins over creampuffs. Then we could compare ourselves to teams like UCF and wonder just how good we really are. And we could complain about lack of respect for the conference.
It's always hard to say if the "traditional" lack of respect shown the Pac-12 is due to 1) our 9-game conference schedule, causing us to beat up on each other one more time than some other conferences; 2) relative lack of exposure to the East Coast media due to the time zone difference and the TV money forcing us to play at night more often than not; 3) overall OOC performance and SOS (I don't have data on this); 4) this is a down year for the conference overall; 5) no "super" teams this year in the conference (i.e. too much parity); or 6) all of the above.
Re #5, a lot of us can remember when the conference seemed to be U$C and the 7 (or 9) dwarfs. Had there been playoffs back in those days, I'm sure $C would have been there often. And the feeling some of us have that beating $C means more than beating other "rivals" stems from those days.
Of course, W's and L's are the first measure of performance, but SOS doesn't seem to be helping our reputation much. A bad home loss wipes away a lot of good stuff.
FYI this week the two ESPN gurus, Sherman and Bonagura, currently have U-Dub and Oregon vying for a Rose Bowl slot vs Michigan. One of them picks Stanford for the Vegas Bowl, and the other has us going to the Cheez-it Bowl (I kid you not). That translates to 6th or 7th in the conference, behind Rose, Alamo, Sun, Holiday, and Chicken, ouch.
(10-14-2018, 08:37 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: FYI this week the two ESPN gurus, Sherman and Bonagura, currently have U-Dub and Oregon vying for a Rose Bowl slot vs Michigan. One of them picks Stanford for the Vegas Bowl, and the other has us going to the Cheez-it Bowl (I kid you not). That translates to 6th or 7th in the conference, behind Rose, Alamo, Sun, Holiday, and Chicken, ouch.
It could happen. It is up to the team to make sure it doesn't. That said, IF we win the next 3, our game at UW will become the next media "battle of the century." I also wouldn't be amazed if WSU actually beats Oregon, which would certainly mess the pundits up.
(10-14-2018, 08:37 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: FYI this week the two ESPN gurus, Sherman and Bonagura, currently have U-Dub and Oregon vying for a Rose Bowl slot vs Michigan. One of them picks Stanford for the Vegas Bowl, and the other has us going to the Cheez-it Bowl (I kid you not). That translates to 6th or 7th in the conference, behind Rose, Alamo, Sun, Holiday, and Chicken, ouch.
It could happen. It is up to the team to make sure it doesn't. That said, IF we win the next 3, our game at UW will become the next media "battle of the century." I also wouldn't be amazed if WSU actually beats Oregon, which would certainly mess the pundits up.
10-14-2018, 10:48 PM
(10-14-2018, 08:58 PM)Goose Wrote:(10-14-2018, 12:37 PM)BostonCard Wrote: FYI this week the two ESPN gurus, Sherman and Bonagura, currently have U-Dub and Oregon vying for a Rose Bowl slot vs Michigan. One of them picks Stanford for the Vegas Bowl, and the other has us going to the Cheez-it Bowl (I kid you not). That translates to 6th or 7th in the conference, behind Rose, Alamo, Sun, Holiday, and Chicken, ouch.
It could happen. It is up to the team to make sure it doesn't. That said, IF we win the next 3, our game at UW will become the next media "battle of the century." I also wouldn't be amazed if WSU actually beats Oregon, which would certainly mess the pundits up.
Hey Goose... why is your post quoting me? Not only did I not write that (QWERTY did) but he wasn’t quoting me (sometimes the quotes get messed up). So I’m wondering whether there is a bug in the system.
BC
(10-14-2018, 08:58 PM)Goose Wrote:(10-14-2018, 12:37 PM)BostonCard Wrote: FYI this week the two ESPN gurus, Sherman and Bonagura, currently have U-Dub and Oregon vying for a Rose Bowl slot vs Michigan. One of them picks Stanford for the Vegas Bowl, and the other has us going to the Cheez-it Bowl (I kid you not). That translates to 6th or 7th in the conference, behind Rose, Alamo, Sun, Holiday, and Chicken, ouch.
It could happen. It is up to the team to make sure it doesn't. That said, IF we win the next 3, our game at UW will become the next media "battle of the century." I also wouldn't be amazed if WSU actually beats Oregon, which would certainly mess the pundits up.
Hey Goose... why is your post quoting me? Not only did I not write that (QWERTY did) but he wasn’t quoting me (sometimes the quotes get messed up). So I’m wondering whether there is a bug in the system.
BC
10-15-2018, 08:33 AM
(10-14-2018, 10:48 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(10-14-2018, 08:58 PM)Goose Wrote:(10-14-2018, 08:37 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: FYI this week the two ESPN gurus, Sherman and Bonagura, currently have U-Dub and Oregon vying for a Rose Bowl slot vs Michigan. One of them picks Stanford for the Vegas Bowl, and the other has us going to the Cheez-it Bowl (I kid you not). That translates to 6th or 7th in the conference, behind Rose, Alamo, Sun, Holiday, and Chicken, ouch.
It could happen. It is up to the team to make sure it doesn't. That said, IF we win the next 3, our game at UW will become the next media "battle of the century." I also wouldn't be amazed if WSU actually beats Oregon, which would certainly mess the pundits up.
Hey Goose... why is your post quoting me? Not only did I not write that (QWERTY did) but he wasn’t quoting me (sometimes the quotes get messed up). So I’m wondering whether there is a bug in the system.
BC
It is my error. The mistake I made was that in abstracting QWERTY's reply, I deleted the header for him and left the header for you. I have "fixed" it here and in the original post as well, just for the record. Sorry about that.
(10-14-2018, 10:48 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(10-14-2018, 08:58 PM)Goose Wrote:(10-14-2018, 08:37 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: FYI this week the two ESPN gurus, Sherman and Bonagura, currently have U-Dub and Oregon vying for a Rose Bowl slot vs Michigan. One of them picks Stanford for the Vegas Bowl, and the other has us going to the Cheez-it Bowl (I kid you not). That translates to 6th or 7th in the conference, behind Rose, Alamo, Sun, Holiday, and Chicken, ouch.
It could happen. It is up to the team to make sure it doesn't. That said, IF we win the next 3, our game at UW will become the next media "battle of the century." I also wouldn't be amazed if WSU actually beats Oregon, which would certainly mess the pundits up.
Hey Goose... why is your post quoting me? Not only did I not write that (QWERTY did) but he wasn’t quoting me (sometimes the quotes get messed up). So I’m wondering whether there is a bug in the system.
BC
It is my error. The mistake I made was that in abstracting QWERTY's reply, I deleted the header for him and left the header for you. I have "fixed" it here and in the original post as well, just for the record. Sorry about that.
Redrum
Unregistered
Unregistered
10-15-2018, 10:39 AM
This thread morphed right into one of my pet peeves: The quotation system. Sure, it is easier on the front end, but the results in a long thread shift to the reader. In this thread we had some change in topic and comments. Tack a comment on the end when the immediate answers above (my/your) comment may have drifted and left the one you'd like to address buried, say, six long subsequent quoted comments ago. Viewing these long repetitive quotes of quotes above on a phone is like scrolling back to find one of your photos from 1996. I'll add that this particular thread is not near the length of the more egregious ones. It's just in the wrong place and the wrong time.
I find that I often just copy the quote text that I actually care about, paste it inside quote marks, type in an attribution and then get on with making my comment. Like this one.
Oh...you're welcome. (imagine some appropriate winking or laughing emoji here)
I find that I often just copy the quote text that I actually care about, paste it inside quote marks, type in an attribution and then get on with making my comment. Like this one.
Oh...you're welcome. (imagine some appropriate winking or laughing emoji here)
This thread morphed right into one of my pet peeves: The quotation system. Sure, it is easier on the front end, but the results in a long thread shift to the reader. In this thread we had some change in topic and comments. Tack a comment on the end when the immediate answers above (my/your) comment may have drifted and left the one you'd like to address buried, say, six long subsequent quoted comments ago. Viewing these long repetitive quotes of quotes above on a phone is like scrolling back to find one of your photos from 1996. I'll add that this particular thread is not near the length of the more egregious ones. It's just in the wrong place and the wrong time.
I find that I often just copy the quote text that I actually care about, paste it inside quote marks, type in an attribution and then get on with making my comment. Like this one.
Oh...you're welcome. (imagine some appropriate winking or laughing emoji here)
I find that I often just copy the quote text that I actually care about, paste it inside quote marks, type in an attribution and then get on with making my comment. Like this one.
Oh...you're welcome. (imagine some appropriate winking or laughing emoji here)
10-15-2018, 11:24 AM
it's not so bad if you can insert your comment at the top, like this.
It's better when folks can edit the quoted text down to the crucial sentence or two they are referring to, but that's not always possible.
It's generally easier to do all these things on a computer and not on a phone. However I end up accessing this board on my phone 90% of the time.
It's better when folks can edit the quoted text down to the crucial sentence or two they are referring to, but that's not always possible.
It's generally easier to do all these things on a computer and not on a phone. However I end up accessing this board on my phone 90% of the time.
(10-15-2018, 10:39 AM)Redrum Wrote: This thread morphed right into one of my pet peeves: The quotation system. Sure, it is easier on the front end, but the results in a long thread shift to the reader. In this thread we had some change in topic and comments. Tack a comment on the end when the immediate answers above (my/your) comment may have drifted and left the one you'd like to address buried, say, six long subsequent quoted comments ago. Viewing these long repetitive quotes of quotes above on a phone is like scrolling back to find one of your photos from 1996. I'll add that this particular thread is not near the length of the more egregious ones. It's just in the wrong place and the wrong time.
I find that I often just copy the quote text that I actually care about, paste it inside quote marks, type in an attribution and then get on with making my comment. Like this one.
Oh...you're welcome. (imagine some appropriate winking or laughing emoji here)
it's not so bad if you can insert your comment at the top, like this.
It's better when folks can edit the quoted text down to the crucial sentence or two they are referring to, but that's not always possible.
It's generally easier to do all these things on a computer and not on a phone. However I end up accessing this board on my phone 90% of the time.
It's better when folks can edit the quoted text down to the crucial sentence or two they are referring to, but that's not always possible.
It's generally easier to do all these things on a computer and not on a phone. However I end up accessing this board on my phone 90% of the time.
(10-15-2018, 10:39 AM)Redrum Wrote: This thread morphed right into one of my pet peeves: The quotation system. Sure, it is easier on the front end, but the results in a long thread shift to the reader. In this thread we had some change in topic and comments. Tack a comment on the end when the immediate answers above (my/your) comment may have drifted and left the one you'd like to address buried, say, six long subsequent quoted comments ago. Viewing these long repetitive quotes of quotes above on a phone is like scrolling back to find one of your photos from 1996. I'll add that this particular thread is not near the length of the more egregious ones. It's just in the wrong place and the wrong time.
I find that I often just copy the quote text that I actually care about, paste it inside quote marks, type in an attribution and then get on with making my comment. Like this one.
Oh...you're welcome. (imagine some appropriate winking or laughing emoji here)
10-15-2018, 11:53 AM
(10-14-2018, 08:37 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: I think this is one of those thoughts that becomes more relevant if, say, we were 6-0 with 2-3 wins over creampuffs. Then we could compare ourselves to teams like UCF and wonder just how good we really are. And we could complain about lack of respect for the conference.
It's always hard to say if the "traditional" lack of respect shown the Pac-12 is due to 1) our 9-game conference schedule, causing us to beat up on each other one more time than some other conferences; 2) relative lack of exposure to the East Coast media due to the time zone difference and the TV money forcing us to play at night more often than not; 3) overall OOC performance and SOS (I don't have data on this); 4) this is a down year for the conference overall; 5) no "super" teams this year in the conference (i.e. too much parity); or 6) all of the above.
My comment about Cal was more about interest in the game and rivalry itself than in the playoff implications. I've never been much of a playoff fan, and I don't tend to give too much thought on the "do we want team x to beat team y in order to improve the perception of the conference so that we can go to the playoff with one loss if we beat team x". Mostly, as a regular season ticket holder, I want the conference season to be exciting and fun, and part of that means having a competitive game between Cal and Stanford for Big Game. Unlike some other teams, which I derive some joy if they don't go to a bowl game *cough* USC and Notre Dame *cough*, it doesn't bother me that much if Cal goes to the Vegas Bowl or Chicken Bowl. Basically, as long as a) they don't go to the Rose Bowl and b) they don't beat us out for a bowl, I wish them reasonably well.
BC
(10-14-2018, 08:37 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: I think this is one of those thoughts that becomes more relevant if, say, we were 6-0 with 2-3 wins over creampuffs. Then we could compare ourselves to teams like UCF and wonder just how good we really are. And we could complain about lack of respect for the conference.
It's always hard to say if the "traditional" lack of respect shown the Pac-12 is due to 1) our 9-game conference schedule, causing us to beat up on each other one more time than some other conferences; 2) relative lack of exposure to the East Coast media due to the time zone difference and the TV money forcing us to play at night more often than not; 3) overall OOC performance and SOS (I don't have data on this); 4) this is a down year for the conference overall; 5) no "super" teams this year in the conference (i.e. too much parity); or 6) all of the above.
My comment about Cal was more about interest in the game and rivalry itself than in the playoff implications. I've never been much of a playoff fan, and I don't tend to give too much thought on the "do we want team x to beat team y in order to improve the perception of the conference so that we can go to the playoff with one loss if we beat team x". Mostly, as a regular season ticket holder, I want the conference season to be exciting and fun, and part of that means having a competitive game between Cal and Stanford for Big Game. Unlike some other teams, which I derive some joy if they don't go to a bowl game *cough* USC and Notre Dame *cough*, it doesn't bother me that much if Cal goes to the Vegas Bowl or Chicken Bowl. Basically, as long as a) they don't go to the Rose Bowl and b) they don't beat us out for a bowl, I wish them reasonably well.
BC
10-15-2018, 12:02 PM
Regardless of Cal's actual performance, can anyone explain the meaning of their season ticket banner ads I see all over the place saying "You Earned It"? Earned what? The chance to buy tickets?
Regardless of Cal's actual performance, can anyone explain the meaning of their season ticket banner ads I see all over the place saying "You Earned It"? Earned what? The chance to buy tickets?
10-15-2018, 12:46 PM
(10-15-2018, 12:02 PM)French Rage Wrote: Regardless of Cal's actual performance, can anyone explain the meaning of their season ticket banner ads I see all over the place saying "You Earned It"? Earned what? The chance to buy tickets?
The chance to be tortured by watching bad football?
10-16-2018, 01:23 PM
(10-14-2018, 12:47 PM)2006alum Wrote: Well said Bos, agree on all fronts. How do we benefit from having a "doormat" for a rival? I want to beat up on good teams where the wins mean something and the conference gets respect. I fear the real possibility we could end the regular season with only 1 or 2 teams ranked in the top 25. As it is, in the AP we have 3 and the third is WSU at 25th...
I agree. Right now Big Game is a losing proposition for us. If we win, well, of course we did. We go back and hang the Axe back up on the wall until next time. A loss would be catastrophic. Compare this to any of the other supposed rivals on our schedule -- Notre Dame, Oregon, U.S.C. Those games are meaningful and exciting. The week leading up is full of tension. We win sometimes, we lose sometimes -- as you'd expect from a rivalry game.
But it still matters. Even though we've won eight years in a row, I still spend far more time than I should thinking about the 2009 game.
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
(10-14-2018, 12:47 PM)2006alum Wrote: Well said Bos, agree on all fronts. How do we benefit from having a "doormat" for a rival? I want to beat up on good teams where the wins mean something and the conference gets respect. I fear the real possibility we could end the regular season with only 1 or 2 teams ranked in the top 25. As it is, in the AP we have 3 and the third is WSU at 25th...
I agree. Right now Big Game is a losing proposition for us. If we win, well, of course we did. We go back and hang the Axe back up on the wall until next time. A loss would be catastrophic. Compare this to any of the other supposed rivals on our schedule -- Notre Dame, Oregon, U.S.C. Those games are meaningful and exciting. The week leading up is full of tension. We win sometimes, we lose sometimes -- as you'd expect from a rivalry game.
But it still matters. Even though we've won eight years in a row, I still spend far more time than I should thinking about the 2009 game.
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
10-16-2018, 01:43 PM
(10-15-2018, 11:53 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Mostly, as a regular season ticket holder, I want the conference season to be exciting and fun, and part of that means having a competitive game between Cal and Stanford for Big Game. Unlike some other teams, which I derive some joy if they don't go to a bowl game *cough* USC and Notre Dame *cough*, it doesn't bother me that much if Cal goes to the Vegas Bowl or Chicken Bowl. Basically, as long as a) they don't go to the Rose Bowl and b) they don't beat us out for a bowl, I wish them reasonably well.
BC
I think your wish will be fulfilled. There seems to be a lot of parity in the conference this year, with as many as 7-8 teams who could be competitive with each other on any given Saturday. That would seem to fit your criterion for the conference games being exciting.
.Cal is not very good this year, but they did play Oregon pretty straight up for 3 quarters. They usually get really psyched up for us, and it seems they always play us pretty tough.
It's worth wondering if they will ever escape the long-term recruiting disadvantages that now seem embedded there -- the highest academic standards in the UC system, a relative dearth of African-Americans in the student body, a campus embedded in an urban community that won't appeal to everyone.
As someone else noted elsewhere in this thread, if they descend to irrevocable doormat status (and they are close IMO), there's little upside to playing them. But the same arguments can be made for scheduling Sac State and UCDavis, etc.
(10-15-2018, 11:53 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Mostly, as a regular season ticket holder, I want the conference season to be exciting and fun, and part of that means having a competitive game between Cal and Stanford for Big Game. Unlike some other teams, which I derive some joy if they don't go to a bowl game *cough* USC and Notre Dame *cough*, it doesn't bother me that much if Cal goes to the Vegas Bowl or Chicken Bowl. Basically, as long as a) they don't go to the Rose Bowl and b) they don't beat us out for a bowl, I wish them reasonably well.
BC
I think your wish will be fulfilled. There seems to be a lot of parity in the conference this year, with as many as 7-8 teams who could be competitive with each other on any given Saturday. That would seem to fit your criterion for the conference games being exciting.
.Cal is not very good this year, but they did play Oregon pretty straight up for 3 quarters. They usually get really psyched up for us, and it seems they always play us pretty tough.
It's worth wondering if they will ever escape the long-term recruiting disadvantages that now seem embedded there -- the highest academic standards in the UC system, a relative dearth of African-Americans in the student body, a campus embedded in an urban community that won't appeal to everyone.
As someone else noted elsewhere in this thread, if they descend to irrevocable doormat status (and they are close IMO), there's little upside to playing them. But the same arguments can be made for scheduling Sac State and UCDavis, etc.
10-16-2018, 07:15 PM
(10-16-2018, 01:43 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: They usually get really psyched up for us, and it seems they always play us pretty tough.
I could see a 5-5 Cal team playing for a bowl game vs. a 6-4 Stanford team that is playing for nothing better than the Amazing Chicken Bowl which is a sign of a bad season for this program.
Big Game is not going to be a walkover the way Stanford is playing of late.
(10-16-2018, 01:43 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: They usually get really psyched up for us, and it seems they always play us pretty tough.
I could see a 5-5 Cal team playing for a bowl game vs. a 6-4 Stanford team that is playing for nothing better than the Amazing Chicken Bowl which is a sign of a bad season for this program.
Big Game is not going to be a walkover the way Stanford is playing of late.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »