11-20-2019, 11:48 AM
Ahh, brings me back to when I was a student in the late 90s. When a successful season could be defined by beating C.al...
Big Game Week Predictions Thread
11-20-2019, 02:36 PM
(11-20-2019, 11:48 AM)george Wrote: Ahh, brings me back to when I was a student in the late 90s. When a successful season could be defined by beating C.al...That wasn't quite true during that stretch. In the late 90s Stanford seemed to toggle between pretty good years with a nice bowl game and ~.500 years .
In the late 90s beating UCB was a given. The 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 & 2001 seasons all had one thing in common, wins over UCB. I am not super sure all of those seasons were seen as successful. In the late 90s Stanford seemed to toggle between good years with a decent bowl game, and years a touch below .500. Those years below .500 were not really seen as successful at that time.
Of course, 1999 was a touch different but it did require a win over UCB to become the best season in more than two decades.
(11-20-2019, 11:48 AM)george Wrote: Ahh, brings me back to when I was a student in the late 90s. When a successful season could be defined by beating C.al...That wasn't quite true during that stretch. In the late 90s Stanford seemed to toggle between pretty good years with a nice bowl game and ~.500 years .
In the late 90s beating UCB was a given. The 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 & 2001 seasons all had one thing in common, wins over UCB. I am not super sure all of those seasons were seen as successful. In the late 90s Stanford seemed to toggle between good years with a decent bowl game, and years a touch below .500. Those years below .500 were not really seen as successful at that time.
Of course, 1999 was a touch different but it did require a win over UCB to become the best season in more than two decades.
11-20-2019, 02:51 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-20-2019, 02:51 PM by BostonCard.)
Yes, the 7-game winning streak under Willingham was nice. The overall results would be considered dismal under the standards applied to Shaw, however, yet were good enough for Willingham to be poached to Notre Dame.
1995: 7-4-1 (5-3 in the Pac-10); lost in the Liberty Bowl against East Carolina
1996: 7-5 (5-3); beat MSU in the Sun Bowl (then coached by Nick Saban)
1997: 5-6 (3-5)
1998: 3-8 (2-6); at this point the trajectory was clear, right
1999: 8-4 (7-1); lost to Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl
2000: 5-6 (4-4)
2001: 9-3 (6-2); lost to Georgia Tech in the Seattle Bowl
Overall 44-36 (32-24)
Shaw could go 0-37 over the next 3 seasons and he'd still have a better overall record than Willingham.
BC
1995: 7-4-1 (5-3 in the Pac-10); lost in the Liberty Bowl against East Carolina
1996: 7-5 (5-3); beat MSU in the Sun Bowl (then coached by Nick Saban)
1997: 5-6 (3-5)
1998: 3-8 (2-6); at this point the trajectory was clear, right
1999: 8-4 (7-1); lost to Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl
2000: 5-6 (4-4)
2001: 9-3 (6-2); lost to Georgia Tech in the Seattle Bowl
Overall 44-36 (32-24)
Shaw could go 0-37 over the next 3 seasons and he'd still have a better overall record than Willingham.
BC
(This post was last modified: 11-20-2019, 02:51 PM by BostonCard.)
Yes, the 7-game winning streak under Willingham was nice. The overall results would be considered dismal under the standards applied to Shaw, however, yet were good enough for Willingham to be poached to Notre Dame.
1995: 7-4-1 (5-3 in the Pac-10); lost in the Liberty Bowl against East Carolina
1996: 7-5 (5-3); beat MSU in the Sun Bowl (then coached by Nick Saban)
1997: 5-6 (3-5)
1998: 3-8 (2-6); at this point the trajectory was clear, right
1999: 8-4 (7-1); lost to Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl
2000: 5-6 (4-4)
2001: 9-3 (6-2); lost to Georgia Tech in the Seattle Bowl
Overall 44-36 (32-24)
Shaw could go 0-37 over the next 3 seasons and he'd still have a better overall record than Willingham.
BC
1995: 7-4-1 (5-3 in the Pac-10); lost in the Liberty Bowl against East Carolina
1996: 7-5 (5-3); beat MSU in the Sun Bowl (then coached by Nick Saban)
1997: 5-6 (3-5)
1998: 3-8 (2-6); at this point the trajectory was clear, right
1999: 8-4 (7-1); lost to Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl
2000: 5-6 (4-4)
2001: 9-3 (6-2); lost to Georgia Tech in the Seattle Bowl
Overall 44-36 (32-24)
Shaw could go 0-37 over the next 3 seasons and he'd still have a better overall record than Willingham.
BC
11-20-2019, 10:29 PM
Cal 20-14. They will control the line of scrimmage. Stanford will not be able to run the ball. Wilcox runs a lot of stunts blitzes effectively. They are going to put a ton of pressure on Mills. Offensively Cal will be able to run the ball a little bit. Which will be enough to carry the day.
Cal 20-14. They will control the line of scrimmage. Stanford will not be able to run the ball. Wilcox runs a lot of stunts blitzes effectively. They are going to put a ton of pressure on Mills. Offensively Cal will be able to run the ball a little bit. Which will be enough to carry the day.
11-20-2019, 10:48 PM
My prediction for this Saturday's Big Game is Stanford 20, Cal 19.
That also happens to be what the final score should read for the Big Game in 1982.
That also happens to be what the final score should read for the Big Game in 1982.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
My prediction for this Saturday's Big Game is Stanford 20, Cal 19.
That also happens to be what the final score should read for the Big Game in 1982.
That also happens to be what the final score should read for the Big Game in 1982.
If there's one thing people have learned in Berkeley, it's that you can't put "Cal football" and "Rose Bowl" in the same sentence. The words just don't fit. You'd be better off linking "covered wagons" with "Mars travel." (Bruce Jenkins, Cal '70, SF Chronicle, Nov. 11, 2017)
![[Image: 806px-Cardinal-Richelieu.jpg]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Cardinal-Richelieu.jpg/806px-Cardinal-Richelieu.jpg)
11-21-2019, 06:36 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-21-2019, 06:36 AM by OutsiderFan.)
Anyone who thinks Stanford is scoring more than 20 points on Cal is delusional. Stanford only mustered 16 and 22 against the two worst defenses in the Pac-12. Granted those games were on the road, and Stanford has played better at home in general, but Cal has a much better defense than wither of those two teams, is playing for a bowl game and will have more better players on both sides of the ball.
(This post was last modified: 11-21-2019, 06:36 AM by OutsiderFan.)
Anyone who thinks Stanford is scoring more than 20 points on Cal is delusional. Stanford only mustered 16 and 22 against the two worst defenses in the Pac-12. Granted those games were on the road, and Stanford has played better at home in general, but Cal has a much better defense than wither of those two teams, is playing for a bowl game and will have more better players on both sides of the ball.
11-21-2019, 12:30 PM
(11-20-2019, 10:29 PM)lex24 Wrote: Cal 20-14. They will control the line of scrimmage. Stanford will not be able to run the ball. Wilcox runs a lot of stunts blitzes effectively. They are going to put a ton of pressure on Mills. Offensively Cal will be able to run the ball a little bit. Which will be enough to carry the day.
Hey, how come I'm listed under "Shame" while you're predicting a larger loss for the Cardinal. Life isn’t fair. I swear to god it isn’t. . . .
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
(11-20-2019, 10:29 PM)lex24 Wrote: Cal 20-14. They will control the line of scrimmage. Stanford will not be able to run the ball. Wilcox runs a lot of stunts blitzes effectively. They are going to put a ton of pressure on Mills. Offensively Cal will be able to run the ball a little bit. Which will be enough to carry the day.
Hey, how come I'm listed under "Shame" while you're predicting a larger loss for the Cardinal. Life isn’t fair. I swear to god it isn’t. . . .
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
11-23-2019, 11:29 AM
Moveable object meets stoppable force and I think the the moveable object wins.
Stanford 18 Berkeley 13
Stanford 18 Berkeley 13
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
Moveable object meets stoppable force and I think the the moveable object wins.
Stanford 18 Berkeley 13
Stanford 18 Berkeley 13
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »