[gailtate]

Has anyone ever compiled a list of Wilner's Stanford football predictions vs actual results?  For a hometown sportswriter, he "seems" pre-disposed to be negative about Stanford.  I'd be curious if the facts bear that out?

I don't have facts on hand but in an earlier post in this thread it was recalled that Wilner was spot-on in his 2017 prediction(s). One of my favorite writers, Bill Plaschke of the L.A Times  since 1987 and covered USC for many years, was regularly pilloried by the Trojan peanut gallery whenever he dared to criticize or go negative on Mighty Troy. This reflex is of course, endemic among die-hard partisans. Plaschke, BTW, a Times columnist since 1996, has been named national sports columnist of the year eight times by the Associated Press. Of course, irrelevant to the diehards. Probably seemed "predisposed being negative..." by Cardinal&Gold experts. Goes with the territory.

[gailtate]

Has anyone ever compiled a list of Wilner's Stanford football predictions vs actual results?  For a hometown sportswriter, he "seems" pre-disposed to be negative about Stanford.  I'd be curious if the facts bear that out?

I don't have facts on hand but in an earlier post in this thread it was recalled that Wilner was spot-on in his 2017 prediction(s). One of my favorite writers, Bill Plaschke of the L.A Times  since 1987 and covered USC for many years, was regularly pilloried by the Trojan peanut gallery whenever he dared to criticize or go negative on Mighty Troy. This reflex is of course, endemic among die-hard partisans. Plaschke, BTW, a Times columnist since 1996, has been named national sports columnist of the year eight times by the Associated Press. Of course, irrelevant to the diehards. Probably seemed "predisposed being negative..." by Cardinal&Gold experts. Goes with the territory.

[Jamesy]

Has anyone ever compiled a list of Wilner's Stanford football predictions vs actual results?  For a hometown sportswriter, he "seems" pre-disposed to be negative about Stanford.  I'd be curious if the facts bear that out?

I don't have facts on hand but in an earlier post in this thread it was recalled that Wilner was spot-on in his 2017 prediction(s). One of my favorite writers, Bill Plaschke of the L.A Times  since 1987 and covered USC for many years, was regularly pilloried by the Trojan peanut gallery whenever he dared to criticize or go negative on Mighty Troy. This reflex is of course, endemic among die-hard partisans. Plaschke, BTW, a Times columnist since 1996, has been named national sports columnist of the year eight times by the Associated Press. Of course, irrelevant to the diehards. Probably seemed "predisposed being negative..." by Cardinal&Gold experts. Goes with the territory.

In the last full football season (2019), he way overestimate the football team's performance. https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08/22/s...avyweight/

[Jamesy]

Has anyone ever compiled a list of Wilner's Stanford football predictions vs actual results?  For a hometown sportswriter, he "seems" pre-disposed to be negative about Stanford.  I'd be curious if the facts bear that out?

I don't have facts on hand but in an earlier post in this thread it was recalled that Wilner was spot-on in his 2017 prediction(s). One of my favorite writers, Bill Plaschke of the L.A Times  since 1987 and covered USC for many years, was regularly pilloried by the Trojan peanut gallery whenever he dared to criticize or go negative on Mighty Troy. This reflex is of course, endemic among die-hard partisans. Plaschke, BTW, a Times columnist since 1996, has been named national sports columnist of the year eight times by the Associated Press. Of course, irrelevant to the diehards. Probably seemed "predisposed being negative..." by Cardinal&Gold experts. Goes with the territory.

In the last full football season (2019), he way overestimate the football team's performance. https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08/22/s...avyweight/

[SamuelMcF]

Has anyone ever compiled a list of Wilner's Stanford football predictions vs actual results?  For a hometown sportswriter, he "seems" pre-disposed to be negative about Stanford.  I'd be curious if the facts bear that out?

I don't have facts on hand but in an earlier post in this thread it was recalled that Wilner was spot-on in his 2017 prediction(s). One of my favorite writers, Bill Plaschke of the L.A Times  since 1987 and covered USC for many years, was regularly pilloried by the Trojan peanut gallery whenever he dared to criticize or go negative on Mighty Troy. This reflex is of course, endemic among die-hard partisans. Plaschke, BTW, a Times columnist since 1996, has been named national sports columnist of the year eight times by the Associated Press. Of course, irrelevant to the diehards. Probably seemed "predisposed being negative..." by Cardinal&Gold experts. Goes with the territory.

In the last full football season (2019), he way overestimate the football team's performance. https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08/22/s...avyweight/

To be fair, it's hard to predict the entire OL dying.

[SamuelMcF]

Has anyone ever compiled a list of Wilner's Stanford football predictions vs actual results?  For a hometown sportswriter, he "seems" pre-disposed to be negative about Stanford.  I'd be curious if the facts bear that out?

I don't have facts on hand but in an earlier post in this thread it was recalled that Wilner was spot-on in his 2017 prediction(s). One of my favorite writers, Bill Plaschke of the L.A Times  since 1987 and covered USC for many years, was regularly pilloried by the Trojan peanut gallery whenever he dared to criticize or go negative on Mighty Troy. This reflex is of course, endemic among die-hard partisans. Plaschke, BTW, a Times columnist since 1996, has been named national sports columnist of the year eight times by the Associated Press. Of course, irrelevant to the diehards. Probably seemed "predisposed being negative..." by Cardinal&Gold experts. Goes with the territory.

In the last full football season (2019), he way overestimate the football team's performance. https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08/22/s...avyweight/

To be fair, it's hard to predict the entire OL dying.

[Jamesy]

Has anyone ever compiled a list of Wilner's Stanford football predictions vs actual results?  For a hometown sportswriter, he "seems" pre-disposed to be negative about Stanford.  I'd be curious if the facts bear that out?

I don't have facts on hand but in an earlier post in this thread it was recalled that Wilner was spot-on in his 2017 prediction(s). One of my favorite writers, Bill Plaschke of the L.A Times  since 1987 and covered USC for many years, was regularly pilloried by the Trojan peanut gallery whenever he dared to criticize or go negative on Mighty Troy. This reflex is of course, endemic among die-hard partisans. Plaschke, BTW, a Times columnist since 1996, has been named national sports columnist of the year eight times by the Associated Press. Of course, irrelevant to the diehards. Probably seemed "predisposed being negative..." by Cardinal&Gold experts. Goes with the territory.

In the last full football season (2019), he way overestimate the football team's performance. https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08/22/s...avyweight/

To be fair, it's hard to predict the entire OL dying.

2018: https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/08/20/s...d-preview/ 
Wilner overrated us.

2017: https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/21/s...e-by-game/
Nailed every game and the ASU prediction was particularly accurate. 

I'll reiterate what I said earlier in the thread. Wilner is not a homer, but he's much more positive about the team in general than many on this board. I do think/hope we'll outperform his 5-7 prediction this year.

[Jamesy]

Has anyone ever compiled a list of Wilner's Stanford football predictions vs actual results?  For a hometown sportswriter, he "seems" pre-disposed to be negative about Stanford.  I'd be curious if the facts bear that out?

I don't have facts on hand but in an earlier post in this thread it was recalled that Wilner was spot-on in his 2017 prediction(s). One of my favorite writers, Bill Plaschke of the L.A Times  since 1987 and covered USC for many years, was regularly pilloried by the Trojan peanut gallery whenever he dared to criticize or go negative on Mighty Troy. This reflex is of course, endemic among die-hard partisans. Plaschke, BTW, a Times columnist since 1996, has been named national sports columnist of the year eight times by the Associated Press. Of course, irrelevant to the diehards. Probably seemed "predisposed being negative..." by Cardinal&Gold experts. Goes with the territory.

In the last full football season (2019), he way overestimate the football team's performance. https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08/22/s...avyweight/

To be fair, it's hard to predict the entire OL dying.

2018: https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/08/20/s...d-preview/ 
Wilner overrated us.

2017: https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/21/s...e-by-game/
Nailed every game and the ASU prediction was particularly accurate. 

I'll reiterate what I said earlier in the thread. Wilner is not a homer, but he's much more positive about the team in general than many on this board. I do think/hope we'll outperform his 5-7 prediction this year.

[82lsju]

The Athletic (behind a paywall) predicts we go 7-5 and finish 3rd in the North

https://theathletic.com/2786435/2021/08/...for-grabs/

[82lsju]

The Athletic (behind a paywall) predicts we go 7-5 and finish 3rd in the North

https://theathletic.com/2786435/2021/08/...for-grabs/

[Phogge]

from the time I started attending in 1953 Stanford and Cal would never play The SC and UCLA games at home in the same year. The locations were flip flopped and we would see SC and UCLA every two years. Ditto the Oregon’s and Washington’s. Wilmer should know this.

So I’m voiding him as an expert and now say 9-3.

I'm guessing he used last year's schedule to determine home/away. We're playing at ucla and Oregon state two years in a row.  

I tend to respect wilner's predictions. He literally picked every game correctly in I think 2017 and he's definitely not a homer.

UCLA is a home game. OSU was supposed to be a home game last year. The odd/even should be completely restored next year barring a third pandemic year.

[Phogge]

from the time I started attending in 1953 Stanford and Cal would never play The SC and UCLA games at home in the same year. The locations were flip flopped and we would see SC and UCLA every two years. Ditto the Oregon’s and Washington’s. Wilmer should know this.

So I’m voiding him as an expert and now say 9-3.

I'm guessing he used last year's schedule to determine home/away. We're playing at ucla and Oregon state two years in a row.  

I tend to respect wilner's predictions. He literally picked every game correctly in I think 2017 and he's definitely not a homer.

UCLA is a home game. OSU was supposed to be a home game last year. The odd/even should be completely restored next year barring a third pandemic year.

[CTcard]

I'll reiterate what I said earlier in the thread. Wilner is not a homer, but he's much more positive about the team in general than many on this board. I do think/hope we'll outperform his 5-7 prediction this year.

Wilner has his strengths. Chief among those is that he is almost alone among employees of major Bay Area media outlets in writing about Stanford sports at all. He has a decent bead on finances and politics of college sports. For a home-town sports writer has a fairly decent view on what is happening across the conference. And, he is definitely not a homer - for Stanford or cal.

Wilner also has his weaknesses. Chief among those is that he doesn't seem to actually like or watch a lot of the sports he covers. He doesn't write much, and certainly not in much detail, about most key sports stuff: things like personnel strength and weaknesses, strategies, game plans, match ups, injury implications,etc. He has a well-intentioned, but ultimately unworkable theory of ranking that gets his AP ballot into some awkward places. He doesn't seem to have any good connections to the local coaching staffs to get insights into what's up and coming.

As far as I can remember, overall Wilner is as good as most doing these kinds of predictions. However, I don't put much stock in predictions as being overly indicative of being good at one's job as a football analyst. Other than what is obvious (of which there is a lot in college football), it's basically an exercise in coin flipping - particularly beyond about three games into a season that hasn't even begun yet.

[CTcard]

I'll reiterate what I said earlier in the thread. Wilner is not a homer, but he's much more positive about the team in general than many on this board. I do think/hope we'll outperform his 5-7 prediction this year.

Wilner has his strengths. Chief among those is that he is almost alone among employees of major Bay Area media outlets in writing about Stanford sports at all. He has a decent bead on finances and politics of college sports. For a home-town sports writer has a fairly decent view on what is happening across the conference. And, he is definitely not a homer - for Stanford or cal.

Wilner also has his weaknesses. Chief among those is that he doesn't seem to actually like or watch a lot of the sports he covers. He doesn't write much, and certainly not in much detail, about most key sports stuff: things like personnel strength and weaknesses, strategies, game plans, match ups, injury implications,etc. He has a well-intentioned, but ultimately unworkable theory of ranking that gets his AP ballot into some awkward places. He doesn't seem to have any good connections to the local coaching staffs to get insights into what's up and coming.

As far as I can remember, overall Wilner is as good as most doing these kinds of predictions. However, I don't put much stock in predictions as being overly indicative of being good at one's job as a football analyst. Other than what is obvious (of which there is a lot in college football), it's basically an exercise in coin flipping - particularly beyond about three games into a season that hasn't even begun yet.

[martyup]

Predictions mean squat.  This team will decide among themselves whether they will be winners or losers.  "On any given day" is not merely fantasy.  Team chemistry cannot be predicted.  Teams comprised of great individual players fail regularly.  Less often, teams with average players rise up.  One player can spark a team to greatness.  Remember Shane Skov?  

Regardless of Wilner's prognostications, this team controls its own destiny.   Here's hoping for a season of inspired Stanford football and a winning season.

[martyup]

Predictions mean squat.  This team will decide among themselves whether they will be winners or losers.  "On any given day" is not merely fantasy.  Team chemistry cannot be predicted.  Teams comprised of great individual players fail regularly.  Less often, teams with average players rise up.  One player can spark a team to greatness.  Remember Shane Skov?  

Regardless of Wilner's prognostications, this team controls its own destiny.   Here's hoping for a season of inspired Stanford football and a winning season.

[BostonCard]

I'll reiterate what I said earlier in the thread. Wilner is not a homer, but he's much more positive about the team in general than many on this board. I do think/hope we'll outperform his 5-7 prediction this year.

Wilner has his strengths. Chief among those is that he is almost alone among employees of major Bay Area media outlets in writing about Stanford sports at all. He has a decent bead on finances and politics of college sports. For a home-town sports writer has a fairly decent view on what is happening across the conference. And, he is definitely not a homer - for Stanford or cal.

Wilner also has his weaknesses. Chief among those is that he doesn't seem to actually like or watch a lot of the sports he covers. He doesn't write much, and certainly not in much detail, about most key sports stuff: things like personnel strength and weaknesses, strategies, game plans, match ups, injury implications,etc. He has a well-intentioned, but ultimately unworkable theory of ranking that gets his AP ballot into some awkward places. He doesn't seem to have any good connections to the local coaching staffs to get insights into what's up and coming.

As far as I can remember, overall Wilner is as good as most doing these kinds of predictions. However, I don't put much stock in predictions as being overly indicative of being good at one's job as a football analyst. Other than what is obvious (of which there is a lot in college football), it's basically an exercise in coin flipping - particularly beyond about three games into a season that hasn't even begun yet.

I completely agree.  He is a good business-of-sports writer, and he has had good insights about the conference organizational and financial issues.  He is not a good sportswriter.

BC

[BostonCard]

I'll reiterate what I said earlier in the thread. Wilner is not a homer, but he's much more positive about the team in general than many on this board. I do think/hope we'll outperform his 5-7 prediction this year.

Wilner has his strengths. Chief among those is that he is almost alone among employees of major Bay Area media outlets in writing about Stanford sports at all. He has a decent bead on finances and politics of college sports. For a home-town sports writer has a fairly decent view on what is happening across the conference. And, he is definitely not a homer - for Stanford or cal.

Wilner also has his weaknesses. Chief among those is that he doesn't seem to actually like or watch a lot of the sports he covers. He doesn't write much, and certainly not in much detail, about most key sports stuff: things like personnel strength and weaknesses, strategies, game plans, match ups, injury implications,etc. He has a well-intentioned, but ultimately unworkable theory of ranking that gets his AP ballot into some awkward places. He doesn't seem to have any good connections to the local coaching staffs to get insights into what's up and coming.

As far as I can remember, overall Wilner is as good as most doing these kinds of predictions. However, I don't put much stock in predictions as being overly indicative of being good at one's job as a football analyst. Other than what is obvious (of which there is a lot in college football), it's basically an exercise in coin flipping - particularly beyond about three games into a season that hasn't even begun yet.

I completely agree.  He is a good business-of-sports writer, and he has had good insights about the conference organizational and financial issues.  He is not a good sportswriter.

BC

[Phogge]

Mortal sin in publishing to have a fact incorrect. Wilner, guilty, guilty, guilty.

[Phogge]

Mortal sin in publishing to have a fact incorrect. Wilner, guilty, guilty, guilty.

[teejers1]

One player can spark a team to greatness.  Remember Shane Skov?  

Loved Skov's play . . . but he played on great teams, including ones quarterbacked by Andrew Luck.  Sparks ignite when the roster is full of studs.

[teejers1]

One player can spark a team to greatness.  Remember Shane Skov?  

Loved Skov's play . . . but he played on great teams, including ones quarterbacked by Andrew Luck.  Sparks ignite when the roster is full of studs.

[gailtate]

 
One player can spark a team to greatness.  Remember Shane Skov?  

Truly unforgettable. Made everybody around him a little better. Here's the rub: Skov had a lot of fellow-studs around him. It's the quality and depth of roster that's the missing ingredient this season (and several of the ones before that). No individual stud can compensate for a thin squad: something that too many on this board deny or dismiss. They will point to a player here or there and overlook the scarcity of football athletes necessary to put a competitive team out there week after week. I'm hoping for the best season that this group of athletes can deliver. But I don't expect miracles or a 1999 nor anything close to it. It's about the quality and depth of the roster. It's measurable.

[gailtate]

 
One player can spark a team to greatness.  Remember Shane Skov?  

Truly unforgettable. Made everybody around him a little better. Here's the rub: Skov had a lot of fellow-studs around him. It's the quality and depth of roster that's the missing ingredient this season (and several of the ones before that). No individual stud can compensate for a thin squad: something that too many on this board deny or dismiss. They will point to a player here or there and overlook the scarcity of football athletes necessary to put a competitive team out there week after week. I'm hoping for the best season that this group of athletes can deliver. But I don't expect miracles or a 1999 nor anything close to it. It's about the quality and depth of the roster. It's measurable.

[Goose]

I'm hoping for the best season that this group of athletes can deliver. But I don't expect miracles or a 1999 nor anything close to it. It's about the quality and depth of the roster. It's measurable.

How is it measured? IMHO it isn't measured by recruitment ratings or press clippings or expert opinions. It is only measured by how many games they win in the season, and that hasn't happened yet. It is fun to speculate, but at the end of the day it means nothing. It is what happens on the field. We will soon know a bit more.

[Goose]

I'm hoping for the best season that this group of athletes can deliver. But I don't expect miracles or a 1999 nor anything close to it. It's about the quality and depth of the roster. It's measurable.

How is it measured? IMHO it isn't measured by recruitment ratings or press clippings or expert opinions. It is only measured by how many games they win in the season, and that hasn't happened yet. It is fun to speculate, but at the end of the day it means nothing. It is what happens on the field. We will soon know a bit more.

[gailtate]

I'm hoping for the best season that this group of athletes can deliver. But I don't expect miracles or a 1999 nor anything close to it. It's about the quality and depth of the roster. It's measurable.

How is it measured? IMHO it isn't measured by recruitment ratings or press clippings or expert opinions. It is only measured by how many games they win in the season, and that hasn't happened yet. It is fun to speculate, but at the end of the day it means nothing. It is what happens on the field. We will soon know a bit more.

It is most certainly measured in large part by the quality of recruits, as in "stars". Maybe not precise science but recruiters pay close attention to it so it must be worth something. The point is that, year in and year out, the highest ranked teams have the highest number of the best players. No mystery here. This is what makes the best teams.

[gailtate]

I'm hoping for the best season that this group of athletes can deliver. But I don't expect miracles or a 1999 nor anything close to it. It's about the quality and depth of the roster. It's measurable.

How is it measured? IMHO it isn't measured by recruitment ratings or press clippings or expert opinions. It is only measured by how many games they win in the season, and that hasn't happened yet. It is fun to speculate, but at the end of the day it means nothing. It is what happens on the field. We will soon know a bit more.

It is most certainly measured in large part by the quality of recruits, as in "stars". Maybe not precise science but recruiters pay close attention to it so it must be worth something. The point is that, year in and year out, the highest ranked teams have the highest number of the best players. No mystery here. This is what makes the best teams.

[Goose]

It is most certainly measured in large part by the quality of recruits, as in "stars". Maybe not precise science but recruiters pay close attention to it so it must be worth something. The point is that, year in and year out, the highest ranked teams have the highest number of the best players. No mystery here. This is what makes the best teams.

Sorry, but I have to continue to disagree. The quality of the roster can reasonably be predicted by the number of stars for each team member. However, the quality of the roster is measured by how they actually perform. It is often true that the predictions are fairly accurate, but not always. The measurement is how they play, not how others expected them to play. Some recruits come in as 5 star guys and end up as total busts. Some recruits come in a 3 star guys and turn out to be great players.

It is also a bit complex. Was Josh Rosen a bust at UCLA or did he live up to the hype? How about his pro career? The predictions are one thing, the Ws are another. At UCLA, Rosen may have been a player who lived up to the hype but still didn't win championships because of the players around him. It also may be that they didn't win championships because Rosen had some major flaws. Which was it? The only objective measure of a roster is how many games it wins. There probably is no objective measure of each individual player.

[Goose]

It is most certainly measured in large part by the quality of recruits, as in "stars". Maybe not precise science but recruiters pay close attention to it so it must be worth something. The point is that, year in and year out, the highest ranked teams have the highest number of the best players. No mystery here. This is what makes the best teams.

Sorry, but I have to continue to disagree. The quality of the roster can reasonably be predicted by the number of stars for each team member. However, the quality of the roster is measured by how they actually perform. It is often true that the predictions are fairly accurate, but not always. The measurement is how they play, not how others expected them to play. Some recruits come in as 5 star guys and end up as total busts. Some recruits come in a 3 star guys and turn out to be great players.

It is also a bit complex. Was Josh Rosen a bust at UCLA or did he live up to the hype? How about his pro career? The predictions are one thing, the Ws are another. At UCLA, Rosen may have been a player who lived up to the hype but still didn't win championships because of the players around him. It also may be that they didn't win championships because Rosen had some major flaws. Which was it? The only objective measure of a roster is how many games it wins. There probably is no objective measure of each individual player.

[gailtate]

It is most certainly measured in large part by the quality of recruits, as in "stars". Maybe not precise science but recruiters pay close attention to it so it must be worth something. The point is that, year in and year out, the highest ranked teams have the highest number of the best players. No mystery here. This is what makes the best teams.

Sorry, but I have to continue to disagree. The quality of the roster can reasonably be predicted by the number of stars for each team member. However, the quality of the roster is measured by how they actually perform. It is often true that the predictions are fairly accurate, but not always. The measurement is how they play, not how others expected them to play. Some recruits come in as 5 star guys and end up as total busts. Some recruits come in a 3 star guys and turn out to be great players.

It is also a bit complex. Was Josh Rosen a bust at UCLA or did he live up to the hype? How about his pro career? The predictions are one thing, the Ws are another. At UCLA, Rosen may have been a player who lived up to the hype but still didn't win championships because of the players around him. It also may be that they didn't win championships because Rosen had some major flaws. Which was it? The only objective measure of a roster is how many games it wins. There probably is no objective measure of each individual player.

I stand on my comment. The best teams always have most of the best players, the best records and the best prospects for continued success because that's where the BEST PLAYERS WANT TO PLAY. Not all of them, of course, but most of them. Enough of them to keep those teams in championship contention. I'm done here.

[gailtate]

It is most certainly measured in large part by the quality of recruits, as in "stars". Maybe not precise science but recruiters pay close attention to it so it must be worth something. The point is that, year in and year out, the highest ranked teams have the highest number of the best players. No mystery here. This is what makes the best teams.

Sorry, but I have to continue to disagree. The quality of the roster can reasonably be predicted by the number of stars for each team member. However, the quality of the roster is measured by how they actually perform. It is often true that the predictions are fairly accurate, but not always. The measurement is how they play, not how others expected them to play. Some recruits come in as 5 star guys and end up as total busts. Some recruits come in a 3 star guys and turn out to be great players.

It is also a bit complex. Was Josh Rosen a bust at UCLA or did he live up to the hype? How about his pro career? The predictions are one thing, the Ws are another. At UCLA, Rosen may have been a player who lived up to the hype but still didn't win championships because of the players around him. It also may be that they didn't win championships because Rosen had some major flaws. Which was it? The only objective measure of a roster is how many games it wins. There probably is no objective measure of each individual player.

I stand on my comment. The best teams always have most of the best players, the best records and the best prospects for continued success because that's where the BEST PLAYERS WANT TO PLAY. Not all of them, of course, but most of them. Enough of them to keep those teams in championship contention. I'm done here.

[BostonCard]

Well, the bozos at ESPN are both predicting we are going to a Bowl game...

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ng-playoff

Bonagura is predicting Stanford vs. Nevada at the EasyPost Hawai'i Bowl
Schlabach is predicting Stanford vs. NC State at the San Diego County Credit Union Holiday Bowl

I would love to see us at the Holiday Bowl (where we have never gone).  Hawai'i wouldn't be bad either as a destination.  But I still think it is more likely than not that we don't go anywhere.

BC

[BostonCard]

Well, the bozos at ESPN are both predicting we are going to a Bowl game...

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...ng-playoff

Bonagura is predicting Stanford vs. Nevada at the EasyPost Hawai'i Bowl
Schlabach is predicting Stanford vs. NC State at the San Diego County Credit Union Holiday Bowl

I would love to see us at the Holiday Bowl (where we have never gone).  Hawai'i wouldn't be bad either as a destination.  But I still think it is more likely than not that we don't go anywhere.

BC

[BostonCard]

Here’s ESPN’s prediction…

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...021-season

7-5, 5-4 in the PAC-12. Not sure where those wins come from, but I hope they are right.

BC

[BostonCard]

Here’s ESPN’s prediction…

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...021-season

7-5, 5-4 in the PAC-12. Not sure where those wins come from, but I hope they are right.

BC

[gailtate]

Here’s ESPN’s prediction…

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...021-season

7-5, 5-4 in the PAC-12.  Not sure where those wins come from, but I hope they are right.

BC

Uh...I wouldn't bet on it.

[gailtate]

Here’s ESPN’s prediction…

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...021-season

7-5, 5-4 in the PAC-12.  Not sure where those wins come from, but I hope they are right.

BC

Uh...I wouldn't bet on it.

[BostonCard]

Cal will now be playing at FTX Field (at California Memorial Stadium).

The crypto exchange is paying Cal $17.5 million in crypto for 10-year naming rights.

The founder is a former walk-on at Cal.

How long did Kabam Field last?

Maybe they can issue an NFT in honor of their last Rose Bowl appearance.

BC

[BostonCard]

Cal will now be playing at FTX Field (at California Memorial Stadium).

The crypto exchange is paying Cal $17.5 million in crypto for 10-year naming rights.

The founder is a former walk-on at Cal.

How long did Kabam Field last?

Maybe they can issue an NFT in honor of their last Rose Bowl appearance.

BC