Comcast - PAC 12 - Bay Area (Channel 433),
Comcast - PAC 12 HD - Bay Area (Channel 823)
Comcast - PAC 12 - national (Channel 434)
DISH (channel 413)
Comcast in Bay Area - FSN games are on KICU (Channel 6 and 706)
FCP Pacific (channel 415)
Ugh, I work with a Wisconsin alum who is absolutely insufferable about the Badgers.
In his world, there are two dominant conferences, the Big 10 and the SEC, and the rest are irrelevant. The Pac-12 is a mid-major conference with one good program and a bunch of teams that are warm-up cupcake games for the real conferences. The college football world has two time zones.
I hope he's not representative of all Wisconsin fans, because if he is, their fanbase is arrogant.
Most are not like that. In fact, some are embarassed about the extent to which UW uses resources on FB. A few pay no attention to FB whatsoever. Sound familiar? They're pretty serious about the academic world there.
I agree with those who say it's the linemen (and coaching stability). They just keep pounding and pounding. Most teams crack. The better ones don't. RBs? They may all be 4.6 (that's charitable), but they're also 5'10", 225#. And, they just keep hitting the hole hard. Now, add in an athletic QB from NCS like they did last year and you have further improvement. This year it will be back to the tried and true.
Well they are 2-4 in their recent bowl games and lost the last two rose bowls to teams who weren't crushed by their OL. Works well in the draught horse league they play in.
I don't really buy the consistency of coaching staff argument. Coaches are usually long tenured because they're successful, not the other way around.
Wisconsin has a very strong identity, and everything they do in recruiting and coaching and strength and conditioning is tailored to that identity. I'd love for cal to be Wisconsin-west, and I don't see why we couldn't make that happen.
And I don't want to take anything away from the Badgers but......
To an extent is their "rise" a function of the fall off in a number of other Big-10 programs. I am thinking in particular of OSU last year; Illinois retreat to irrelevancy, the Domer's continue saga of shooting self in foot, Penn State's soap opera with Jo Pa, etc. etc.
One thing that negabears give Tedford a pass for is that some of our futility in the early part of last decade corresponded to the rise of what might be the most dominant program in college football in the last 20 years. Pete the Cheat was frankly amazing. We also are now in an historic "up" period of Duck football. As much as all of you I want to beat both of those programs. But I also recognize that some of the losses to them are a function of them being at the very top of the college football pecking order.
Badgers have done well. They have avoided over the past 5-6 years our "losses" to the equivelent of the Oregon States and ASUs and UCLAs of their conference. But except for that epic upset of Ohio State, their record against great teams isn't that impressive - rather it is their ability to get the job done against the Michigan States, Illini, Minnesotas and Iowas
And I don't want to take anything away from the Badgers but......
To an extent is their "rise" a function of the fall off in a number of other Big-10 programs. I am thinking in particular of OSU last year; Illinois retreat to irrelevancy, the Domer's continue saga of shooting self in foot, Penn State's soap opera with Jo Pa, etc. etc.
One thing that negabears give Tedford a pass for is that some of our futility in the early part of last decade corresponded to the rise of what might be the most dominant program in college football in the last 20 years. Pete the Cheat was frankly amazing. We also are now in an historic "up" period of Duck football. As much as all of you I want to beat both of those programs. But I also recognize that some of the losses to them are a function of them being at the very top of the college football pecking order.
Badgers have done well. They have avoided over the past 5-6 years our "losses" to the equivelent of the Oregon States and ASUs and UCLAs of their conference. But except for that epic upset of Ohio State, their record against great teams isn't that impressive - rather it is their ability to get the job done against the Michigan States, Illini, Minnesotas and Iowas
Good post, but I have one minor quibble. I don't think Illinois had much to do with the rise of Wisconsin, as "irrelevancy" is the usual domain of the Iliini.
Football is "it" in the midwest. There are a plethora of quality kids and not near the number of competing programs like we have out west. If you look at their roster, most of their kids are from Wisconsin. What other DI football school is in the state? Most of the rest are from the surrounding states. That is true with Big 10 football in general, but more so with Wisconsin I think. If you are a good high school football player in Wisconsin, you usually end up in Madison! As was also pointed out in this thread, they run a pro-style program, expecially offensively and they recruit kids to make it work - BIG kids!
.......Badgers have done well. They have avoided over the past 5-6 years our "losses" to the equivelent of the Oregon States and ASUs and UCLAs of their conference. But except for that epic upset of Ohio State, their record against great teams isn't that impressive - rather it is their ability to get the job done against the Michigan States, Illini, Minnesotas and Iowas
You may be right that Wisc's template gives them consistent success against mid-grade teams, but difficulty getting over the top against the elite. But the way things have been going at Cal the last few years, I'd take that in a heartbeat.
Must respectfully disagree. Barry Alvarez made a point of recruiting out-of-state players. That was a change from the past, and may help to explain Wisconsin's turnaround since the mid 90's.
Please see the Wisconsin roster. Many out-of-state players.
Must respectfully disagree. Barry Alvarez made a point of recruiting out-of-state players. That was a change from the past, and may help to explain Wisconsin's turnaround since the mid 90's.
Please see the Wisconsin roster. Many out-of-state players.
80 Of the players are from Midwest states (52 from Wisconsin). With 105 players allowed, that is an overwhelming number of "local" kids - and that doesn't count the kids from PA, who were probably closer to Madison than San Diego is to Berkeley. Sure looks like a "homegrown" team to me.
According to the ESPN database on college sports expenditures, Wisconsin spends about $93 million a year, versus Cal's $64 million. A check of the Wisconsin sports website shows they have only 23 sports, versus Cal's 29. One could infer from these statistics that Wisconsin probably has more money to spend on football and basketball than Cal does, which perhaps permits superior player development. I would also suspect they do better in recruiting from their backyard than we do from ours, particularly in basketball.
Linear Mode
