calumnus said:
It used to be a win over Sac State wouldn't count toward bowl eligibility. Now we likely need ii and our first winning record in conference since Kevin Riley was our QB to get to 6-6 and go to a crappy bowl game. Let's keep our fingers crossed.
ColoradoBear said:calumnus said:
It used to be a win over Sac State wouldn't count toward bowl eligibility. Now we likely need ii and our first winning record in conference since Kevin Riley was our QB to get to 6-6 and go to a crappy bowl game. Let's keep our fingers crossed.
I believe 2006 was the first year FCS games counted for bowl eligibility - the same year the 12 game schedule was approved. Before that an FCS game could count every 4 years, but I don't think there were enough bowls to support many 6 win teams making the postseason.
Cal played its first FCS game in 2005 which was a rare 12 game schedule year due to the extra week between labor day and thanksgiving.
I still think all FBS teams need to ditch these games, and if a few bottom feeder bowls go away, who cares.
socaliganbear said:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/09/14/pac-12-bowl-projections-oregon-jumps-into-the-cfp-and-everyone-else-moves-up/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
He has Oregon State making it tho.
As long as the SEC teams schedule 3 of these FCS (or almost FCS) cream puff type games every year, we'll also have to schedule an FCS game.calumnus said:ColoradoBear said:calumnus said:
It used to be a win over Sac State wouldn't count toward bowl eligibility. Now we likely need ii and our first winning record in conference since Kevin Riley was our QB to get to 6-6 and go to a crappy bowl game. Let's keep our fingers crossed.
I believe 2006 was the first year FCS games counted for bowl eligibility - the same year the 12 game schedule was approved. Before that an FCS game could count every 4 years, but I don't think there were enough bowls to support many 6 win teams making the postseason.
Cal played its first FCS game in 2005 which was a rare 12 game schedule year due to the extra week between labor day and thanksgiving.
I still think all FBS teams need to ditch these games, and if a few bottom feeder bowls go away, who cares.
Cal has played an FCS team every year since we played Sac State in 2005 except 2007, 2008, 2016 and of course last year, 2020.
I do hope they go away too. Hopefully with the Alliance and an expanded, league champions based playoffs as well as a reduced number of minor bowls.
Haleiwabear said:
I don't think it's off the table that we get beat by Sac State. This team doesn't really have an identity or obvious leadership presence and with the inconsistency of QB play, nothing is a guarantee. Seems like we are playing the waiting game for latest recruiting classes to evolve into high impact guys.
Watching the Raiders last night, we could really use a good pass rush DE.
I think the best case scenario for this year is that young guys get a lot of playing experience. Where this whole concept of team depth came from I'm not really sure.
75bear said:As long as the SEC teams schedule 3 of these FCS (or almost FCS) cream puff type games every year, we'll also have to schedule an FCS game.calumnus said:ColoradoBear said:calumnus said:
It used to be a win over Sac State wouldn't count toward bowl eligibility. Now we likely need ii and our first winning record in conference since Kevin Riley was our QB to get to 6-6 and go to a crappy bowl game. Let's keep our fingers crossed.
I believe 2006 was the first year FCS games counted for bowl eligibility - the same year the 12 game schedule was approved. Before that an FCS game could count every 4 years, but I don't think there were enough bowls to support many 6 win teams making the postseason.
Cal played its first FCS game in 2005 which was a rare 12 game schedule year due to the extra week between labor day and thanksgiving.
I still think all FBS teams need to ditch these games, and if a few bottom feeder bowls go away, who cares.
Cal has played an FCS team every year since we played Sac State in 2005 except 2007, 2008, 2016 and of course last year, 2020.
I do hope they go away too. Hopefully with the Alliance and an expanded, league champions based playoffs as well as a reduced number of minor bowls.
SEC will take over the top spot by a very wide margin when the new ESPN Game of the Week contract becomes effective in 2024 (another $ 18-20 million per school).ColoradoBear said:75bear said:As long as the SEC teams schedule 3 of these FCS (or almost FCS) cream puff type games every year, we'll also have to schedule an FCS game.calumnus said:ColoradoBear said:calumnus said:
It used to be a win over Sac State wouldn't count toward bowl eligibility. Now we likely need ii and our first winning record in conference since Kevin Riley was our QB to get to 6-6 and go to a crappy bowl game. Let's keep our fingers crossed.
I believe 2006 was the first year FCS games counted for bowl eligibility - the same year the 12 game schedule was approved. Before that an FCS game could count every 4 years, but I don't think there were enough bowls to support many 6 win teams making the postseason.
Cal played its first FCS game in 2005 which was a rare 12 game schedule year due to the extra week between labor day and thanksgiving.
I still think all FBS teams need to ditch these games, and if a few bottom feeder bowls go away, who cares.
Cal has played an FCS team every year since we played Sac State in 2005 except 2007, 2008, 2016 and of course last year, 2020.
I do hope they go away too. Hopefully with the Alliance and an expanded, league champions based playoffs as well as a reduced number of minor bowls.
Alliance partner Big Ten Conference banned FCS games in 2016. The have also lead on revenue, even over the SEC.
So some now say Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC means they will take over the spot as revenue king. That is likely, but only if the conference provides more content that can be televised nationally. Like Texas vs Georgia, not vs Mercer or whatever.
Alliance members would also be able to form a unified bloc for CFP format discussions.
Haleiwabear said:
I would hope that's the case - just haven't seen anything dependable or consistent yet other than how we've run the ball. That being said - we've played two tough opponents off the bat.
calumnus said:Haleiwabear said:
I would hope that's the case - just haven't seen anything dependable or consistent yet other than how we've run the ball. That being said - we've played two tough opponents off the bat.
Nevada, TCU and Sac State is one of the easier non-conference schedules in my memory.
oski003 said:calumnus said:Haleiwabear said:
I would hope that's the case - just haven't seen anything dependable or consistent yet other than how we've run the ball. That being said - we've played two tough opponents off the bat.
Nevada, TCU and Sac State is one of the easier non-conference schedules in my memory.
It is fairly standard with two Bs and a D. In this case, the Bs may be B+, and we haven't played the D yet. One of Nevada or TCU may be better than past Texas or Mississippi big name teams that had mediocre years.
I agree with you that our schedule this year does not seem particularly difficult, and as always these days, it does have that FCS game. We do have some big name teams in future seasons like Auburn and Notre Dame.calumnus said:Maybe, but Texas was ranked #11 when we beat them. They have been accepted into the SEC. TCU just made it into the dying B12. The two are not comparable. And we lost. Plus there was no FCS team on the schedule that year, we played Hawaii, San Diego State and Texas. TCU, Nevada and Sac State is not comparable.oski003 said:It is fairly standard with two Bs and a D. In this case, the Bs may be B+, and we haven't played the D yet. One of Nevada or TCU may be better than past Texas or Mississippi big name teams that had mediocre years.calumnus said:Nevada, TCU and Sac State is one of the easier non-conference schedules in my memory.Haleiwabear said:
I would hope that's the case - just haven't seen anything dependable or consistent yet other than how we've run the ball. That being said - we've played two tough opponents off the bat.
The last time we played Nevada and and FCS school we played #12 Ohio State.
We used to regularly play Big 10 and SEC teams, ranked teams, in the OOC. Tennessee, not Ole Miss.
OneKeg said:I agree with you that our schedule this year does not seem particularly difficult, and as always these days, it does have that FCS game. We do have some big name teams in future seasons like Auburn and Notre Dame.calumnus said:Maybe, but Texas was ranked #11 when we beat them. They have been accepted into the SEC. TCU just made it into the dying B12. The two are not comparable. And we lost. Plus there was no FCS team on the schedule that year, we played Hawaii, San Diego State and Texas. TCU, Nevada and Sac State is not comparable.oski003 said:It is fairly standard with two Bs and a D. In this case, the Bs may be B+, and we haven't played the D yet. One of Nevada or TCU may be better than past Texas or Mississippi big name teams that had mediocre years.calumnus said:Nevada, TCU and Sac State is one of the easier non-conference schedules in my memory.Haleiwabear said:
I would hope that's the case - just haven't seen anything dependable or consistent yet other than how we've run the ball. That being said - we've played two tough opponents off the bat.
The last time we played Nevada and and FCS school we played #12 Ohio State.
We used to regularly play Big 10 and SEC teams, ranked teams, in the OOC. Tennessee, not Ole Miss.
But I think you're overselling the Texas wins in terms of how good the Longhorns actually were at the time. It was satisfying for sure given the history of the 2 programs and the name-recognition of Texas, and the fact that they've been very good in other seasons.
Still, in terms of how good the opponent actually was, bogus early-season rankings shouldn't matter. (See Michigan State, 2002, though the Spartans were much better when we beat them in a classic in 2008 in Memorial).
In 2016, Sagarin had Texas (5-7) finishing at #60 in the country at the end of the season: https://sagarin.usatoday.com/college-football-team-ratings-2016
In 2015, Sagarin had Texas (5-7) finishing at #56 in the country at the end of the season: https://sagarin.usatoday.com/college-football-team-ratings-2015
I think there's a decent chance that those ratings are no better than where TCU and Nevada finish this season, though we'll see. If you're going to discount the sweep of Ole Miss (who Sagarin ranked #57 and #58 in the years we played them), then you should similarly discount the above wins against the Longhorns. None of these opponents are/were anything special in the years we played them. But as you also referenced, wins are better than losses - absolutely.
I think we pretty much agree. I only brought up Ole Miss because that's the example you used as the bad opponent compared to the good Tennessee: "Tennessee, not Ole Miss." Could have just as easily said "Tennessee when they were good, not Texas when they were mediocre."calumnus said:If we had beaten Nevada and TCU we would not be having this discussion.OneKeg said:I agree with you that our schedule this year does not seem particularly difficult, and as always these days, it does have that FCS game. We do have some big name teams in future seasons like Auburn and Notre Dame.calumnus said:Maybe, but Texas was ranked #11 when we beat them. They have been accepted into the SEC. TCU just made it into the dying B12. The two are not comparable. And we lost. Plus there was no FCS team on the schedule that year, we played Hawaii, San Diego State and Texas. TCU, Nevada and Sac State is not comparable.oski003 said:It is fairly standard with two Bs and a D. In this case, the Bs may be B+, and we haven't played the D yet. One of Nevada or TCU may be better than past Texas or Mississippi big name teams that had mediocre years.calumnus said:Nevada, TCU and Sac State is one of the easier non-conference schedules in my memory.Haleiwabear said:
I would hope that's the case - just haven't seen anything dependable or consistent yet other than how we've run the ball. That being said - we've played two tough opponents off the bat.
The last time we played Nevada and and FCS school we played #12 Ohio State.
We used to regularly play Big 10 and SEC teams, ranked teams, in the OOC. Tennessee, not Ole Miss.
But I think you're overselling the Texas wins in terms of how good the Longhorns actually were at the time. It was satisfying for sure given the history of the 2 programs and the name-recognition of Texas, and the fact that they've been very good in other seasons.
Still, in terms of how good the opponent actually was, bogus early-season rankings shouldn't matter. (See Michigan State, 2002, though the Spartans were much better when we beat them in a classic in 2008 in Memorial).
In 2016, Sagarin had Texas (5-7) finishing at #60 in the country at the end of the season: https://sagarin.usatoday.com/college-football-team-ratings-2016
In 2015, Sagarin had Texas (5-7) finishing at #56 in the country at the end of the season: https://sagarin.usatoday.com/college-football-team-ratings-2015
I think there's a decent chance that those ratings are no better than where TCU and Nevada finish this season, though we'll see. If you're going to discount the sweep of Ole Miss (who Sagarin ranked #57 and #58 in the years we played them), then you should similarly discount the above wins against the Longhorns. None of these opponents are/were anything special in the years we played them. But as you also referenced, wins are better than losses - absolutely.
I did not discount any wins against even bad SEC teams or Big 10 teams. Similarly I have never complained about beating "bad" Texas, Oklahoma, Tennessee and USC teams in the past. When we schedule them we do not assume they will be bad (or middling).
Again, if we had beaten Nevada and TCU we would not be having this discussion. It is the trying to excuse the losses as if this is a tough schedule that I am addressing.
calumnus said:oski003 said:calumnus said:Haleiwabear said:
I would hope that's the case - just haven't seen anything dependable or consistent yet other than how we've run the ball. That being said - we've played two tough opponents off the bat.
Nevada, TCU and Sac State is one of the easier non-conference schedules in my memory.
It is fairly standard with two Bs and a D. In this case, the Bs may be B+, and we haven't played the D yet. One of Nevada or TCU may be better than past Texas or Mississippi big name teams that had mediocre years.
Maybe, but Texas was ranked #11 when we beat them. They have been accepted into the SEC. TCU just made it into the dying B12. The two are not comparable. And we lost. Plus there was no FCS team on the schedule that year, we played Hawaii, San Diego State and Texas. TCU, Nevada and Sac State is not comparable.
The last time we played Nevada and and FCS school we played #12 Ohio State.
We used to regularly play Big 10 and SEC teams, ranked teams, in the OOC. Tennessee, not Ole Miss.
oski003 said:calumnus said:oski003 said:calumnus said:Haleiwabear said:
I would hope that's the case - just haven't seen anything dependable or consistent yet other than how we've run the ball. That being said - we've played two tough opponents off the bat.
Nevada, TCU and Sac State is one of the easier non-conference schedules in my memory.
It is fairly standard with two Bs and a D. In this case, the Bs may be B+, and we haven't played the D yet. One of Nevada or TCU may be better than past Texas or Mississippi big name teams that had mediocre years.
Maybe, but Texas was ranked #11 when we beat them. They have been accepted into the SEC. TCU just made it into the dying B12. The two are not comparable. And we lost. Plus there was no FCS team on the schedule that year, we played Hawaii, San Diego State and Texas. TCU, Nevada and Sac State is not comparable.
The last time we played Nevada and and FCS school we played #12 Ohio State.
We used to regularly play Big 10 and SEC teams, ranked teams, in the OOC. Tennessee, not Ole Miss.
That Texas team went 5-7. It doesn't matter what they were ranked at the beginning of the year. TCU or Nevada will likely be better than Texas was in 2015. I suppose we can analyze which schedule was actually tougher at the end of this year.
calumnus said:oski003 said:calumnus said:oski003 said:calumnus said:Haleiwabear said:
I would hope that's the case - just haven't seen anything dependable or consistent yet other than how we've run the ball. That being said - we've played two tough opponents off the bat.
Nevada, TCU and Sac State is one of the easier non-conference schedules in my memory.
It is fairly standard with two Bs and a D. In this case, the Bs may be B+, and we haven't played the D yet. One of Nevada or TCU may be better than past Texas or Mississippi big name teams that had mediocre years.
Maybe, but Texas was ranked #11 when we beat them. They have been accepted into the SEC. TCU just made it into the dying B12. The two are not comparable. And we lost. Plus there was no FCS team on the schedule that year, we played Hawaii, San Diego State and Texas. TCU, Nevada and Sac State is not comparable.
The last time we played Nevada and and FCS school we played #12 Ohio State.
We used to regularly play Big 10 and SEC teams, ranked teams, in the OOC. Tennessee, not Ole Miss.
That Texas team went 5-7. It doesn't matter what they were ranked at the beginning of the year. TCU or Nevada will likely be better than Texas was in 2015. I suppose we can analyze which schedule was actually tougher at the end of this year.
We BEAT Texas. Twice. Why are you tying to justify LOSING to Nevada and TCU?
oski003 said:calumnus said:oski003 said:calumnus said:oski003 said:calumnus said:Haleiwabear said:
I would hope that's the case - just haven't seen anything dependable or consistent yet other than how we've run the ball. That being said - we've played two tough opponents off the bat.
Nevada, TCU and Sac State is one of the easier non-conference schedules in my memory.
It is fairly standard with two Bs and a D. In this case, the Bs may be B+, and we haven't played the D yet. One of Nevada or TCU may be better than past Texas or Mississippi big name teams that had mediocre years.
Maybe, but Texas was ranked #11 when we beat them. They have been accepted into the SEC. TCU just made it into the dying B12. The two are not comparable. And we lost. Plus there was no FCS team on the schedule that year, we played Hawaii, San Diego State and Texas. TCU, Nevada and Sac State is not comparable.
The last time we played Nevada and and FCS school we played #12 Ohio State.
We used to regularly play Big 10 and SEC teams, ranked teams, in the OOC. Tennessee, not Ole Miss.
That Texas team went 5-7. It doesn't matter what they were ranked at the beginning of the year. TCU or Nevada will likely be better than Texas was in 2015. I suppose we can analyze which schedule was actually tougher at the end of this year.
We BEAT Texas. Twice. Why are you tying to justify LOSING to Nevada and TCU?
I am not justifying losing to anyone. We are just trying to gauge the strength of our team. I am just saying we might not be as bad as we think. We don't know yet but should find out soon.