Wilner: No Bowl for Cal

2,044 Views | 29 Replies | Last: 2 days ago by calumnus
socaliganbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
lithiumsorbet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Math is tricky with the 2 Ls on the sheet. Need to go above .500 in pac-12 play, which we haven't done in a minute.
ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Last time Cal was over .500 in conference was 2009.

Easiest conf schedule for a winning season in years IMO - skipping ASU and Utah, and a lot of teams are down. It's not a good schedule for running the table with tough road games, but Cal isn't doing that anyways.

LA Bowl trip...let's get this done. .500 or bust!

Looks like the 49ers decided the Redbox bowl wasn't worth hosting, so it's dunzo unlesd a new venue is found in 2022. Holiday Bowl is at Petco now.
HuaHin (fka Uthai)
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm with Wilner on this. This team looks like a 4-win joke.
heartofthebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't know how anybody can predict anything with this conference these days. It's more stable than last season not more sane.
Haleiwabear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
72CalBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unless things change dramatically - we won't be in a bowl game. Heaven forbid it comes down to the Ucla game at the Rose Bowl.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.



calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
dimitrig
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.

He really went out on a limb there predicting an 0-2 team won't make a bowl game.


75bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
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.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.


We beat sac state by at least 3 tds.
ColoradoBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
75bear said:

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.
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.


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
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
71Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ColoradoBear said:

75bear said:

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.
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.


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.
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).
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
Haleiwabear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yea - and I think even if they might be B's overall, given we typically assume we are going to rely on our defense to win games under the current identity model, I'd say the two offenses we played against made them A-/B+ difficulty from a match up standpoint
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.




bipolarbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I didn't want to go to your tacky old bowl anyway.
OneKeg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
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.

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.
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OneKeg 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.
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.

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.


If we had beaten Nevada and TCU we would not be having this discussion.

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.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Every one of our conference games is winnable. Okay, Oregon maybe not so much, but we did beat them last year.

Now is when we see what we're made of. We swat the Hornets and then get AT LEAST a winning conference record. And the Axe. We do that and Wilcox's seat may get warm next year, but at least we can maintain a semblance of optimism.
OneKeg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calumnus said:

OneKeg 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.
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.

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.
If we had beaten Nevada and TCU we would not be having this discussion.

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.
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."

And Tennessee was good in 2006 and 2007 when we played them. So was Michigan State in 2008. Not championship-contender level but definitely good. I miss those days too. Of course, it's hard to tell in advance when setting up the OOC schedule how good a team is going to be several years down the road.

And absolutely agree on needing to win - in my last sentence I stated it but let me elaborate. When we play mediocre opponents, we have to win the games, and we fell short against Nevada and TCU, who do not seem like great teams. I hope I wasn't the one you thought was making excuses. What's even more unfortunate is that it was all kind of predictable, rosy preseason predictions notwithstanding.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.
Strykur
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Proper title of thread:

Wilner: Hack
calumnus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.


My hope is not that Nevada and TCU turn out to be great teams and we are just not as good, my hope is that we improve significantly so we are a team that would beat even a good MWC team at home.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.