calumnus said:

---

01Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

01Bear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

01Bear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

The right and gutsy call

---

You have to play the odds, didn't feel good about that decision.

---

I liked the call until JW called timeout. That was just stupid.

---

Well considering if Endries isn't held the entire time he's wide effing open on the 2 pt conv it wasn't stupid. Pac-12 refs basically won USC that game. That's not being salty..that's literally what happened. The Timeout is meaningless if we score that.

---

I don't disagree that the refs gifted SC a win with the blown calls on the 2 pt conversion attempt.

That said, had Cal just run the 2 pt conversion play without the timeout, SC wouldn't have had time to set up its defense as well. Also, if Cal failed, it would have left Cal with three times out, not two.

---

Its more important to get the 2pt play call correct then to save a timeout with under a minute to go.

---

I don't disagree. However, I'm not sure I saw anything to suggest the offense didn't know what to run there. Even if they didn't, then that's another failure by the coaching staff. The team should know exactly what it was going to be running. Either way, JW fouled up.

---

This is one of the issues with a defensive coach. The big in game decisions, like whether to kick or go for it, largely depend on knowing what play you would call if you do go for it and what you think your chances of success would be.

---

I don't know if it's a problem with defensive coaches or just a problem with Cal's coach. Saban never seemed unsure what to run after a TD. While Saban could absolutely be an exception to the rule, there have been plenty of other defensive minded coaches who don't struggle with the call.

---

Nick Saban has been a head coach for 29 years. He clearly figured it out.

I would hire a defensive coach that has shown success as a HC, even at a lower level. I would not hire a DC and then pay him $4-5 million a year to learn on the job how to be a HC with an 11 year guaranteed contract.

---

Agreed, for the most part. If the HC is a converted DC who hires a good OC, it may not be bad to pay him league average (TBC, I'm assuming $4-5million/year is league average). The problem is that JW couldn't even manage to do that. Beau Baldwin was okay, but not great. Musgrave was a horrible retread whom the game had already passed by. Spav has been inconsistent, but is promising (especially with Fernando Mendoza running his offense).

IMHO, if money weren't an issue, Cal would be better off firing JW and making Spav interim HC with the understanding that he had to hire someone as good as Tim DeRuyter. Sirmon, obviously, would also be out.

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

concordtom said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Why? Why? Why? Why?

You are at home! Geez!

---

Agree. I don't know anymore. This series is over for a long time if not forever. Tie the game and keep it going? I don't know.

---

No!
Flocking step on their throat and send them packing when you have the chance.

Go have a drink and it'll be okay.
It's just a game.

---

Going for two there is 12 year old playing PlayStation in mommy's basement bullshyte. It isn't stepping on their neck. The team that thinks they are better kicks the point and has the confidence to know they can win in overtime. You are at home with the crowd behind you. You have the advantage.

Going for two is a function of "OH MY GOD!!!! I CAN'T BELIEVE WE HAVE A CHANCE TO BEAT USC!!!! I HAVE TO GO FOR IT NOW!!!!!!!"

I get that some fans like to be aggressive but as coach you need to have the maturity to act like you belong there instead of being desperate.

---

SC had a full minute plus timeouts to get in field goal range, are you really thinking that would not have happened?
I prefer to play for OT at home, but Celeb Williams is something else.

---

Exactly. If there was less time on the clock the decision is 50-50. With almost a minute left going for 2 is lose if you don't make it, probably also lose even if you do make it.

Kicking for the tie, SC will be more conservative. Closer to a 50-50 chance of winning in OT like we did 20 years ago.

---

Did you guys happen to notice their kicker was crap today?

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

concordtom said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Why? Why? Why? Why?

You are at home! Geez!

---

Agree. I don't know anymore. This series is over for a long time if not forever. Tie the game and keep it going? I don't know.

---

No!
Flocking step on their throat and send them packing when you have the chance.

Go have a drink and it'll be okay.
It's just a game.

---

Going for two there is 12 year old playing PlayStation in mommy's basement bullshyte. It isn't stepping on their neck. The team that thinks they are better kicks the point and has the confidence to know they can win in overtime. You are at home with the crowd behind you. You have the advantage.

Going for two is a function of "OH MY GOD!!!! I CAN'T BELIEVE WE HAVE A CHANCE TO BEAT USC!!!! I HAVE TO GO FOR IT NOW!!!!!!!"

I get that some fans like to be aggressive but as coach you need to have the maturity to act like you belong there instead of being desperate.

---

SC had a full minute plus timeouts to get in field goal range, are you really thinking that would not have happened?
I prefer to play for OT at home, but Celeb Williams is something else.

---

Exactly. If there was less time on the clock the decision is 50-50. With almost a minute left going for 2 is lose if you don't make it, probably also lose even if you do make it.

Kicking for the tie, SC will be more conservative. Closer to a 50-50 chance of winning in OT like we did 20 years ago.

---

Did you guys happen to notice their kicker was crap today?

---

That's fair, but our special teams has been questionable all year. Would you trust the Cal FG unit to win the game, or even extend it in OT?

concordtom said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

IMO you only go for 2 if it is going to mean a win.
USC still had almost a minute left to try to score so the 2 points did not mean a win.
So I think you at least tie it there so that the rest of the game can play out.
If USC scores again, they would have won anyway.

---

We needed the defensive stop either way.
Wouldn't it be nicer to get the stop and the W right then?

---

No because we did not need to get the ball back with a tie. So we could let them get a first down or two as long as they didn't score. What happened was that USC didn't even need to get a first down because they did not need any more points to win.

westcoast101 said:

---

Inexcusable. This program is such a disaster.

---

Then go somewhere else.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

concordtom said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Why? Why? Why? Why?

You are at home! Geez!

---

Agree. I don't know anymore. This series is over for a long time if not forever. Tie the game and keep it going? I don't know.

---

No!
Flocking step on their throat and send them packing when you have the chance.

Go have a drink and it'll be okay.
It's just a game.

---

Going for two there is 12 year old playing PlayStation in mommy's basement bullshyte. It isn't stepping on their neck. The team that thinks they are better kicks the point and has the confidence to know they can win in overtime. You are at home with the crowd behind you. You have the advantage.

Going for two is a function of "OH MY GOD!!!! I CAN'T BELIEVE WE HAVE A CHANCE TO BEAT USC!!!! I HAVE TO GO FOR IT NOW!!!!!!!"

I get that some fans like to be aggressive but as coach you need to have the maturity to act like you belong there instead of being desperate.

---

That's precisely our problem; Wilcox doesn't belong there. He is a complete joke as a head coach.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

concordtom said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Why? Why? Why? Why?

You are at home! Geez!

---

Agree. I don't know anymore. This series is over for a long time if not forever. Tie the game and keep it going? I don't know.

---

No!
Flocking step on their throat and send them packing when you have the chance.

Go have a drink and it'll be okay.
It's just a game.

---

Going for two there is 12 year old playing PlayStation in mommy's basement bullshyte. It isn't stepping on their neck. The team that thinks they are better kicks the point and has the confidence to know they can win in overtime. You are at home with the crowd behind you. You have the advantage.

Going for two is a function of "OH MY GOD!!!! I CAN'T BELIEVE WE HAVE A CHANCE TO BEAT USC!!!! I HAVE TO GO FOR IT NOW!!!!!!!"

I get that some fans like to be aggressive but as coach you need to have the maturity to act like you belong there instead of being desperate.

---

SC had a full minute plus timeouts to get in field goal range, are you really thinking that would not have happened?
I prefer to play for OT at home, but Celeb Williams is something else.

---

Exactly. If there was less time on the clock the decision is 50-50. With almost a minute left going for 2 is lose if you don't make it, probably also lose even if you do make it.

Kicking for the tie, SC will be more conservative. Closer to a 50-50 chance of winning in OT like we did 20 years ago.

---

Did you guys happen to notice their kicker was crap today?

---

It is immaterial. All that means is that if you kick the XP they have to score a TD not to go to OT.

Trying for 2 means they don't have to rely on their "crap" kicker to win.

Gentleman, stop trying to tear each other apart. Does us no good.

What hurts the most is that this was the last one. Amidst all the pettiness between the two schools with the visitors section and the bands - I doubt it will be 7 years before we even might play them again. And my cousins now have the final bragging g right over me which kills me.

From what I have seen and heard since - going for two seems to be the right call. The timeout before? Ok we can debate that. The turnovers? Fair game.

We got into a track meet of a football game, unfortunately. It looked like we had run out of gas.

The intangibles are always gonna be there. The refs. The injuries. You always have to play so that the refs don't matter.

It hurts. I hate it. I'm drinking by myself over it. Join me in a toast to the boys for a good game. We had them. It got away. Move forward. Stop hating on each other. Cheers.

The loss sucks. But you play to win. The Bears didn't make excuses and kept fighting. For however long is needed, they'll bring that attitude to the ACC. Wilcox is a good man, but Cal needs an administration, boosters, and a coach who can go all out to build up the football program.

Strykur said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Strykur said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

01Bear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

The right and gutsy call

---

You have to play the odds, didn't feel good about that decision.

---

I liked the call until JW called timeout. That was just stupid.

---

Well considering if Endries isn't held the entire time he's wide effing open on the 2 pt conv it wasn't stupid. Pac-12 refs basically won USC that game. That's not being salty..that's literally what happened. The Timeout is meaningless if we score that.

---

I don't disagree that the refs gifted SC a win with the blown calls on the 2 pt conversion attempt.

That said, had Cal just run the 2 pt conversion play without the timeout, SC wouldn't have had time to set up its defense as well. Also, if Cal failed, it would have left Cal with three times out, not two.

---

Its more important to get the 2pt play call correct then to save a timeout with under a minute to go.

---

Right, especially when your backfield has a freshman QB and a 4th string RB.

---

so are you saying you'd rather take that same personnel into OT? With a completely gassed defense? I

---

Yes. Absolutely. Anything can happen but you have to keep playing.

---

Ott and Ilfanse were gone and we were not stopping SC.

---

You're speculating to justify your bias. I can do it too: Maybe SC wouldn't stop us. Maybe we blitz and cause a fumble. Maybe we top another ball at the line and pick it off. Maybe we jump a route. The list goes on and on...

---

Maybe we lose in OT, and then we're *****ing about not going for 2.
It's cute to think about winning in OT but that's a hard sell.

---

What's the worst that could happen? We lose? That happened anyway and still might've even if we made the 2. It's about putting the team in the best position to win. It's about knowing the situation and assessing the probabilities accordingly. Wilcox literally took the lowest probability path to winning by taking a TO and then still going for 2, and people are defending it. That's what's "cute."

WalterSobchak said:

---

Strykur said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Strykur said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

01Bear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

The right and gutsy call

---

You have to play the odds, didn't feel good about that decision.

---

I liked the call until JW called timeout. That was just stupid.

---

Well considering if Endries isn't held the entire time he's wide effing open on the 2 pt conv it wasn't stupid. Pac-12 refs basically won USC that game. That's not being salty..that's literally what happened. The Timeout is meaningless if we score that.

---

I don't disagree that the refs gifted SC a win with the blown calls on the 2 pt conversion attempt.

That said, had Cal just run the 2 pt conversion play without the timeout, SC wouldn't have had time to set up its defense as well. Also, if Cal failed, it would have left Cal with three times out, not two.

---

Its more important to get the 2pt play call correct then to save a timeout with under a minute to go.

---

Right, especially when your backfield has a freshman QB and a 4th string RB.

---

so are you saying you'd rather take that same personnel into OT? With a completely gassed defense? I

---

Yes. Absolutely. Anything can happen but you have to keep playing.

---

Ott and Ilfanse were gone and we were not stopping SC.

---

You're speculating to justify your bias. I can do it too: Maybe SC wouldn't stop us. Maybe we blitz and cause a fumble. Maybe we top another ball at the line and pick it off. Maybe we jump a route. The list goes on and on...

---

Maybe we lose in OT, and then we're *****ing about not going for 2.
It's cute to think about winning in OT but that's a hard sell.

---

What's the worst that could happen? We lose? That happened anyway and still might've even if we made the 2. It's about putting the team in the best position to win. It's about knowing the situation and assessing the probabilities accordingly. Wilcox literally took the lowest probability path to winning by taking a TO and then still going for 2, and people are defending it. That's what's "cute."

---

Most people on this board defended Knowlton and celebrated his insane 6 year extension for Wilcox after the 2021 season.

We definitely should not have gone for two. I know that because we didn't make it. If we had made it I would say that we definitely should have gone for two. EXCEPT that if we had made it SC would have gotten down the field and kicked a field goal. Or scored a touchdown. Proving that it's better to be tied than ahead in the last minute of the fourth quarter.

Ok, seriously, going for two was the right decision in my opinion because of all the injuries. They meant that the likelihood of winning in overtime was less than the likelihood of making the two point try. I was at the game and did not notice SC holding on the play. Was it really obvious and egregious?

calumnus said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Strykur said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Strykur said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

cal83dls79 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

01Bear said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

The right and gutsy call

---

You have to play the odds, didn't feel good about that decision.

---

I liked the call until JW called timeout. That was just stupid.

---

Well considering if Endries isn't held the entire time he's wide effing open on the 2 pt conv it wasn't stupid. Pac-12 refs basically won USC that game. That's not being salty..that's literally what happened. The Timeout is meaningless if we score that.

---

I don't disagree that the refs gifted SC a win with the blown calls on the 2 pt conversion attempt.

That said, had Cal just run the 2 pt conversion play without the timeout, SC wouldn't have had time to set up its defense as well. Also, if Cal failed, it would have left Cal with three times out, not two.

---

Its more important to get the 2pt play call correct then to save a timeout with under a minute to go.

---

Right, especially when your backfield has a freshman QB and a 4th string RB.

---

so are you saying you'd rather take that same personnel into OT? With a completely gassed defense? I

---

Yes. Absolutely. Anything can happen but you have to keep playing.

---

Ott and Ilfanse were gone and we were not stopping SC.

---

You're speculating to justify your bias. I can do it too: Maybe SC wouldn't stop us. Maybe we blitz and cause a fumble. Maybe we top another ball at the line and pick it off. Maybe we jump a route. The list goes on and on...

---

Maybe we lose in OT, and then we're *****ing about not going for 2.
It's cute to think about winning in OT but that's a hard sell.

---

What's the worst that could happen? We lose? That happened anyway and still might've even if we made the 2. It's about putting the team in the best position to win. It's about knowing the situation and assessing the probabilities accordingly. Wilcox literally took the lowest probability path to winning by taking a TO and then still going for 2, and people are defending it. That's what's "cute."

---

Most people on this board defended Knowlton and celebrated his insane 6 year extension for Wilcox after the 2021 season.

---

It's insanity. I can't believe people are defending this decision, let alone what appears to be a slight majority. It's actually a huge problem because it explains why we're always keeping bad coaches too long and mired in mediocrity at best. With supporters like this, who needs opponents.

JimSox said:

---

We definitely should not have gone for two. I know that because we didn't make it. If we had made it I would say that we definitely should have gone for two. EXCEPT that if we had made it SC would have gotten down the field and kicked a field goal. Or scored a touchdown. Proving that it's better to be tied than ahead in the last minute of the fourth quarter.

Ok, seriously, going for two was the right decision in my opinion because of all the injuries. They meant that the likelihood of winning in overtime was less than the likelihood of making the two point try. I was at the game and did not notice SC holding on the play. Was it really obvious and egregious?

---

Again, your simple comparison of the odds of making the 2 point conversion vs. the odds of winning in overtime is only true if there were no time left. It ignores the fact that whatever you do, SC will get the ball back with nearly a minute left, three time outs, a Heisman QB and their own chance to win. A 1 pt lead is not a significant enough advantage over a tie score to risk the greater chance of not making it and losing by default.

calumnus said:

---

JimSox said:

---

We definitely should not have gone for two. I know that because we didn't make it. If we had made it I would say that we definitely should have gone for two. EXCEPT that if we had made it SC would have gotten down the field and kicked a field goal. Or scored a touchdown. Proving that it's better to be tied than ahead in the last minute of the fourth quarter.

Ok, seriously, going for two was the right decision in my opinion because of all the injuries. They meant that the likelihood of winning in overtime was less than the likelihood of making the two point try. I was at the game and did not notice SC holding on the play. Was it really obvious and egregious?

---

Again, your simple comparison of the odds of making the 2 point conversion vs. the odds of winning in overtime is only true if there were no time left. It ignores the fact that whatever you do, SC will get the ball back with nearly a minute left, three time outs, a Heisman QB and their own chance to win. A 1 pt lead is not a significant enough advantage over a tie score to risk the greater chance of not making it and losing by default.

---

Yeah ok. Difference of opinion.

Just saw the play on a replay, and it's tough to say whether defensive holding should have been called. The defender definitely had both arms on Endries as he headed for the corner, but didn't appear to grab him hard enough to alter his route. The guy who eventually knocked the ball down had his hand on the back of the collar of Hightower's jersey as he trailed Hightower across the end zone from right to left toward the corner. In fact his hand appeared to be INSIDE the back of Hightower's jersey. But again, not sure he altered the receiver's route. Is that okay? Are you allowed to run with a receiver with your hand inside the back of his jersey collar? Is there a rule that covers that? I don't know.
But we could have used a penalty call and another shot at those two points.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

concordtom said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Why? Why? Why? Why?

You are at home! Geez!

---

Agree. I don't know anymore. This series is over for a long time if not forever. Tie the game and keep it going? I don't know.

---

No!
Flocking step on their throat and send them packing when you have the chance.

Go have a drink and it'll be okay.
It's just a game.

---

Going for two there is 12 year old playing PlayStation in mommy's basement bullshyte. It isn't stepping on their neck. The team that thinks they are better kicks the point and has the confidence to know they can win in overtime. You are at home with the crowd behind you. You have the advantage.

Going for two is a function of "OH MY GOD!!!! I CAN'T BELIEVE WE HAVE A CHANCE TO BEAT USC!!!! I HAVE TO GO FOR IT NOW!!!!!!!"

I get that some fans like to be aggressive but as coach you need to have the maturity to act like you belong there instead of being desperate.

---

Having never gone to the Rose Bowl in my lifetime, I'm desperate.

But that's a brave face you've got.

concordtom said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

concordtom said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Why? Why? Why? Why?

You are at home! Geez!

---

Agree. I don't know anymore. This series is over for a long time if not forever. Tie the game and keep it going? I don't know.

---

No!
Flocking step on their throat and send them packing when you have the chance.

Go have a drink and it'll be okay.
It's just a game.

---

Going for two there is 12 year old playing PlayStation in mommy's basement bullshyte. It isn't stepping on their neck. The team that thinks they are better kicks the point and has the confidence to know they can win in overtime. You are at home with the crowd behind you. You have the advantage.

Going for two is a function of "OH MY GOD!!!! I CAN'T BELIEVE WE HAVE A CHANCE TO BEAT USC!!!! I HAVE TO GO FOR IT NOW!!!!!!!"

I get that some fans like to be aggressive but as coach you need to have the maturity to act like you belong there instead of being desperate.

---

Having never gone to the Rose Bowl in my lifetime, I'm desperate.

But that's a brave face you've got.

---

That's fine for you to be desperate because you are a fan. The coach needs to coach like a coach. Not like a fan.

It didn't need to be egregious. He held Endries through the entirety of the play to slow him enough so that he couldn't cross his face. If he does...Endries is wide open and Mendoza doesn't have to hold onto the ball. Going for 2 was the right decision, we aren't going to the Rose Bowl this year, but we needed to win for a chance at a bowl. We were using our 5th running back. The chances of getting a better opportunity than the 2pt chance imho to win were slim. Our defense is beat up at linebacker, I had more faith they could get a stop with a min left using the whole field than going OT (which wasn't a guarantee anyway) then starting from the 25. Especially with SC's QB not playing particularly well.

Robocheme said:

---

I don't think that it mattered whether we went for one or two. SC had all three TO's and our defense was gassed.

I think the game was lost when Hunter decided to play hero ball and fumbled.

Oh well, I think Mendoza is going to be really good - very accurate even under pressure. Time to wait 'til Next Year (again).

---

I don't think Hunter was trying to play hero ball. I think he sensed that the USC special teams were coasting on kickoffs because Cal had been fair catching everything, and given Cal's depleted offense, he took a chance to give them better field position. It didn't work, but there's a chance of a fumble on every football play.

MinotStateBeav said:

---

It didn't need to be egregious. He held Endries through the entirety of the play to slow him enough so that he couldn't cross his face. If he does...Endries is wide open and Mendoza doesn't have to hold onto the ball. Going for 2 was the right decision, we aren't going to the Rose Bowl this year, but we needed to win for a chance at a bowl. We were using our 5th running back. The chances of getting a better opportunity than the 2pt chance imho to win were slim. Our defense is beat up at linebacker, I had more faith they could get a stop with a min left using the whole field than going OT (which wasn't a guarantee anyway) then starting from the 25. Especially with SC's QB not playing particularly well.

---

Agree on going for two. Not sure the hold on Endries altered his route. But what about the defender who jumped up and knocked down the ball? Did anybody see what I saw? Had his hand inside the collar of the back of Hightower's jersey and pushed down to give himself an extra boost for his leap. I don't think I'm imagining that though admittedly my perspective is biased. Not only gave himself leverage to jump higher but also made it impossible for Hightower to jump for the ball.
Pass interference.

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

concordtom said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

concordtom said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

BearlyCareAnymore said:

---

Why? Why? Why? Why?

You are at home! Geez!

---

Agree. I don't know anymore. This series is over for a long time if not forever. Tie the game and keep it going? I don't know.

---

No!
Flocking step on their throat and send them packing when you have the chance.

Go have a drink and it'll be okay.
It's just a game.

---

Going for two there is 12 year old playing PlayStation in mommy's basement bullshyte. It isn't stepping on their neck. The team that thinks they are better kicks the point and has the confidence to know they can win in overtime. You are at home with the crowd behind you. You have the advantage.

Going for two is a function of "OH MY GOD!!!! I CAN'T BELIEVE WE HAVE A CHANCE TO BEAT USC!!!! I HAVE TO GO FOR IT NOW!!!!!!!"

I get that some fans like to be aggressive but as coach you need to have the maturity to act like you belong there instead of being desperate.

---

Having never gone to the Rose Bowl in my lifetime, I'm desperate.

But that's a brave face you've got.

---

That's fine for you to be desperate because you are a fan. The coach needs to coach like a coach. Not like a fan.

---

What really made me laugh about you tacking onto this conversation I was having with folks last night is your NAME.
Hahahaha

You're welcome to sit by me and enjoy the games anytime!!

JimSox said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

It didn't need to be egregious. He held Endries through the entirety of the play to slow him enough so that he couldn't cross his face. If he does...Endries is wide open and Mendoza doesn't have to hold onto the ball. Going for 2 was the right decision, we aren't going to the Rose Bowl this year, but we needed to win for a chance at a bowl. We were using our 5th running back. The chances of getting a better opportunity than the 2pt chance imho to win were slim. Our defense is beat up at linebacker, I had more faith they could get a stop with a min left using the whole field than going OT (which wasn't a guarantee anyway) then starting from the 25. Especially with SC's QB not playing particularly well.

---

Agree on going for two. Not sure the hold on Endries altered his route. But what about the defender who jumped up and knocked down the ball? Did anybody see what I saw? Had his hand inside the collar of the back of Hightower's jersey and pushed down to give himself an extra boost for his leap. I don't think I'm imagining that though admittedly my perspective is biased. Not only gave himself leverage to jump higher but also made it impossible for Hightower to jump for the ball.
Pass interference.

---

Very very rare to get a PI under those circumstances in a tight game like that. I don't remember seeing one on any last play, or nearly last play of a close game. Refs just don't like to do that.

Dear DW

I just want to say, I forgive you for being a jerk yesterday. I realize it was a sad ending after being ahead late and having all that hope and excitement build up inside.

If it helped you to have me as a punching bag to calm down, no problem. Did you have that calming drink I mentioned? Or, maybe it was the bag booze you had had prior to flaming me. Hmmmm….

Whatever.
I did want to point out that, look, it's a new day, the sun is out, and lookie here at this thread! People have found something in the rubble of yesterday's loss to be positive about.

So read on, and let that bubble of hope grow once again.
I mean, we WILL get to the Rose Bowl one day, right???

https://bearinsider.com/forums/2/topics/117571




-D.W. says, "Great idea! Move forward. Tomorrow is another day!"

72CalBear said:

---

JimSox said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

It didn't need to be egregious. He held Endries through the entirety of the play to slow him enough so that he couldn't cross his face. If he does...Endries is wide open and Mendoza doesn't have to hold onto the ball. Going for 2 was the right decision, we aren't going to the Rose Bowl this year, but we needed to win for a chance at a bowl. We were using our 5th running back. The chances of getting a better opportunity than the 2pt chance imho to win were slim. Our defense is beat up at linebacker, I had more faith they could get a stop with a min left using the whole field than going OT (which wasn't a guarantee anyway) then starting from the 25. Especially with SC's QB not playing particularly well.

---

Agree on going for two. Not sure the hold on Endries altered his route. But what about the defender who jumped up and knocked down the ball? Did anybody see what I saw? Had his hand inside the collar of the back of Hightower's jersey and pushed down to give himself an extra boost for his leap. I don't think I'm imagining that though admittedly my perspective is biased. Not only gave himself leverage to jump higher but also made it impossible for Hightower to jump for the ball.
Pass interference.

---

Very very rare to get a PI under those circumstances in a tight game like that. I don't remember seeing one on any last play, or nearly last play of a close game. Refs just don't like to do that.

---

Not really. Calling a PI there doesn't win Cal the game. It just gives them a fairer chance to win it. The penalty doesn't give Cal two point. Having USC mug everyone so as not to be able to catch a ball and then not call it, wins USC the game.

oski003 said:

---

72CalBear said:

---

JimSox said:

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

It didn't need to be egregious. He held Endries through the entirety of the play to slow him enough so that he couldn't cross his face. If he does...Endries is wide open and Mendoza doesn't have to hold onto the ball. Going for 2 was the right decision, we aren't going to the Rose Bowl this year, but we needed to win for a chance at a bowl. We were using our 5th running back. The chances of getting a better opportunity than the 2pt chance imho to win were slim. Our defense is beat up at linebacker, I had more faith they could get a stop with a min left using the whole field than going OT (which wasn't a guarantee anyway) then starting from the 25. Especially with SC's QB not playing particularly well.

---

Agree on going for two. Not sure the hold on Endries altered his route. But what about the defender who jumped up and knocked down the ball? Did anybody see what I saw? Had his hand inside the collar of the back of Hightower's jersey and pushed down to give himself an extra boost for his leap. I don't think I'm imagining that though admittedly my perspective is biased. Not only gave himself leverage to jump higher but also made it impossible for Hightower to jump for the ball.
Pass interference.

---

Very very rare to get a PI under those circumstances in a tight game like that. I don't remember seeing one on any last play, or nearly last play of a close game. Refs just don't like to do that.

---

Not really. Calling a PI there doesn't win Cal the game. It just gives them a fairer chance to win it. The penalty doesn't give Cal two point. Having USC mug everyone so as not to be able to catch a ball and then not call it, wins USC the game.

---

Watching it for the umpteenth time I was wrong about the defender having his hand inside Hightower's jersey at the time the pass was in the air. It was on his upper back. He did push off on Hightower with that hand to provide leverage for his leap, but the ball was thrown too high for him to get it anyway. Endries was essentially tackled by the guy who was on him, but not until the ball was by him. So I don't know. Marginal. Hightower was likely supposed to run deeper to the corner to clear out more room for Endries. Also, on the right Taj Davis worked his way open at the goal line, but Mendoza didn't have time to look over and find him. Bummer.