I will try to make this as short as possiible, which for me is very difficult. Lots to say.

Lots of commentary out there on which teams will make the top level of othe FBS playoffs next season, which is for twelve teams. Wish I could go back and copy the fhree of four online articles on this subject, but I can't. In general, if memory serves me correct, the ACC and Big 12 are pegged to get one to three teams in the aggregate. Cal is not given much of a chance for any but for one poll, which essentailly said they have a chance, though Cal was listed in the fourth of six groups, which seems to make it almost impossible for them to make a top twelve spot.

Here's another article I read on the subject this morning just dealing with how former Pac 12 schools will do in competing with their new brethren in the Big 10 next seaon--
Says the four transferee teams to the Big 10 wil do pretty well. UCLA is rated last of the four. Persoonally, I think UCLA is going downhilland willl likely strugggle to get to the .500 level next year and so is very unlikely to get into the playoffs. But I won't go into my reasons for that, as I have things to do this morning.

What I want to get into is Cal's chances in getting into the twelve team FBS playoffs next season. I'd say it is a longshot at best, mostly because of tshe number of teams that can be selected for that honor. ( won't even spend the time adding them up. Cal does seem to be more loaded with talent than last season, but last season Cal would not have made the final top twelve teams that got into the playoffs.

All of this leads to the reason I am writing this. There seems to be some movement into recognizing that some teams on the west coast are inmproving football powers. Don't have the article that says that, but those teams listed were 1) Boise St. and 2) San Diego St. Those are two of the teams I would add to a revitalized Pac 12 (or close to it) So that would get me to six teams in the new, revised Pac 12 (or so) -- Cal, Stanford, Oregon St., Wash. St, Boise St., and San Diego St.

The other teams I initially listed a few weeks ago on this subject were Fresno St. (a good football school, so long as Tedfford is the coach there), Hawaii (a great tourist destination), and Las Vegas (the best tourist destination in the U.S. and much better than Hawaii because it is so much closer to the rest of all the teams I have mentioned.

There are a few unknowns that come into play here. The first is how much availability there would be to allow Las Vegas to play in thie new NFL stadium that was just built. I have no idea on that, and really don't know how good, and big the stadium the Las Vegas now plays in is. And I'm not going to research that. But just having a game in the curren U of Las Vegas stadium would not detract from all of the fun a visiting team supporters would have while in Vegas following their Bears.

Adding in Fresno St; and Las Vegas would get the revised Pac (Whatever) to eight teams. Additional teams could be Hawaii (but maybe only after they get the new stadium they supposedly need) and one or two addiitional teams from the up and coming Mountain West conference (see schools -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_West_Conference). Perhaps San Jose St. could be included but that might hurt Cal and Stanford a bit in their attendance, though I doubt much).

So, adding to the initial teams I mentioned, or Fresno St, Las Vegas, and San Diego St.,, would result in nine teams in a new Pac conference, resullting in nine schools in a Pac Nine conference and, most importantly, having every school in the conferencl playing Las Vegas every other year, on a home and away basis. That means that the other eight schools would get to play in Las Vegas every other year, and perhaps some of thosee games could be in the Raiders new stadium.

Also, this setup would be three locations that provide very good excellent fun and recreational activities to partake in every other year (excluding fans from the Bay Area, which would only have two two new tourist locations to visit) -- Cal/Stanford (SF), San Diego, and Las Vegas

Just a thought. Just remember that Cal has a very small chance to getting into the upcoming national championship tournament next season because of the old Pac 12 not surviving. That's too bad, caused very likely in large part by hiring a bad Pac 12 commissoiner.

( will be sending this comment to AD Knowlton and maybe Chancellor Carol Crist, who I still hope to talk to about my idee to have a statue of Joe Starkey added,next to the one now standing for Kevin Moen plus a device that will show the complete video of The Play ending with Starkey's "There will be no extra point" statement, which would first be exhibiited close to a College GameDay televised game event at Cal.

JB was a Chieftain said:

---

I love your passion for Cal but the statue and the idea of heading back to the PAC are not happening. Embrace the present and not the past. Go Bears!

---

I thiink you didn't read my remarks carefully. The name of the new conference may have "Pac" in it, but in reality, it would not be the same as the old Pac. Only four of the old Pac would be in the new conference under my configuration of it -- Cal, Stanford, OSU, and WSU.

wifeisafurd said:

---

I think the upper ceiling is 9 wins which doesn't make the playoffs as an ACC team.

---

100%. But it could make for a darn good bowl game invite.

southseasbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I think the upper ceiling is 9 wins which doesn't make the playoffs as an ACC team.

---

100%. But it could make for a darn good bowl game invite.

---

I agree with your rough analysis. As an ACC team, given the one or two spots that would allowed to an ACC team with that seasonal record (if that is the rough formula that woujld be used) it is very likely that an eleven win season will be required to get a team from the ACC into the next for following year playoffs. Would be some interesting discussions as to how Cal got into this predicament and how we can get out of it, assuming anything is possible. BTW, look for future articles as to how many teams from the ACC will get into the playoffs and who might that be.

Gobears49 said:

---

There are a few unknowns that come into play here. The first is how much availability there would be to allow Las Vegas to play in thie new NFL stadium that was just built. I have no idea on that, and really don't know how good, and big the stadium the Las Vegas now plays in is. And I'm not going to research that. But just having a game in the curren U of Las Vegas stadium would not detract from all of the fun a visiting team supporters would have while in Vegas following their Bears.

…

so, adding to the initial teams I mentioned, or Fresno St, Las Vegas, and San Diego St.,, would result in nine teams in a new Pac conference, resullting in nine schools in a Pac Nine conference and, most importantly, having every school in the conferencl playing Las Vegas every other year, on a home and away basis. That means that the other eight schools would get to play in Las Vegas every other year, and perhaps some of thosee games could be in the Raiders new stadium.

---

UNLV already plays all their home games at Las Vegas Stadium, it was one of the conditions of funding it by the community. Cal was actually scheduled to travel there and would've been the first game ever played in the stadium but then Covid happened and the game was cancelled

Sticking to the topic suggested in the thread title...

- we haven't had a winning season in several years (bad!)
- last season, we improved to 6-6 (not bad!)
- for next year, it's looking like we'll be maybe a little better, hopefully (not bad, but not yet great)

I'd love for everything to click for the Golden Bears and for us to make the first 12-team CFB, but I can't say that possibility is realistic enough to be on my radar right now, except when I'm dreaming.


What in the world is this other question being debated? We just got into the ACC for gosh sakes.

Big C said:

---

Sticking to the topic suggested in the thread title...

- we haven't had a winning season in several years (bad!)
- last season, we improved to 6-6 (not bad!)
- for next year, it's looking like we'll be maybe a little better, hopefully (not bad, but not yet great)

I'd love for everything to click for the Golden Bears and for us to make the first 12-team CFB, but I can't say that possibility is realistic enough to be on my radar right now, except when I'm dreaming.


What in the world is this other question being debated? We just got into the ACC for gosh sakes.

---

6-6 is a good prediction. We have a lot of toss up games next year. If our chance of winning any game is 50%, our chance of getting lucky and going undefeated over 12 games is about .02%

***?

You ought to look at this from a big picture perspective rather than Eeyore's "We're Cal, woe is us" perspective.

The big picture is that the SEC and Big Ten are the big dogs and don't want to share with anyone else. The 12-team playoff is set up so that the committee is more likely to select the 4th-best SEC team than the 2nd-best ACC or Big 12 team. It doesn't matter whether that 2nd place ACC team is Cal or Florida State -- if they have fewer than 10 wins, they have no chance at the playoff, and if they have exactly 10 wins, their chances are 50-50 at best.

And that's just the playoff for the next two seasons! It will get worse after that, not better. The SEC commissioner has given interviews recently in which he explicitly says the SEC is not ready to sign on to an extension of the 12-team playoff. They won't sign on unless the sport "gets right" the "work that needs to be done". What are those things? (1) A split of CFP money that gives big shares to the SEC and Big Ten and crumbs to everyone else. (2) A playoff format tailored to the desires of the Big Ten and SEC, possibly meaning more than 12 teams, possibly meaning no automatic bids and all teams picked by a committee biased toward "big name" teams, possibly meaning written criteria for playoff selection that make it almost impossible for any team outside the Big Ten and SEC to be selected unless that team is a conference champion with fewer than two losses.

It's not a Cal problem. It's a problem for every team not in the Big Ten or SEC.

BearSD said:

---

You ought to look at this from a big picture perspective rather than Eeyore's "We're Cal, woe is us" perspective.

The big picture is that the SEC and Big Ten are the big dogs and don't want to share with anyone else. The 12-team playoff is set up so that the committee is more likely to select the 4th-best SEC team than the 2nd-best ACC or Big 12 team. It doesn't matter whether that 2nd place ACC team is Cal or Florida State -- if they have fewer than 10 wins, they have no chance at the playoff, and if they have exactly 10 wins, their chances are 50-50 at best.

And that's just the playoff for the next two seasons! It will get worse after that, not better. The SEC commissioner has given interviews recently in which he explicitly says the SEC is not ready to sign on to an extension of the 12-team playoff. They won't sign on unless the sport "gets right" the "work that needs to be done". What are those things? (1) A split of CFP money that gives big shares to the SEC and Big Ten and crumbs to everyone else. (2) A playoff format tailored to the desires of the Big Ten and SEC, possibly meaning more than 12 teams, possibly meaning no automatic bids and all teams picked by a committee biased toward "big name" teams, possibly meaning written criteria for playoff selection that make it almost impossible for any team outside the Big Ten and SEC to be selected unless that team is a conference champion with fewer than two losses.

It's not a Cal problem. It's a problem for every team not in the Big Ten or SEC.

---

The B1G will have 18 teams, the SEC will have 16. 34 teams between them. I think there will be a lot of cannibalism. The AP poll will still continue. They will still favor undefeated and 1 loss teams. I could see half the teams in the CFP being from the B1G and SEC on average, but it will be tough to add more and leave out any undefeated or 1 loss teams from other conferences.

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

Sticking to the topic suggested in the thread title...

- we haven't had a winning season in several years (bad!)
- last season, we improved to 6-6 (not bad!)
- for next year, it's looking like we'll be maybe a little better, hopefully (not bad, but not yet great)

I'd love for everything to click for the Golden Bears and for us to make the first 12-team CFB, but I can't say that possibility is realistic enough to be on my radar right now, except when I'm dreaming.


What in the world is this other question being debated? We just got into the ACC for gosh sakes.

---

6-6 is a good prediction. We have a lot of toss up games next year. If our chance of winning any game is 50%, our chance of getting lucky and going undefeated over 12 games is about .02%

---

I'm more optimistic, because the schedule appears to be significantly easier than last year and I think we fill in some holes through NIL. This still is a team which has issues and coaching on the offensive side/special teams has some question marks. But if the QB and key RBs stay healthy, there is a legitimate upside. Ott is that special. It also is premature since with have another NIL period to go through and things are very dynamic in college football right now (understatement of the year). But right now I would put the mean at 7.5 wins. I agree there are a fair number of toss-up games going into the season given that Cal is playing so many programs it hasn't played on a regular basis.

southseasbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I think the upper ceiling is 9 wins which doesn't make the playoffs as an ACC team.

---

100%. But it could make for a darn good bowl game invite.

---

Yes, I have focused in getting a national playoff spot.
But I guess that may be shooting too high, at least as an ACC team. You are saying that Cal should be happy just to play in a bowl game that cannot lead to a national championship. Since the advent of national championships Cal has never competed inione and perhaps never will.

Gobears49 said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I think the upper ceiling is 9 wins which doesn't make the playoffs as an ACC team.

---

100%. But it could make for a darn good bowl game invite.

---

Yes, I have focused in getting a national playoff spot.
But I guess that may be shooting too high, at least as an ACC team. You are saying that Cal should be happy just to play in a bowl game that cannot lead to a national championship. Since the advent of national championships Cal has never competed inione and perhaps never will.

---

I'm saying it's fine to aim high (playoff spot) but we should view an 8-4 record as a great achievement.

southseasbear said:

---

Gobears49 said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

I think the upper ceiling is 9 wins which doesn't make the playoffs as an ACC team.

---

100%. But it could make for a darn good bowl game invite.

---

Yes, I have focused in getting a national playoff spot.
But I guess that may be shooting too high, at least as an ACC team. You are saying that Cal should be happy just to play in a bowl game that cannot lead to a national championship. Since the advent of national championships Cal has never competed inione and perhaps never will.

---

I'm saying it's fine to aim high (playoff spot) but we should view an 8-4 record as a great achievement.

---

And a statue of the radio broadcast team has already been ordered!

50/50 chance of playoffs next year.

bearsandgiants said:

---

50/50 chance of playoffs next year.

---

Cal either makes the playoffs or they don't, two options means its 50/50. That's how statistics works, right?

Bearly Clad said:

---

Gobears49 said:

---

There are a few unknowns that come into play here. The first is how much availability there would be to allow Las Vegas to play in thie new NFL stadium that was just built. I have no idea on that, and really don't know how good, and big the stadium the Las Vegas now plays in is. And I'm not going to research that. But just having a game in the curren U of Las Vegas stadium would not detract from all of the fun a visiting team supporters would have while in Vegas following their Bears.

…

so, adding to the initial teams I mentioned, or Fresno St, Las Vegas, and San Diego St.,, would result in nine teams in a new Pac conference, resullting in nine schools in a Pac Nine conference and, most importantly, having every school in the conferencl playing Las Vegas every other year, on a home and away basis. That means that the other eight schools would get to play in Las Vegas every other year, and perhaps some of thosee games could be in the Raiders new stadium.

---

UNLV already plays all their home games at Las Vegas Stadium, it was one of the conditions of funding it by the community. Cal was actually scheduled to travel there and would've been the first game ever played in the stadium but then Covid happened and the game was cancelled

---

Thanks for the input that UNLV is playing in the stadium the Raiders use. Hope youi're right as I indicated to Cal's AD that this was the case.

If Cal does play there, how much of an attraction would it be to Cal fans to travel to Las Vegas to watch the Bears play there and also spend time taking part in the normal activities people visit Las Vegas. Would that be attractive to you?

wifeisafurd said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Big C said:

---

Sticking to the topic suggested in the thread title...

- we haven't had a winning season in several years (bad!)
- last season, we improved to 6-6 (not bad!)
- for next year, it's looking like we'll be maybe a little better, hopefully (not bad, but not yet great)

I'd love for everything to click for the Golden Bears and for us to make the first 12-team CFB, but I can't say that possibility is realistic enough to be on my radar right now, except when I'm dreaming.


What in the world is this other question being debated? We just got into the ACC for gosh sakes.

---

6-6 is a good prediction. We have a lot of toss up games next year. If our chance of winning any game is 50%, our chance of getting lucky and going undefeated over 12 games is about .02%

---

I'm more optimistic, because the schedule appears to be significantly easier than last year and I think we fill in some holes through NIL. This still is a team which has issues and coaching on the offensive side/special teams has some question marks. But if the QB and key RBs stay healthy, there is a legitimate upside. Ott is that special. It also is premature since with have another NIL period to go through and things are very dynamic in college football right now (understatement of the year). But right now I would put the mean at 7.5 wins. I agree there are a fair number of toss-up games going into the season given that Cal is playing so many programs it hasn't played on a regular basis.

---

Yes, the easy math is we win all our home games and lose all the road games and go 7-5. Give or take. That is about what I see assuming we are as good or modestly better than last year. I used 6-6 .500 "coin toss" as a way to calculate the odds "we get lucky" and go 12-0 with no significant improvement.

Oakbear said:

---

Ive seen a lot of stupid posts on the net, but a statue for an announcer is very near the top

---

Starkey was the announcer for easily the most famous football plays, college or pro, in history. That means there are ninety-nine college plays that are less famous. Since you don'tt know the name of any of the announcers for the ninety others, is that a sign I am smarter than you are.

Gobears49 said:

---

Oakbear said:

---

Ive seen a lot of stupid posts on the net, but a statue for an announcer is very near the top

---

Starkey was the announcer for easily the most famous football plays, college or pro, in history. That means there are ninety-nine college plays that are less famous. Since you don'tt know the name of any of the announcers for the ninety others, is that a sign I am smarter than you are.

---

It has precedent.

https://rotblattamrany.com/projects/harry-caray-a-one-a-two-a-three/

Gobears49 said:

---

I will try to make this as short as possiible, which for me is very difficult. Lots to say.

Lots of commentary out there on which teams will make the top level of othe FBS playoffs next season, which is for twelve teams. Wish I could go back and copy the fhree of four online articles on this subject, but I can't. In general, if memory serves me correct, the ACC and Big 12 are pegged to get one to three teams in the aggregate. Cal is not given much of a chance for any but for one poll, which essentailly said they have a chance, though Cal was listed in the fourth of six groups, which seems to make it almost impossible for them to make a top twelve spot.

Here's another article I read on the subject this morning just dealing with how former Pac 12 schools will do in competing with their new brethren in the Big 10 next seaon--
Says the four transferee teams to the Big 10 wil do pretty well. UCLA is rated last of the four. Persoonally, I think UCLA is going downhilland willl likely strugggle to get to the .500 level next year and so is very unlikely to get into the playoffs. But I won't go into my reasons for that, as I have things to do this morning.

What I want to get into is Cal's chances in getting into the twelve team FBS playoffs next season. I'd say it is a longshot at best, mostly because of tshe number of teams that can be selected for that honor. ( won't even spend the time adding them up. Cal does seem to be more loaded with talent than last season, but last season Cal would not have made the final top twelve teams that got into the playoffs.

All of this leads to the reason I am writing this. There seems to be some movement into recognizing that some teams on the west coast are inmproving football powers. Don't have the article that says that, but those teams listed were 1) Boise St. and 2) San Diego St. Those are two of the teams I would add to a revitalized Pac 12 (or close to it) So that would get me to six teams in the new, revised Pac 12 (or so) -- Cal, Stanford, Oregon St., Wash. St, Boise St., and San Diego St.

The other teams I initially listed a few weeks ago on this subject were Fresno St. (a good football school, so long as Tedfford is the coach there), Hawaii (a great tourist destination), and Las Vegas (the best tourist destination in the U.S. and much better than Hawaii because it is so much closer to the rest of all the teams I have mentioned.

There are a few unknowns that come into play here. The first is how much availability there would be to allow Las Vegas to play in thie new NFL stadium that was just built. I have no idea on that, and really don't know how good, and big the stadium the Las Vegas now plays in is. And I'm not going to research that. But just having a game in the curren U of Las Vegas stadium would not detract from all of the fun a visiting team supporters would have while in Vegas following their Bears.

Adding in Fresno St; and Las Vegas would get the revised Pac (Whatever) to eight teams. Additional teams could be Hawaii (but maybe only after they get the new stadium they supposedly need) and one or two addiitional teams from the up and coming Mountain West conference (see schools -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_West_Conference). Perhaps San Jose St. could be included but that might hurt Cal and Stanford a bit in their attendance, though I doubt much).

So, adding to the initial teams I mentioned, or Fresno St, Las Vegas, and San Diego St.,, would result in nine teams in a new Pac conference, resullting in nine schools in a Pac Nine conference and, most importantly, having every school in the conferencl playing Las Vegas every other year, on a home and away basis. That means that the other eight schools would get to play in Las Vegas every other year, and perhaps some of thosee games could be in the Raiders new stadium.

Also, this setup would be three locations that provide very good excellent fun and recreational activities to partake in every other year (excluding fans from the Bay Area, which would only have two two new tourist locations to visit) -- Cal/Stanford (SF), San Diego, and Las Vegas

Just a thought. Just remember that Cal has a very small chance to getting into the upcoming national championship tournament next season because of the old Pac 12 not surviving. That's too bad, caused very likely in large part by hiring a bad Pac 12 commissoiner.

( will be sending this comment to AD Knowlton and maybe Chancellor Carol Crist, who I still hope to talk to about my idee to have a statue of Joe Starkey added,next to the one now standing for Kevin Moen plus a device that will show the complete video of The Play ending with Starkey's "There will be no extra point" statement, which would first be exhibiited close to a College GameDay televised game event at Cal.

---

We would need to get 10 wins to have a chance. I think it is good to look at Arizona's season from last year. If a few more balls bounce our way or if we found our quarterback earlier or had something better than awful special teams for the first half of the season, we could have had a season similar to Arizona's. That being said Arizona finished the season with 9 wins and ranked 14th so they would have been out. Need a slightly better season than Arizona had last year.

It could happen. Crazier things have happened. Would be so awesome if it happened. Even a 9 win season increases the chance of it happening the following year. Wilcox will recruit so much better with a narrative of a winning season and an upward trending program.

Big C said:

---

Sticking to the topic suggested in the thread title...

- we haven't had a winning season in several years (bad!)
- last season, we improved to 6-6 (not bad!)
- for next year, it's looking like we'll be maybe a little better, hopefully (not bad, but not yet great)

I'd love for everything to click for the Golden Bears and for us to make the first 12-team CFB, but I can't say that possibility is realistic enough to be on my radar right now, except when I'm dreaming.


What in the world is this other question being debated? We just got into the ACC for gosh sakes.

---

You are not up to date. Word is that the ACC may be going out of business;

evanluck said:

---

Gobears49 said:

---

I will try to make this as short as possiible, which for me is very difficult. Lots to say.

Lots of commentary out there on which teams will make the top level of othe FBS playoffs next season, which is for twelve teams. Wish I could go back and copy the fhree of four online articles on this subject, but I can't. In general, if memory serves me correct, the ACC and Big 12 are pegged to get one to three teams in the aggregate. Cal is not given much of a chance for any but for one poll, which essentailly said they have a chance, though Cal was listed in the fourth of six groups, which seems to make it almost impossible for them to make a top twelve spot.

Here's another article I read on the subject this morning just dealing with how former Pac 12 schools will do in competing with their new brethren in the Big 10 next seaon--
Says the four transferee teams to the Big 10 wil do pretty well. UCLA is rated last of the four. Persoonally, I think UCLA is going downhilland willl likely strugggle to get to the .500 level next year and so is very unlikely to get into the playoffs. But I won't go into my reasons for that, as I have things to do this morning.

What I want to get into is Cal's chances in getting into the twelve team FBS playoffs next season. I'd say it is a longshot at best, mostly because of tshe number of teams that can be selected for that honor. ( won't even spend the time adding them up. Cal does seem to be more loaded with talent than last season, but last season Cal would not have made the final top twelve teams that got into the playoffs.

All of this leads to the reason I am writing this. There seems to be some movement into recognizing that some teams on the west coast are inmproving football powers. Don't have the article that says that, but those teams listed were 1) Boise St. and 2) San Diego St. Those are two of the teams I would add to a revitalized Pac 12 (or close to it) So that would get me to six teams in the new, revised Pac 12 (or so) -- Cal, Stanford, Oregon St., Wash. St, Boise St., and San Diego St.

The other teams I initially listed a few weeks ago on this subject were Fresno St. (a good football school, so long as Tedfford is the coach there), Hawaii (a great tourist destination), and Las Vegas (the best tourist destination in the U.S. and much better than Hawaii because it is so much closer to the rest of all the teams I have mentioned.

There are a few unknowns that come into play here. The first is how much availability there would be to allow Las Vegas to play in thie new NFL stadium that was just built. I have no idea on that, and really don't know how good, and big the stadium the Las Vegas now plays in is. And I'm not going to research that. But just having a game in the curren U of Las Vegas stadium would not detract from all of the fun a visiting team supporters would have while in Vegas following their Bears.

Adding in Fresno St; and Las Vegas would get the revised Pac (Whatever) to eight teams. Additional teams could be Hawaii (but maybe only after they get the new stadium they supposedly need) and one or two addiitional teams from the up and coming Mountain West conference (see schools -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_West_Conference). Perhaps San Jose St. could be included but that might hurt Cal and Stanford a bit in their attendance, though I doubt much).

So, adding to the initial teams I mentioned, or Fresno St, Las Vegas, and San Diego St.,, would result in nine teams in a new Pac conference, resullting in nine schools in a Pac Nine conference and, most importantly, having every school in the conferencl playing Las Vegas every other year, on a home and away basis. That means that the other eight schools would get to play in Las Vegas every other year, and perhaps some of thosee games could be in the Raiders new stadium.

Also, this setup would be three locations that provide very good excellent fun and recreational activities to partake in every other year (excluding fans from the Bay Area, which would only have two two new tourist locations to visit) -- Cal/Stanford (SF), San Diego, and Las Vegas

Just a thought. Just remember that Cal has a very small chance to getting into the upcoming national championship tournament next season because of the old Pac 12 not surviving. That's too bad, caused very likely in large part by hiring a bad Pac 12 commissoiner.

( will be sending this comment to AD Knowlton and maybe Chancellor Carol Crist, who I still hope to talk to about my idee to have a statue of Joe Starkey added,next to the one now standing for Kevin Moen plus a device that will show the complete video of The Play ending with Starkey's "There will be no extra point" statement, which would first be exhibiited close to a College GameDay televised game event at Cal.

---

We would need to get 10 wins to have a chance. I think it is good to look at Arizona's season from last year. If a few more balls bounce our way or if we found our quarterback earlier or had something better than awful special teams for the first half of the season, we could have had a season similar to Arizona's. That being said Arizona finished the season with 9 wins and ranked 14th so they would have been out. Need a slightly better season than Arizona had last year.

It could happen. Crazier things have happened. Would be so awesome if it happened. Even a 9 win season increases the chance of it happening the following year. Wilcox will recruit so much better with a narrative of a winning season and an upward trending program.

---

We all love Fernando, but we were 3-5 with Mendoza as our starter and 3-2 before that. Of the two losses he did not start or play in, Auburn and Washington, only Auburn is realistically a potential win with Fernando starting. So maybe we win one more game and finish 7-6 if we "found our QB sooner"?

Jedd Fisch is a really good coach. Look at the year over year progression at Arizona from when he took over. Of Arizona's 9 wins, 5 were over teams that were ranked when they played them (6 if you count their 10th win over Oklahoma). They destroyed Utah and OSU. It is unlikely we get to 9 wins in the ACC playing 7 ranked teams in conference like Arizona did in the PAC-12 this year. In the ACC, we will have an easier schedule, but we will need to win more too, at least to get to the CFP.

calumnus said:

---

evanluck said:

---

Gobears49 said:

---

I will try to make this as short as possiible, which for me is very difficult. Lots to say.

Lots of commentary out there on which teams will make the top level of othe FBS playoffs next season, which is for twelve teams. Wish I could go back and copy the fhree of four online articles on this subject, but I can't. In general, if memory serves me correct, the ACC and Big 12 are pegged to get one to three teams in the aggregate. Cal is not given much of a chance for any but for one poll, which essentailly said they have a chance, though Cal was listed in the fourth of six groups, which seems to make it almost impossible for them to make a top twelve spot.

Here's another article I read on the subject this morning just dealing with how former Pac 12 schools will do in competing with their new brethren in the Big 10 next seaon--
Says the four transferee teams to the Big 10 wil do pretty well. UCLA is rated last of the four. Persoonally, I think UCLA is going downhilland willl likely strugggle to get to the .500 level next year and so is very unlikely to get into the playoffs. But I won't go into my reasons for that, as I have things to do this morning.

What I want to get into is Cal's chances in getting into the twelve team FBS playoffs next season. I'd say it is a longshot at best, mostly because of tshe number of teams that can be selected for that honor. ( won't even spend the time adding them up. Cal does seem to be more loaded with talent than last season, but last season Cal would not have made the final top twelve teams that got into the playoffs.

All of this leads to the reason I am writing this. There seems to be some movement into recognizing that some teams on the west coast are inmproving football powers. Don't have the article that says that, but those teams listed were 1) Boise St. and 2) San Diego St. Those are two of the teams I would add to a revitalized Pac 12 (or close to it) So that would get me to six teams in the new, revised Pac 12 (or so) -- Cal, Stanford, Oregon St., Wash. St, Boise St., and San Diego St.

The other teams I initially listed a few weeks ago on this subject were Fresno St. (a good football school, so long as Tedfford is the coach there), Hawaii (a great tourist destination), and Las Vegas (the best tourist destination in the U.S. and much better than Hawaii because it is so much closer to the rest of all the teams I have mentioned.

There are a few unknowns that come into play here. The first is how much availability there would be to allow Las Vegas to play in thie new NFL stadium that was just built. I have no idea on that, and really don't know how good, and big the stadium the Las Vegas now plays in is. And I'm not going to research that. But just having a game in the curren U of Las Vegas stadium would not detract from all of the fun a visiting team supporters would have while in Vegas following their Bears.

Adding in Fresno St; and Las Vegas would get the revised Pac (Whatever) to eight teams. Additional teams could be Hawaii (but maybe only after they get the new stadium they supposedly need) and one or two addiitional teams from the up and coming Mountain West conference (see schools -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_West_Conference). Perhaps San Jose St. could be included but that might hurt Cal and Stanford a bit in their attendance, though I doubt much).

So, adding to the initial teams I mentioned, or Fresno St, Las Vegas, and San Diego St.,, would result in nine teams in a new Pac conference, resullting in nine schools in a Pac Nine conference and, most importantly, having every school in the conferencl playing Las Vegas every other year, on a home and away basis. That means that the other eight schools would get to play in Las Vegas every other year, and perhaps some of thosee games could be in the Raiders new stadium.

Also, this setup would be three locations that provide very good excellent fun and recreational activities to partake in every other year (excluding fans from the Bay Area, which would only have two two new tourist locations to visit) -- Cal/Stanford (SF), San Diego, and Las Vegas

Just a thought. Just remember that Cal has a very small chance to getting into the upcoming national championship tournament next season because of the old Pac 12 not surviving. That's too bad, caused very likely in large part by hiring a bad Pac 12 commissoiner.

( will be sending this comment to AD Knowlton and maybe Chancellor Carol Crist, who I still hope to talk to about my idee to have a statue of Joe Starkey added,next to the one now standing for Kevin Moen plus a device that will show the complete video of The Play ending with Starkey's "There will be no extra point" statement, which would first be exhibiited close to a College GameDay televised game event at Cal.

---

We would need to get 10 wins to have a chance. I think it is good to look at Arizona's season from last year. If a few more balls bounce our way or if we found our quarterback earlier or had something better than awful special teams for the first half of the season, we could have had a season similar to Arizona's. That being said Arizona finished the season with 9 wins and ranked 14th so they would have been out. Need a slightly better season than Arizona had last year.

It could happen. Crazier things have happened. Would be so awesome if it happened. Even a 9 win season increases the chance of it happening the following year. Wilcox will recruit so much better with a narrative of a winning season and an upward trending program.

---

We all love Fernando, but we were 3-5 with Mendoza as our starter and 3-2 before that. Of the two losses he did not start or play in, Auburn and Washington, only Auburn is realistically a potential win with Fernando starting. So maybe we win one more game and finish 7-6 if we "found our QB sooner"?

Jedd Fisch is a really good coach. Look at the year over year progression at Arizona from when he took over.

---

That's some serious statistical pretzel-twisting. Nando, an unpaid RS frosh stepped into the middle of the conference season and led us to a bowl game, which included back-to-back road wins to close out the season agains the furd and a blowout win at ucla.

bearsandgiants said:

---

calumnus said:

---

evanluck said:

---

Gobears49 said:

---

I will try to make this as short as possiible, which for me is very difficult. Lots to say.

Lots of commentary out there on which teams will make the top level of othe FBS playoffs next season, which is for twelve teams. Wish I could go back and copy the fhree of four online articles on this subject, but I can't. In general, if memory serves me correct, the ACC and Big 12 are pegged to get one to three teams in the aggregate. Cal is not given much of a chance for any but for one poll, which essentailly said they have a chance, though Cal was listed in the fourth of six groups, which seems to make it almost impossible for them to make a top twelve spot.

Here's another article I read on the subject this morning just dealing with how former Pac 12 schools will do in competing with their new brethren in the Big 10 next seaon--
Says the four transferee teams to the Big 10 wil do pretty well. UCLA is rated last of the four. Persoonally, I think UCLA is going downhilland willl likely strugggle to get to the .500 level next year and so is very unlikely to get into the playoffs. But I won't go into my reasons for that, as I have things to do this morning.

What I want to get into is Cal's chances in getting into the twelve team FBS playoffs next season. I'd say it is a longshot at best, mostly because of tshe number of teams that can be selected for that honor. ( won't even spend the time adding them up. Cal does seem to be more loaded with talent than last season, but last season Cal would not have made the final top twelve teams that got into the playoffs.

All of this leads to the reason I am writing this. There seems to be some movement into recognizing that some teams on the west coast are inmproving football powers. Don't have the article that says that, but those teams listed were 1) Boise St. and 2) San Diego St. Those are two of the teams I would add to a revitalized Pac 12 (or close to it) So that would get me to six teams in the new, revised Pac 12 (or so) -- Cal, Stanford, Oregon St., Wash. St, Boise St., and San Diego St.

The other teams I initially listed a few weeks ago on this subject were Fresno St. (a good football school, so long as Tedfford is the coach there), Hawaii (a great tourist destination), and Las Vegas (the best tourist destination in the U.S. and much better than Hawaii because it is so much closer to the rest of all the teams I have mentioned.

There are a few unknowns that come into play here. The first is how much availability there would be to allow Las Vegas to play in thie new NFL stadium that was just built. I have no idea on that, and really don't know how good, and big the stadium the Las Vegas now plays in is. And I'm not going to research that. But just having a game in the curren U of Las Vegas stadium would not detract from all of the fun a visiting team supporters would have while in Vegas following their Bears.

Adding in Fresno St; and Las Vegas would get the revised Pac (Whatever) to eight teams. Additional teams could be Hawaii (but maybe only after they get the new stadium they supposedly need) and one or two addiitional teams from the up and coming Mountain West conference (see schools -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_West_Conference). Perhaps San Jose St. could be included but that might hurt Cal and Stanford a bit in their attendance, though I doubt much).

So, adding to the initial teams I mentioned, or Fresno St, Las Vegas, and San Diego St.,, would result in nine teams in a new Pac conference, resullting in nine schools in a Pac Nine conference and, most importantly, having every school in the conferencl playing Las Vegas every other year, on a home and away basis. That means that the other eight schools would get to play in Las Vegas every other year, and perhaps some of thosee games could be in the Raiders new stadium.

Also, this setup would be three locations that provide very good excellent fun and recreational activities to partake in every other year (excluding fans from the Bay Area, which would only have two two new tourist locations to visit) -- Cal/Stanford (SF), San Diego, and Las Vegas

Just a thought. Just remember that Cal has a very small chance to getting into the upcoming national championship tournament next season because of the old Pac 12 not surviving. That's too bad, caused very likely in large part by hiring a bad Pac 12 commissoiner.

( will be sending this comment to AD Knowlton and maybe Chancellor Carol Crist, who I still hope to talk to about my idee to have a statue of Joe Starkey added,next to the one now standing for Kevin Moen plus a device that will show the complete video of The Play ending with Starkey's "There will be no extra point" statement, which would first be exhibiited close to a College GameDay televised game event at Cal.

---

We would need to get 10 wins to have a chance. I think it is good to look at Arizona's season from last year. If a few more balls bounce our way or if we found our quarterback earlier or had something better than awful special teams for the first half of the season, we could have had a season similar to Arizona's. That being said Arizona finished the season with 9 wins and ranked 14th so they would have been out. Need a slightly better season than Arizona had last year.

It could happen. Crazier things have happened. Would be so awesome if it happened. Even a 9 win season increases the chance of it happening the following year. Wilcox will recruit so much better with a narrative of a winning season and an upward trending program.

---

We all love Fernando, but we were 3-5 with Mendoza as our starter and 3-2 before that. Of the two losses he did not start or play in, Auburn and Washington, only Auburn is realistically a potential win with Fernando starting. So maybe we win one more game and finish 7-6 if we "found our QB sooner"?

Jedd Fisch is a really good coach. Look at the year over year progression at Arizona from when he took over.

---

That's some serious statistical pretzel-twisting. Nando, an unpaid RS frosh stepped into the middle of the conference season and led us to a bowl game, which included back-to-back road wins to close out the season agains the furd and a blowout win at ucla.

---

Love the Fernando love, but you are losing objectivity.

Again, we were 3-2, having lost two games before Fernando took over: UW and Auburn. You can't win more games than that. I think we beat Auburn if he starts but you are dreaming if you think Fernando means we beat UW in Seattle (and presumably go on to win the CFP).

We went 3-5 with Fernando as a starter. Yes, two of three wins were against bottom half dwellers Stanford and UCLA (and WSU). Moreover, there is more to winning a football game than the QB. Look at Stanford with Elway.

And while there is a lot to like about him, there is the fact that in 8 games, Fernando threw 10 interceptions and lost 5 fumbles. 15 turnovers in 8 games. Hopefully he cleans that up. We were best when the play let's him throw quickly (quick slants) or we bought him a little time with play action to Ott in running situations. Make no mistake, we all love the kid and are rooting for him but the reality is we were 3-5 with him at QB this year.

A lot will depend on Bloesch and whether he puts Fernando in a good situation. The quick passing game with Fernando throwing darts looked like Spav's offense. The bowl game against Texas Tech was not promising. We scored 14 points in the first quarter then were shut out the next three quarters with Fernando under constant pressure and throwing three interceptions. Hopefully this season is different.

Oakbear said:

---

Ive seen a lot of stupid posts on the net, but a statue for an announcer is very near the top

---

Yep, Starkey is only the announcer that called the greatest play in college football. Why was it considered to be the greatest call of a play in college history. BUT OF COURSE IT IS BECAUSE STARKEY'S EXCEEDINGLY DRAMATIC CALL OF THE PLAY WAS, IN LARGE PART, THE REASON WHY THE PLAY IS THE CONSIDERED TO BE THE GREATEST PLAY IN COLLEGE FOOTBAL HISTORY.