This was in another thread but I think it deserves its own. The old PAC-12 will be competing for PAC-12 bowl tie ins (in picking order):

Alamo vs Big 12
Holiday vs ACC
Las Vegas vs SEC
Sun vs ACC
LA vs MWC
Independence vs Big 12

Here is how the old PAC-12 line up, with Sagarin ranking, current record and projected final record with likely bowl:

#3 Oregon 8-0 > 12-0 CFP
#46 WSU 7-1 > 11-1 Alamo, Holiday or Vegas
#22 Colorado 6-2 > 10-2 Vegas or Holiday
#20 USC 4-4 > 7-5 Holiday, Alamo or Vegas
#36 Cal 4-4 > 7-5 LA
#53 ASU 5-2 > 7-5 Sun
#85 OSU 4-4 > 6-6 Independence

#44 Utah 4-4 >5-7
#52 UW 4-4 > 5-7
#65 UA 3-5 > 4-8
#66 UCLA 2-5 > 3-9
#104 Furd 2-6 > 2-10

I was hoping for Vegas, but I think WSU, Colorado and USC get the top 3 bowls and we end up in LA playing UNLV unless UW or Utah can get to 6-6, then maybe they bump us to Shreveport again.

It would be kind of weird for us to play against an ACC opponent at this point, so the Holiday and Sun might be awkward even if we qualify, especially if we get a regular season rematch. Same with Colorado or ASU getting picked vs. B12 in the Alamo,

Ideally the bowls could trade teams Monopoly-style and set up legacy P12 v P12 matchups! Other than the Independence Bowl those fan bases would travel better, and there would be more interest for those matchups as well.

Cal88 said:

---

It would be kind of weird for us to play against an ACC opponent at this point, so the Holiday and Sun might be awkward even if we qualify, especially if we get a regular season rematch. Same with Colorado or ASU getting picked vs. B12 in the Alamo,

Ideally the bowls could trade teams Monopoly-style and set up legacy P12 v P12 matchups! Other than the Independence Bowl those fan bases would travel better, and there would be more interest for those matchups as well.

---

The bowls pick in order and I doubt they will be looking to match up teams against their current conferences, especially if it is a rematch of a game played earlier. I think Holiday could be Pitt.

I think if we win more than we lose the rest of the way we are headed to LA probably against UNLV. I think Colorado, WSU and USC will be the top three picks and we will not jump them unless USC has a collapse. The other dynamic is if UW or Utah can turn it around and get bowl eligibile.

> ..headed to LA in the Jimmy Kimmel..

Kimmel Bowl is thing, huh, who knew (not me)..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LA_Bowl

smh said:

---

> ..headed to LA in the Jimmy Kimmel..

Kimmel Bowl is thing, huh, who knew (not me)..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LA_Bowl

---

I posted that and wrote about how much hype it would get with the Calgorhithm and Kimmel being from Vegas and having gone to UNLV his freshman year (assuming UNLV is the opponent) but then i was reminded that it is now hosted by former New England Patriot and Tampa Bay TE Rob Gronkowski . He is from the East Coast, played for Arizona, so there is no LA connection.

Maybe the promoters just wanted to replace Kimmel (who Trump calls out by name) with a notable pro-Trump guy?

Cal88 said:

---

It would be kind of weird for us to play against an ACC opponent at this point, so the Holiday and Sun might be awkward even if we qualify, especially if we get a regular season rematch. Same with Colorado or ASU getting picked vs. B12 in the Alamo,

Ideally the bowls could trade teams Monopoly-style and set up legacy P12 v P12 matchups! Other than the Independence Bowl those fan bases would travel better, and there would be more interest for those matchups as well.

---

I expect a lot of that. Lot of motivation to put the old pac12 teams against each other

bencgilmore said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

It would be kind of weird for us to play against an ACC opponent at this point, so the Holiday and Sun might be awkward even if we qualify, especially if we get a regular season rematch. Same with Colorado or ASU getting picked vs. B12 in the Alamo,

Ideally the bowls could trade teams Monopoly-style and set up legacy P12 v P12 matchups! Other than the Independence Bowl those fan bases would travel better, and there would be more interest for those matchups as well.

---

I expect a lot of that. Lot of motivation to put the old pac12 teams against each other

---

The old PAC-12 is only eligible for the Pac-12 slots this year and next, so former PAC-12 v former PAC-12 cannot happen until 2026 unless one of the very minor bowls without firm tie ins wants to do it.

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

It would be kind of weird for us to play against an ACC opponent at this point, so the Holiday and Sun might be awkward even if we qualify, especially if we get a regular season rematch. Same with Colorado or ASU getting picked vs. B12 in the Alamo,

Ideally the bowls could trade teams Monopoly-style and set up legacy P12 v P12 matchups! Other than the Independence Bowl those fan bases would travel better, and there would be more interest for those matchups as well.

---

The bowls pick in order and I doubt they will be looking to match up teams against their current conferences, especially if it is a rematch of a game played earlier. I think Holiday could be Pitt.

I think if we win more than we lose the rest of the way we are headed to LA probably against UNLV. I think Colorado, WSU and USC will be the top three picks and we will not jump them unless USC has a collapse. The other dynamic is if UW or Utah can turn it around and get bowl eligibile.

---

WSU isn't going to jump us if we go 8-4, especially for a CA bowl.

So I guess we now have a rooting interest against SC and the Mutts, and Colorado as well.

calumnus said:

---

This was in another thread but I think it deserves its own. The old PAC-12 will be competing for PAC-12 bowl tie ins (in picking order):

Alamo vs Big 12
Holiday vs ACC
Las Vegas vs SEC
Sun vs ACC
LA vs MWC
Independence vs Big 12

Here is how the old PAC-12 line up, with Sagarin ranking, current record and projected final record with likely bowl:

#3 Oregon 8-0 > 12-0 CFP
#46 WSU 7-1 > 11-1 Alamo, Holiday or Vegas
#22 Colorado 6-2 > 10-2 Vegas or Holiday
#20 USC 4-4 > 7-5 Holiday, Alamo or Vegas
#36 Cal 4-4 > 7-5 LA
#53 ASU 5-2 > 7-5 Sun
#85 OSU 4-4 > 6-6 Independence

#44 Utah 4-4 >5-7
#52 UW 4-4 > 5-7
#65 UA 3-5 > 4-8
#66 UCLA 2-5 > 3-9
#104 Furd 2-6 > 2-10

I was hoping for Vegas, but I think WSU, Colorado and USC get the top 3 bowls and we end up in LA playing UNLV unless UW or Utah can get to 6-6, then maybe they bump us to Shreveport again.

---

We're 0-4 in the ACC, but #4 in the Pac12!

Cal88 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

It would be kind of weird for us to play against an ACC opponent at this point, so the Holiday and Sun might be awkward even if we qualify, especially if we get a regular season rematch. Same with Colorado or ASU getting picked vs. B12 in the Alamo,

Ideally the bowls could trade teams Monopoly-style and set up legacy P12 v P12 matchups! Other than the Independence Bowl those fan bases would travel better, and there would be more interest for those matchups as well.

---

The bowls pick in order and I doubt they will be looking to match up teams against their current conferences, especially if it is a rematch of a game played earlier. I think Holiday could be Pitt.

I think if we win more than we lose the rest of the way we are headed to LA probably against UNLV. I think Colorado, WSU and USC will be the top three picks and we will not jump them unless USC has a collapse. The other dynamic is if UW or Utah can turn it around and get bowl eligibile.

---

WSU isn't going to jump us if we go 8-4, especially for a CA bowl.

So I guess we now have a rooting interest against SC and the Mutts, and Colorado as well.

---

WSU is currently ranked and will most likely finish 11-1 and ranked. They even have an outside chance at the CFP. Even if we win out, the question is if we jump them, not the other way around.

calumnus said:

---

bencgilmore said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

It would be kind of weird for us to play against an ACC opponent at this point, so the Holiday and Sun might be awkward even if we qualify, especially if we get a regular season rematch. Same with Colorado or ASU getting picked vs. B12 in the Alamo,

Ideally the bowls could trade teams Monopoly-style and set up legacy P12 v P12 matchups! Other than the Independence Bowl those fan bases would travel better, and there would be more interest for those matchups as well.

---

I expect a lot of that. Lot of motivation to put the old pac12 teams against each other

---

The old PAC-12 is only eligible for the Pac-12 slots this year and next, so former PAC-12 v former PAC-12 cannot happen until 2026 unless one of the very minor bowls without firm tie ins wants to do it.

---

I know that's the plan, but if the choice is a cinch of rematches and bad games, I think you'll see some adjustments

bencgilmore said:

---

calumnus said:

---

bencgilmore said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

It would be kind of weird for us to play against an ACC opponent at this point, so the Holiday and Sun might be awkward even if we qualify, especially if we get a regular season rematch. Same with Colorado or ASU getting picked vs. B12 in the Alamo,

Ideally the bowls could trade teams Monopoly-style and set up legacy P12 v P12 matchups! Other than the Independence Bowl those fan bases would travel better, and there would be more interest for those matchups as well.

---

I expect a lot of that. Lot of motivation to put the old pac12 teams against each other

---

The old PAC-12 is only eligible for the Pac-12 slots this year and next, so former PAC-12 v former PAC-12 cannot happen until 2026 unless one of the very minor bowls without firm tie ins wants to do it.

---

I know that's the plan, but if the choice is a bunch of rematches and bad games, I think you'll see some adjustments

---

Cal88 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

This was in another thread but I think it deserves its own. The old PAC-12 will be competing for PAC-12 bowl tie ins (in picking order):

Alamo vs Big 12
Holiday vs ACC
Las Vegas vs SEC
Sun vs ACC
LA vs MWC
Independence vs Big 12

Here is how the old PAC-12 line up, with Sagarin ranking, current record and projected final record with likely bowl:

#3 Oregon 8-0 > 12-0 CFP
#46 WSU 7-1 > 11-1 Alamo, Holiday or Vegas
#22 Colorado 6-2 > 10-2 Vegas or Holiday
#20 USC 4-4 > 7-5 Holiday, Alamo or Vegas
#36 Cal 4-4 > 7-5 LA
#53 ASU 5-2 > 7-5 Sun
#85 OSU 4-4 > 6-6 Independence

#44 Utah 4-4 >5-7
#52 UW 4-4 > 5-7
#65 UA 3-5 > 4-8
#66 UCLA 2-5 > 3-9
#104 Furd 2-6 > 2-10

I was hoping for Vegas, but I think WSU, Colorado and USC get the top 3 bowls and we end up in LA playing UNLV unless UW or Utah can get to 6-6, then maybe they bump us to Shreveport again.

---

We're 0-4 in the ACC, but #4 in the Pac12!

---

In Sagarin and in my predicted finish. At 4-4 currently, based on W/L we would be tied with three other PAC-12 teams for 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th (ie "the usual").

Washington will do no better than 6-6 but if they beat SC then the latter will also trend towards 6-6 and at 7-5 we have the upper hand for Vegas, also it's not outlandish to project that if Wazzu and Boise State win out, Wazzu has a compelling case to be the #12 playoff team, right behind Boise.

"So I guess we now have a rooting interest against SC and the Mutts, and Colorado as well."

Now?! I didn't come to these feelings lately.

Strykur said:

---

Washington will do no better than 6-6 but if they beat SC then the latter will also trend towards 6-6 and at 7-5 we have the upper hand for Vegas, also it's not outlandish to project that if Wazzu and Boise State win out, Wazzu has a compelling case to be the #12 playoff team, right behind Boise.

---

The bowls get to pick in order from the bowl eligible teams. Do not bet that a USC or UW team 6-6 playing in the B1G would not get picked over a 7-5 Cal team playing in the ACC.

The Sun or Alamo might pick UW ahead of us, but a bowl in LA or NorCal might not. We have more local alums and more star power on our team. The CA bowls are more interested in viewership and attendance than those in smaller cities who tend to be more tied in with local chambers of commerce, hotels etc.

Cal88 said:

---

The Sun or Alamo might pick UW ahead of us, but a bowl in LA or NorCal might not. We have more local alums and more star power on our team. The CA bowls are more interested in viewership and attendance than those in smaller cities who tend to be more tied in with local chambers of commerce, hotels etc.

---

Part of why I think we are likely in the LA Bowl (after others get picked above us for Holiday and Vegas).

There is no NorCal Bowl that we have a tie in with. The tie ins are contractual agreements. They can only pick a team from another conference if the conference with a tie-in does not have a bowl eligible team to provide or teams decline.

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

Washington will do no better than 6-6 but if they beat SC then the latter will also trend towards 6-6 and at 7-5 we have the upper hand for Vegas, also it's not outlandish to project that if Wazzu and Boise State win out, Wazzu has a compelling case to be the #12 playoff team, right behind Boise.

---

The bowls get to pick in order from the bowl eligible teams. Do not bet that a USC or UW team 6-6 playing in the B1G would not get picked over a 7-5 Cal team playing in the ACC.

---

Absolutely correct.

calumnus said:

---

There is no NorCal Bowl that we have a tie in with.

---

RIP the Emerald Nut Foster Farms Kraft Redbox Bowl.

Cal will be reigning champions forever!

Am I the only one who finds it odd that we are speculating on bowl invites when we have yet to win a single conference game?

southseasbear said:

---

Am I the only one who finds it odd that we are speculating on bowl invites when we have yet to win a single conference game?

---

It will either be bowl discussion or firing Wilcox at some point.

Strykur said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

Am I the only one who finds it odd that we are speculating on bowl invites when we have yet to win a single conference game?

---

It will either be bowl discussion or firing Wilcox at some point.

---

I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. After nearly getting relegated or shut down we are squandering the opportunity we were given by our unwarranted loyalty to Wilcox and his horrible program management. Improving to mediocre is not good enough.

We need to win 2 of Wake, Syracuse, Stanford or SMU to finish 6-6 (2-6) and be bowl eligible. If we cannot manage even that, then I think even the last Wilcox fans will give up the ship.

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

Am I the only one who finds it odd that we are speculating on bowl invites when we have yet to win a single conference game?

---

It will either be bowl discussion or firing Wilcox at some point.

---

I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.

---

I did see a bowl projection that had us going back to Shreveport, so you would definitely be right in that scenario

Strykur said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

Am I the only one who finds it odd that we are speculating on bowl invites when we have yet to win a single conference game?

---

It will either be bowl discussion or firing Wilcox at some point.

---

I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.

---

I did see a bowl projection that had us going back to Shreveport, so you would definitely be right in that scenario

---

UW beating USC means both could easily end up bowl eligible at 6-6 and bump us to Shreveport or worse.

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

Am I the only one who finds it odd that we are speculating on bowl invites when we have yet to win a single conference game?

---

It will either be bowl discussion or firing Wilcox at some point.

---

I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.

---

I did see a bowl projection that had us going back to Shreveport, so you would definitely be right in that scenario

---

UW beating USC means both could easily end up bowl eligible at 6-6 and bump us to Shreveport or worse.

---

I think Cal needs to just concern themselves with getting bowl eligible. Recent bowl projections are a mixed bag. Cal even at 6-6 may not get selected. Unless there are not enough 6 win teams to fill the bowls.

If Wilcox is retained at 6-6 it just shows that Cal is not serious about football. If staying in the P4 is as vital as we continue to read and hear it is you find a way to move on from Wilcox. I understand the buyout. It is a lot. But if you believe that staying in the P4 in the next realignment is necessary you cannot stay the course with Wilcox at 6-6. Really even at 7-5. IMO only running the table would be enough to keep Wilcox here. And even then NO extension.

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

Am I the only one who finds it odd that we are speculating on bowl invites when we have yet to win a single conference game?

---

It will either be bowl discussion or firing Wilcox at some point.

---

I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. After nearly getting relegated or shut down we are squandering the opportunity we were given by our unwarranted loyalty to Wilcox and his horrible program management. Improving to mediocre is not good enough.

We need to win 2 of Wake, Syracuse, Stanford or SMU to finish 6-6 (2-6) and be bowl eligible. If we cannot manage even that, then I think even the last Wilcox fans will give up the ship.

---

You keep making occasional references to Wilcox fans. Where are they? I haven't seen any on BI in the last couple of years.

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

Am I the only one who finds it odd that we are speculating on bowl invites when we have yet to win a single conference game?

---

It will either be bowl discussion or firing Wilcox at some point.

---

I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. After nearly getting relegated or shut down we are squandering the opportunity we were given by our unwarranted loyalty to Wilcox and his horrible program management. Improving to mediocre is not good enough.

We need to win 2 of Wake, Syracuse, Stanford or SMU to finish 6-6 (2-6) and be bowl eligible. If we cannot manage even that, then I think even the last Wilcox fans will give up the ship.

---

You keep making occasional references to Wilcox fans. Where are they? I haven't seen any on BI in the last couple of years.

---

Consider yourself lucky for not crossing paths with oski003

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

Am I the only one who finds it odd that we are speculating on bowl invites when we have yet to win a single conference game?

---

It will either be bowl discussion or firing Wilcox at some point.

---

I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.

---

I did see a bowl projection that had us going back to Shreveport, so you would definitely be right in that scenario

---

UW beating USC means both could easily end up bowl eligible at 6-6 and bump us to Shreveport or worse.

---

Neither team is guaranteed of finishing 6-6, UW has Oregon, Penn State and UCLA, USC has Nebraska, UCLA and ND. UCLA could be a spoiler for both.

Also, I don't think a California bowl picking a 6-6 UW over an 8-4 or 7-5 Cal team is a given.

Cal88 said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

Am I the only one who finds it odd that we are speculating on bowl invites when we have yet to win a single conference game?

---

It will either be bowl discussion or firing Wilcox at some point.

---

I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.

---

I did see a bowl projection that had us going back to Shreveport, so you would definitely be right in that scenario

---

UW beating USC means both could easily end up bowl eligible at 6-6 and bump us to Shreveport or worse.

---

Neither team is guaranteed of finishing 6-6, UW has Oregon, Penn State and UCLA, USC has Nebraska, UCLA and ND. UCLA could be a spoiler for both.

Also, I don't think a California bowl picking a 6-6 UW over an 8-4 or 7-5 Cal team is a given.

---

Hard to say Cal being 8-4 or 7-5 is a given either. Based on what I have seen from this team 6-6 seems just as likely.

Here's how I see it, finishes ranked by order of likelihood:

7-5
8-4
6-6
.
.
.
5-7
.
.
.
4-8

Cal88 said:

---

Here's how I see it, finishes ranked by order of likelihood:

7-5
8-4
6-6
.
.
.
5-7
.
.
.
4-8

---

7-5 is the record if the favored team wins each week. SMU will be heavy favorites against Cal. I think the next 2 games will tell the story. Cal is favored against Wake and likely will be slight favorites to beat Syracuse (if they do in fact beat Wake). But neither game is a gimme. Cal on the road often felters regardless of opponent. Syracuse is not a great team by any means but Cal finds ways to play it close and ultimately lose games they should not.

Stanford is bad. So if Cal can win these next 2 games they should get to 7. It is hard for me to see 8 wins. SMU is likely to be playing for a berth in the ACC championship game.Their only loss is to unbeaten BYU. They get BC next and then Virginia before Cal. They will likely be fired up for BC as they lost to them in a bowl last year.

Cal is a program that is always just fighting for bowl eligibility. That is not what we should expect in year 8 of a HC regime. Coaches that get to coach at one place for 8 seasons are winning coaches. The best Cal can do this season is 4-4 in conference. That would mark Wilcox's first venture into that very mediocre territory and the first time for Cal since 2009.

Cal88 said:

---

Here's how I see it, finishes ranked by order of likelihood:

7-5
8-4
6-6
.
.
.
5-7
.
.
.
4-8

---

6-6 and even 5-7 is far more likely than 8-4. If we lose WF we are likely losing Syracuse. The chance that we beat SMU is extremely low

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Here's how I see it, finishes ranked by order of likelihood:

7-5
8-4
6-6
.
.
.
5-7
.
.
.
4-8

---

6-6 and even 5-7 is far more likely than 8-4. If we lose WF we are likely losing Syracuse. The chance that we beat SMU is extremely low

---

Syracuse is a hard team to gauge. They lost at home to Stanford. Yet managed to beat NC State on the road. And VaTech this past week at home. And GaTech early in the season. They looked awful vs Pitt but have 6 wins against albeit a very mediocre schedule of opponents.

McCord is a capable QB and they have some good skill players. The defense is mediocre. Cal IMO has a better roster. But the OL has been so poor it keeps opponents in games they should not be in.

6956bear said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Here's how I see it, finishes ranked by order of likelihood:

7-5
8-4
6-6
.
.
.
5-7
.
.
.
4-8

---

7-5 is the record if the favored team wins each week. SMU will be heavy favorites against Cal. I think the next 2 games will tell the story. Cal is favored against Wake and likely will be slight favorites to beat Syracuse (if they do in fact beat Wake). But neither game is a gimme. Cal on the road often felters regardless of opponent. Syracuse is not a great team by any means but Cal finds ways to play it close and ultimately lose games they should not.

Stanford is bad. So if Cal can win these next 2 games they should get to 7. It is hard for me to see 8 wins. SMU is likely to be playing for a berth in the ACC championship game.Their only loss is to unbeaten BYU. They get BC next and then Virginia before Cal. They will likely be fired up for BC as they lost to them in a bowl last year.

Cal is a program that is always just fighting for bowl eligibility. That is not what we should expect in year 8 of a HC regime. Coaches that get to coach at one place for 8 seasons are winning coaches. The best Cal can do this season is 4-4 in conference. That would mark Wilcox's first venture into that very mediocre territory and the first time for Cal since 2009.

---

Cal is not a program that can eat a $15M buyout on a coach that gets his team into 2 consecutive bowl games. That's why discussions of firing JW are a moot point until 2026.