6956bear said:

---

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.

---

Two defining traits of Wilcox is that he plays to the level of the competition and he loses close games in the last half of the fourth quarter. Syracuse's 14 points between the end of regulation and OT is the exact style that plays to Wilcox's weakness

When is the last time a power conference team went 6-6 and got no bowl berth at all (not counting the schools that refused one)? It doesn't really happen. The 6-6 teams that get left out are always G5 teams, because those bowls know that the G5 teams won't drive ratings or attendance. I wouldn't worry too much about that.

Win the next three. Should be manageable, with the fortunate timing of the second bye week of the season. Bowl eligible going in to SMU so we're only playing for which bowl we get.

Ott will be a bit closer to 100%. Other injured players have returned to roster and gotten the bye week of practice to reintegrate with the team.

The biggest question is will coaches continue to scheme with roll outs, moving pockets, pitch outs/sweeps, and screens in order to protect Nando from pass rushes against our weakest unit, the OL. Running up the gut with this OL just isn't working enough to be a feature of this offense.

Wake Forest should be an interesting test: how does the team play on a long roadie in front of a less than rabid home crowd.

sycasey said:

---

When is the last time a power conference team went 6-6 and got no bowl berth at all (not counting the schools that refused one)? It doesn't really happen. The 6-6 teams that get left out are always G5 teams, because those bowls know that the G5 teams won't drive ratings or attendance. I wouldn't worry too much about that.

---

It doesn't happen that often, if at all. Too lazy/too many other things to do to look it up.

I suppose the point is that it is possible. If enough Power teams win 6 or more, the number conceivably could exceed available at-large spots.

Cal88 said:

---

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.

---

That is likely a very unfortunate truth.

Even if he finishes 6-6 he will likely be here next year but on a much tighter leash. He can spin it the players lost the games in the 4th quarter. Although we know he lost a least one game when he called the two point conversion in the first quarter. What I am happy about is that we found our 3pt kicker for the rest of the season.

Basketball Bear said:

---

Even if he finishes 6-6 he will likely be here next year but on a much tighter leash. He can spin it the players lost the games in the 4th quarter. Although we know he lost a least one game when he called the two point conversion in the first quarter. What I am happy about is that we found our 3pt kicker for the rest of the season.

---

who will be pulling on said leash to hold Wilcox back? There's no checks and balances with this program.

DoubtfulBear said:

---

Basketball Bear said:

---

Even if he finishes 6-6 he will likely be here next year but on a much tighter leash. He can spin it the players lost the games in the 4th quarter. Although we know he lost a least one game when he called the two point conversion in the first quarter. What I am happy about is that we found our 3pt kicker for the rest of the season.

---

who will be pulling on said leash to hold Wilcox back? There's no checks and balances with this program.

---

I dont Doubt your statement.

Cal88 said:

---

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.

---

You think we are just going to play out his contract? He will only have one year left after 2026.

In am more worried about the inevitable chorus of posters (some his agent's sock puppets?) who after 2025 when he has "three bowls in a row" will say with only two years left on his contract he needs to be extended "for recruiting."

Wilcox does not have to be paid in a lump sum and he has an obligation to mitigate. The payments can be deferred. If we have a good coaching replacement candidate it would probably make sense to split with Wilcox sooner for the long term viability of the program.

However, that brings up the obstacle we ALL agree on: it makes no sense to talk about firing Wilcox while Knowlton is still the clueless AD who would be replacing him. We need to push to fire Knowlton first. A new AD with vision and intelligence can decide what to do about Wilcox and his contract.

Did anyone who went to Shreveport last year have any fun other than watching the game . Would you go back.

Gobears49 said:

---

Did anyone who went to Shreveport last year have any fun other than watching the game . Would you go back.

---

I didn't go but I didn't enjoy watching the game. It was a cut above the Cheezit Bowl in offensive futility.

Gobears49 said:

---

Did anyone who went to Shreveport last year have any fun other than watching the game . Would you go back.

---

I have been to Shreveport. I intentionally did not go to the game.
It's a lose lose all the way around for them to return to the same bowl game...that's pretty rare among the "invitation" bowls...

Gobears49 said:

---

Did anyone who went to Shreveport last year have any fun other than watching the game . Would you go back.

---

other than the outcome, going to shreveport wuz a lotta fun!!...plus shocky gotta visit the buc-ee's outside of dallas after playing c&c's terrific trinity forest

bowl games are a great opportunity to visit on gameday with bearents and the pageantry around the event are exciting for the players and their families...shreveport itself is tryna remake itself as a casino by the river destination spot in industrial louisiana which is kinda funny, the irony of that wuz kinda lost on the rabid texas tech fans who live in the paris of the lone star state in windy azz desolate lubbock.

yeah gameday thread posters that don't actually go to football games will always complain about "loser" bowl games but the truth is that these games are very special events/nfl showcases for our program & our players.

knowlton ****** up (he has zero relationships with other athletic directors to horse trade games) & the game wuz played during finals week at the #1 ranked public university in the world, hopefully that mistake isn't made again this year if the bears are invited to a bowl game & that's why the sun bowl (and not the la or las vegas bowls) is 100% the best bowl game for the players and the program

last year the bears could not use all the ncca allocated practices (which is like an extra spring ball for player development) due to the mid december bowl game conflicting with berkeley finals, the sun bowl before new year's eve would allow the full utilization of all the ncca allocated practices in addition to creating another "home" game for the university of calveston & its growing roster of texas friday nite football high gpa stars

college bowl games/festivities r FUN!!#

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

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.

---

You think we are just going to play out his contract? He will only have one year left after 2026.

In am more worried about the inevitable chorus of posters (some his agent's sock puppets?) who after 2025 when he has "three bowls in a row" will say with only two years left on his contract he needs to be extended "for recruiting."

Wilcox does not have to be paid in a lump sum and he has an obligation to mitigate. The payments can be deferred. If we have a good coaching replacement candidate it would probably make sense to split with Wilcox sooner for the long term viability of the program.

However, that brings up the obstacle we ALL agree on: it makes no sense to talk about firing Wilcox while Knowlton is still the clueless AD who would be replacing him. We need to push to fire Knowlton first. A new AD with vision and intelligence can decide what to do about Wilcox and his contract.

---

with knowlton at the helm anything can happen! We can even extend him after going 4-8

Knowlton has GOT TO GO, this year or next, but sadly that probably won't happen.

TedfordTheGreat said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

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.

---

You think we are just going to play out his contract? He will only have one year left after 2026.

In am more worried about the inevitable chorus of posters (some his agent's sock puppets?) who after 2025 when he has "three bowls in a row" will say with only two years left on his contract he needs to be extended "for recruiting."

Wilcox does not have to be paid in a lump sum and he has an obligation to mitigate. The payments can be deferred. If we have a good coaching replacement candidate it would probably make sense to split with Wilcox sooner for the long term viability of the program.

However, that brings up the obstacle we ALL agree on: it makes no sense to talk about firing Wilcox while Knowlton is still the clueless AD who would be replacing him. We need to push to fire Knowlton first. A new AD with vision and intelligence can decide what to do about Wilcox and his contract.

---

with knowlton at the helm anything can happen! We can even extend him after going 4-8

Knowlton has GOT TO GO, this year or next, but sadly that probably won't happen.

---

Knowlton DID extend him after he went 1-3 and then when he followed that up with 5-7 gave him an even bigger extension, 6 years fully guaranteed, which Wilcox validated by going 4-8.

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.

---

Trouble is there are those who somehow spin this yearly mediocrity to something positive. I just wish I felt some hope for this program. Wilcox has proven himself inept again and again. I suppose if we go 6-6 and reach a bowl that means another 5 year extension. We have so much potential if we just hire the right guys at the top.

CalBarn 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.

---

Trouble is there are those who somehow spin this yearly mediocrity to something positive. I just wish I felt some hope for this program. Wilcox has proven himself inept again and again. I suppose if we go 6-6 and reach a bowl that means another 5 year extension. We have so much potential if we just hire the right guys at the top.

---

Agree 100%

Colorado (gulp) looks like the favorite to win the Big-12.

ducktilldeath said:

---

Colorado (gulp) looks like the favorite to win the Big-12.

---

Colorado winning the Big-12 and your Ducks winning the B1G would be good for our bowl chances. Of course, if we had a good coach we would be in the running for the ACC Championship…. That would have been great…..

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.

---

That would be ideal but it would be difficult to get everyone to agree.

Example 1: Alamo bowl prefers CU to WSU because the bowl wants to sell more tickets. Vegas bowl would prefer CU for the same reason, and wouldn't agree to any trade that would make it easier for the Alamo to get CU. (This is moot if WSU has at least 2 more wins than CU. In that case the Alamo is forced to select WSU, because of the rules the bowls agreed amongst themselves.)

Example 2: Maybe the Holiday wants to swap its ACC team to the LA bowl so that Holiday can sell more tickets with a game matching two ex-Pac teams. If that results in Pitt playing UNLV in LA instead of ASU in SD, Pitt might object. LA bowl would also object to getting an east coast team instead of an ex-Pac team that would sell more tickets in LA.

calumnus said:

---

ducktilldeath said:

---

Colorado (gulp) looks like the favorite to win the Big-12.

---

Colorado winning the Big-12 and your Ducks winning the B1G would be good for our bowl chances. Of course, if we had a good coach we would be in the running for the ACC Championship…. That would have been great…..

---

I hate having to root for deion, but damn do I want to play craps and watch cal football.

After the performance BYU had last night, CU has to be the favorite right now if that's the matchup

DoubtfulBear said:

---

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

---

Oski003 cheers for the Golden Bears and understand Wilcox's contract is fully guaranteed. He would love for Cal to have the cash and administration to fire Wilcox and get a premier coach. He said more than once that Wilcox needs to win 8 games this season (includes a bowl) to keep his job. That reality shouldn't repulse you. If you have the cash to get us winning 10+ games per season, please buy him out.

BearSD 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.

---

That would be ideal but it would be difficult to get everyone to agree.

Example 1: Alamo bowl prefers CU to WSU because the bowl wants to sell more tickets. Vegas bowl would prefer CU for the same reason, and wouldn't agree to any trade that would make it easier for the Alamo to get CU. (This is moot if WSU has at least 2 more wins than CU. In that case the Alamo is forced to select WSU, because of the rules the bowls agreed amongst themselves.)

Example 2: Maybe the Holiday wants to swap its ACC team to the LA bowl so that Holiday can sell more tickets with a game matching two ex-Pac teams. If that results in Pitt playing UNLV in LA instead of ASU in SD, Pitt might object. LA bowl would also object to getting an east coast team instead of an ex-Pac team that would sell more tickets in LA.

---

The way it works is the bowls have a picking order;
1. Alamo vs Big 12
2. Holiday vs ACC
3. Las Vegas vs SEC
4. Sun vs ACC
5. LA vs MWC
6. Independence vs Big 12

So Alamo gets its pick of all the eligible former PAC-12 teams. After they pick, Holiday gets to pick. Then Vegas, etc.

Other than eligibility, they can use whatever criteria they want, proximity, star power…they don't have to follow W/L record or ranking. However, I highly doubt the bowls are going to select a former PAC-12 team to play against a team from their new conference, especially if that would mean a rematch of a conference game. That is why I don't think we would be selected for the Sun, but it is also why I don't think the 4 corners teams will be picked for the Alamo, probably USC or WSU. I was hoping for Vegas, but I think a 4 corners team gets that and Sun.

Which leaves LA as our target option. I think we e would get a good crowd, we could invite recruits, and it is better than returning to Shreveport.

calumnus said:

---

BearSD 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.

---

That would be ideal but it would be difficult to get everyone to agree.

Example 1: Alamo bowl prefers CU to WSU because the bowl wants to sell more tickets. Vegas bowl would prefer CU for the same reason, and wouldn't agree to any trade that would make it easier for the Alamo to get CU. (This is moot if WSU has at least 2 more wins than CU. In that case the Alamo is forced to select WSU, because of the rules the bowls agreed amongst themselves.)

Example 2: Maybe the Holiday wants to swap its ACC team to the LA bowl so that Holiday can sell more tickets with a game matching two ex-Pac teams. If that results in Pitt playing UNLV in LA instead of ASU in SD, Pitt might object. LA bowl would also object to getting an east coast team instead of an ex-Pac team that would sell more tickets in LA.

---

The way it works is the bowls have a picking order;
1. Alamo vs Big 12
2. Holiday vs ACC
3. Las Vegas vs SEC
4. Sun vs ACC
5. LA vs MWC
6. Independence vs Big 12

So Alamo gets its pick of all the eligible former PAC-12 teams. After they pick, Holiday gets to pick. Then Vegas, etc.

Other than eligibility, they can use whatever criteria they want, proximity, star power…they don't have to follow W/L record or ranking. However, I highly doubt the bowls are going to select a former PAC-12 team to play against a team from their new conference, especially if that would mean a rematch of a conference game. That is why I don't think we would be selected for the Sun, but it is also why I don't think the 4 corners teams will be picked for the Alamo, probably USC or WSU. I was hoping for Vegas, but I think a 4 corners team gets that and Sun.

Which leaves LA as our target option. I think we e would get a good crowd, we could invite recruits, and it is better than returning to Shreveport.

---

If Oregon and Colorado make the playoff, the top teams would be Wazzu, ASU, and us even at 7-5 (since it is not likely any of SC/UW/flukela do better than 6-6), so that could fly us up to Vegas or maybe San Diego

Strykur said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD 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.

---

That would be ideal but it would be difficult to get everyone to agree.

Example 1: Alamo bowl prefers CU to WSU because the bowl wants to sell more tickets. Vegas bowl would prefer CU for the same reason, and wouldn't agree to any trade that would make it easier for the Alamo to get CU. (This is moot if WSU has at least 2 more wins than CU. In that case the Alamo is forced to select WSU, because of the rules the bowls agreed amongst themselves.)

Example 2: Maybe the Holiday wants to swap its ACC team to the LA bowl so that Holiday can sell more tickets with a game matching two ex-Pac teams. If that results in Pitt playing UNLV in LA instead of ASU in SD, Pitt might object. LA bowl would also object to getting an east coast team instead of an ex-Pac team that would sell more tickets in LA.

---

The way it works is the bowls have a picking order;
1. Alamo vs Big 12
2. Holiday vs ACC
3. Las Vegas vs SEC
4. Sun vs ACC
5. LA vs MWC
6. Independence vs Big 12

So Alamo gets its pick of all the eligible former PAC-12 teams. After they pick, Holiday gets to pick. Then Vegas, etc.

Other than eligibility, they can use whatever criteria they want, proximity, star power…they don't have to follow W/L record or ranking. However, I highly doubt the bowls are going to select a former PAC-12 team to play against a team from their new conference, especially if that would mean a rematch of a conference game. That is why I don't think we would be selected for the Sun, but it is also why I don't think the 4 corners teams will be picked for the Alamo, probably USC or WSU. I was hoping for Vegas, but I think a 4 corners team gets that and Sun.

Which leaves LA as our target option. I think we e would get a good crowd, we could invite recruits, and it is better than returning to Shreveport.

---

If Oregon and Colorado make the playoff, the top teams would be Wazzu, ASU, and us even at 7-5 (since it is not likely any of SC/UW/flukela do better than 6-6), so that could fly us up to Vegas or maybe San Diego

---

WSU has played a glorified MWC schedule, whereas USC for example has played a B10 slate plus LSU and ND OOC, apples and oranges, so I am not sure how binding the W/L record is for these bowls...

Cal88 said:

---

Strykur said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD 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.

---

That would be ideal but it would be difficult to get everyone to agree.

Example 1: Alamo bowl prefers CU to WSU because the bowl wants to sell more tickets. Vegas bowl would prefer CU for the same reason, and wouldn't agree to any trade that would make it easier for the Alamo to get CU. (This is moot if WSU has at least 2 more wins than CU. In that case the Alamo is forced to select WSU, because of the rules the bowls agreed amongst themselves.)

Example 2: Maybe the Holiday wants to swap its ACC team to the LA bowl so that Holiday can sell more tickets with a game matching two ex-Pac teams. If that results in Pitt playing UNLV in LA instead of ASU in SD, Pitt might object. LA bowl would also object to getting an east coast team instead of an ex-Pac team that would sell more tickets in LA.

---

The way it works is the bowls have a picking order;
1. Alamo vs Big 12
2. Holiday vs ACC
3. Las Vegas vs SEC
4. Sun vs ACC
5. LA vs MWC
6. Independence vs Big 12

So Alamo gets its pick of all the eligible former PAC-12 teams. After they pick, Holiday gets to pick. Then Vegas, etc.

Other than eligibility, they can use whatever criteria they want, proximity, star power…they don't have to follow W/L record or ranking. However, I highly doubt the bowls are going to select a former PAC-12 team to play against a team from their new conference, especially if that would mean a rematch of a conference game. That is why I don't think we would be selected for the Sun, but it is also why I don't think the 4 corners teams will be picked for the Alamo, probably USC or WSU. I was hoping for Vegas, but I think a 4 corners team gets that and Sun.

Which leaves LA as our target option. I think we e would get a good crowd, we could invite recruits, and it is better than returning to Shreveport.

---

If Oregon and Colorado make the playoff, the top teams would be Wazzu, ASU, and us even at 7-5 (since it is not likely any of SC/UW/flukela do better than 6-6), so that could fly us up to Vegas or maybe San Diego

---

WSU has played a glorified MWC schedule, whereas USC for example has played a B10 slate plus LSU and ND OOC, apples and oranges, so I am not sure how binding the W/L record is for these bowls...

---

Wazzu at 11-1 is pretty convincing, and they already beat Washington...

Strykur said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

Strykur said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD 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.

---

That would be ideal but it would be difficult to get everyone to agree.

Example 1: Alamo bowl prefers CU to WSU because the bowl wants to sell more tickets. Vegas bowl would prefer CU for the same reason, and wouldn't agree to any trade that would make it easier for the Alamo to get CU. (This is moot if WSU has at least 2 more wins than CU. In that case the Alamo is forced to select WSU, because of the rules the bowls agreed amongst themselves.)

Example 2: Maybe the Holiday wants to swap its ACC team to the LA bowl so that Holiday can sell more tickets with a game matching two ex-Pac teams. If that results in Pitt playing UNLV in LA instead of ASU in SD, Pitt might object. LA bowl would also object to getting an east coast team instead of an ex-Pac team that would sell more tickets in LA.

---

The way it works is the bowls have a picking order;
1. Alamo vs Big 12
2. Holiday vs ACC
3. Las Vegas vs SEC
4. Sun vs ACC
5. LA vs MWC
6. Independence vs Big 12

So Alamo gets its pick of all the eligible former PAC-12 teams. After they pick, Holiday gets to pick. Then Vegas, etc.

Other than eligibility, they can use whatever criteria they want, proximity, star power…they don't have to follow W/L record or ranking. However, I highly doubt the bowls are going to select a former PAC-12 team to play against a team from their new conference, especially if that would mean a rematch of a conference game. That is why I don't think we would be selected for the Sun, but it is also why I don't think the 4 corners teams will be picked for the Alamo, probably USC or WSU. I was hoping for Vegas, but I think a 4 corners team gets that and Sun.

Which leaves LA as our target option. I think we e would get a good crowd, we could invite recruits, and it is better than returning to Shreveport.

---

If Oregon and Colorado make the playoff, the top teams would be Wazzu, ASU, and us even at 7-5 (since it is not likely any of SC/UW/flukela do better than 6-6), so that could fly us up to Vegas or maybe San Diego

---

WSU has played a glorified MWC schedule, whereas USC for example has played a B10 slate plus LSU and ND OOC, apples and oranges, so I am not sure how binding the W/L record is for these bowls...

---

Wazzu at 11-1 is pretty convincing, and they already beat Washington...

---

There is a reason Sagarin has WSU as #47. We're at #41, USC at #25.

WSU needed 2 OT to beat SJSU, barely beat SDSU, both of these teams are ranked below UC Davis. Those kinds of efforts would have translated into losses vs P4 teams.



41 California A = 76.35 5 4 69.25( 64) 0 0 | 0 1 | 76.79 41 | 75.09 46 | 77.36 37 | 79.11 32 ACC (A)
42 Arkansas A = 76.07 5 4 74.89( 22) 1 1 | 1 3 | 76.38 43 | 74.74 50 | 77.28 38 | 77.19 37 SEC (A)
43 Georgia Tech A = 75.79 6 4 73.73( 30) 0 1 | 1 2 | 76.25 45 | 75.21 44 | 75.84 45 | 76.28 43 ACC (A)
44 Cincinnati A = 75.65 5 4 72.95( 35) 0 0 | 0 1 | 76.25 44 | 76.00 39 | 74.53 50 | 75.24 48 BIG 12 (A)
45 Auburn A = 75.50 3 6 72.71( 37) 0 1 | 0 3 | 77.11 38 | 72.71 61 | 77.19 39 | 75.63 46 SEC (A)
46 Pittsburgh A = 75.44 7 2 69.99( 59) 0 0 | 0 1 | 75.24 48 | 76.49 33 | 74.39 51 | 75.32 47 ACC (A)
47 Washington State A = 75.36 8 1 64.43( 86) 0 0 | 0 1 | 74.35 52 | 77.62 28 | 74.03 53 | 74.65 53 PAC-12 (A)
48 Nebraska A = 75.13 5 4 70.12( 57) 0 1 | 1 2 | 74.30 54 | 75.22 43 | 75.79 46 | 75.17 49 BIG TEN (A)
49 UNLV A = 75.08 7 2 67.20( 73) 0 0 | 1 1 | 74.30 53 | 76.12 38 | 74.63 49 | 76.28 42 MOUNTAIN WEST (A)
50 Texas Tech A = 74.97 6 4 73.38( 32) 0 0 | 1 2 | 74.95 49 | 75.06 47 | 74.67 48 | 73.63 58 BIG 12

SC is at #25 while sporting a 4-5 record, alright well a bowl committee will not care if SC is top-25 in Sagarin predictor if they finish with a losing season

Strykur said:

---

SC is at #25 while sporting a 4-5 record, alright well a bowl committee will not care if SC is top-25 in Sagarin predictor if they finish with a losing season

---

If they finish with a losing record USC isn't going anywhere (unless Oregon, Colorado and WSU make the playoffs and we don't have enough eligible teams). If USC finishes 6-6 I would not count on Vegas or Holiday picking a 7-5 Cal over them.

calumnus said:

---

Strykur said:

---

SC is at #25 while sporting a 4-5 record, alright well a bowl committee will not care if SC is top-25 in Sagarin predictor if they finish with a losing season

---

If they finish with a losing record USC isn't going anywhere (unless Oregon, Colorado and WSU make the playoffs and we don't have enough eligible teams). If USC finishes 6-6 I would not count on Vegas or Holiday picking a 7-5 Cal over them.

---

Shades of 1975

Cal88 said:

---

Strykur said:

---

calumnus said:

---

BearSD 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.

---

That would be ideal but it would be difficult to get everyone to agree.

Example 1: Alamo bowl prefers CU to WSU because the bowl wants to sell more tickets. Vegas bowl would prefer CU for the same reason, and wouldn't agree to any trade that would make it easier for the Alamo to get CU. (This is moot if WSU has at least 2 more wins than CU. In that case the Alamo is forced to select WSU, because of the rules the bowls agreed amongst themselves.)

Example 2: Maybe the Holiday wants to swap its ACC team to the LA bowl so that Holiday can sell more tickets with a game matching two ex-Pac teams. If that results in Pitt playing UNLV in LA instead of ASU in SD, Pitt might object. LA bowl would also object to getting an east coast team instead of an ex-Pac team that would sell more tickets in LA.

---

The way it works is the bowls have a picking order;
1. Alamo vs Big 12
2. Holiday vs ACC
3. Las Vegas vs SEC
4. Sun vs ACC
5. LA vs MWC
6. Independence vs Big 12

So Alamo gets its pick of all the eligible former PAC-12 teams. After they pick, Holiday gets to pick. Then Vegas, etc.

Other than eligibility, they can use whatever criteria they want, proximity, star power…they don't have to follow W/L record or ranking. However, I highly doubt the bowls are going to select a former PAC-12 team to play against a team from their new conference, especially if that would mean a rematch of a conference game. That is why I don't think we would be selected for the Sun, but it is also why I don't think the 4 corners teams will be picked for the Alamo, probably USC or WSU. I was hoping for Vegas, but I think a 4 corners team gets that and Sun.

Which leaves LA as our target option. I think we e would get a good crowd, we could invite recruits, and it is better than returning to Shreveport.

---

If Oregon and Colorado make the playoff, the top teams would be Wazzu, ASU, and us even at 7-5 (since it is not likely any of SC/UW/flukela do better than 6-6), so that could fly us up to Vegas or maybe San Diego

---

WSU has played a glorified MWC schedule, whereas USC for example has played a B10 slate plus LSU and ND OOC, apples and oranges, so I am not sure how binding the W/L record is for these bowls...

---

A couple things to remember

- bowls can take whoever they want as long as teams are within 1 game in overall record. (So WSU at 11-1 will be guaranteed that Alamo bowl assuming Oregon and CU in playoffs)

- even with 7 wins, I'm not sure cal is more attractive to bowls then UW or USC (which again is why at least 1 needs to not be bowl eligible - or else we're looking at the army/gasparailla bowl if CU doesn't come thru)

- I'm working under the assumption that bowls will not want intra conference games (which in my opinion makes holiday and sun unlikely - especially if it's a rematch game)

- LA bowl highly unlikely to take UCLA again, which is why it's much preferable for UCLA to bowl eligible and not usc or UW

Bottom line, if you care about what bowl cal goes to, root for Colorado and UCLA (Nebraska over USC would actually be most ideal of all)

As much as we fans have fun speculating on just about everything (which often makes me smile), I would rather let the season move along one game at a time. Especially will feel different if we get a win this week vs Syracuse. That is not a given, and certainly I don't care how "bad" Stanfurd is supposed to be, Big Game is just too crazy to predict. And who knows, we could beat SMU!!

I get that UW has much, much more success than us but given where they are at now, do they really have a national following? If anything, Cal has received more pub this year than them (biased since I actively seek out Cal content)...

Econ141 said:

---

I get that UW has much, much more success than us but given where they are at now, do they really have a national following? If anything, Cal has received more pub this year than them (biased since I actively seek out Cal content)...

---

I mean sure. If I'm the LA Bowl, I could see a scenario where cal with the calgorithm and all the socal cal alums is attractive. But I have to think UW is still a stronger brand when it comes to TV ratings. It's not a sure thing either way, but I'd just assume not having it come down to that. It's easier if UW or SC are completely off the board.

72CalBear said:

---

As much as we fans have fun speculating on just about everything (which often makes me smile), I would rather let the season move along one game at a time. Especially will feel different if we get a win this week vs Syracuse. That is not a given, and certainly I don't care how "bad" Stanfurd is supposed to be, Big Game is just too crazy to predict. And who knows, we could beat SMU!!

---

I get that. Personally for me though, I like gaming out the scenarios for two different reasons.

First, it gives me a rooting interest in the other games. I know exactly who I need to root for.

Second, the holidays are a busy time. It's often not that easy to just drop everything and head to Shreveport. So I like to have an idea of where we're headed. For example, I've already scheduled a family trip to vegas, so I'm gojng to be there whether cal makes it there or not. I've also blocked off the time during the LA bowl, just in case Cal makes it there. If I plan ahead, it's much easier