Serious question for @CalFootball fans would you give up having The Play for Rose Bowl appearances like every 10 years since then?

— Will (@KoreAmBear) June 4, 2025

Faaaaahhk that's a tough one. On one hand The Play is the single greatest play in CFB history (if not football history entirely) but decade trips to the Rose Bowl would make us one of the premier teams in CFB and would have prevented our current issues of possible relegation and being one of the also-rams of the sport. I'd have to go with the Rose Bowls considering that the level of success that entails would have led to other legendary plays in Cal lore. But it would kill me tp lose that game and see Elway and lsju make a bowl game

You bet your a$$ I'd give up The Play for Rose Bowl appearances, and I was in CMS to see it. I graduated in 1976 watching a team that tied for the Pac-8 title but stayed home from post-season play. The way Cal trots out The Play video as though it's at all relevant to current teams and their mediocrity is borderline disgusting at this point. It's been over 40 years since The Play. Imagine having FOUR Rose Bowls to re-watch, talk about, etc.

I might sacrifice my LEFT LEG for a rose bowl

Gobears49 would be having an aneurysm right now

Yeah, I'd take the four Rose Bowl games even though that would offer no guarantee of any positive fate for Cal football in the future. Remember that the team that lost The Play has four Rose Bowl appearances in the last 25 years and they are nonetheless in the same slowly sinking lifeboat that Cal football is in.

I'd never give up The Play. I guess that's the price you pay for being a genuine Cal fan.

Econ141 said:

---

Serious question for @CalFootball fans would you give up having The Play for Rose Bowl appearances like every 10 years since then?

— Will (@KoreAmBear) June 4, 2025

---

I didn't anticipate that it is 2:1 in favor of Rose Bowls. I would tend to agree with the consensus. I wasn't at The Play and it is a historical and important concept to me. Something to be proud of and sure to draw a "oh Cal was in that play?" from someone. But to experience the Rose Bowl -- and perhaps multiple times -- and to see The Cal Marching Band roll down Colorado Blvd in the pageantry of the Rose Parade, is a dream I want to manifest. And now it can't be a reality unless we make the College Football Playoffs, not just win our conference.

HearstMining said:

---

You bet your a$$ I'd give up The Play for Rose Bowl appearances, and I was in CMS to see it. I graduated in 1976 watching a team that tied for the Pac-8 title but stayed home from post-season play. The way Cal trots out The Play video as though it's at all relevant to current teams and their mediocrity is borderline disgusting at this point. It's been over 40 years since The Play. Imagine having FOUR Rose Bowls to re-watch, talk about, etc.

---

I like this take. You know, low-key (as my kids would say) the 2003 SC game was like The Play in that way: the stuff surrounding the game, with the pre-game speeches by Bethea and Tedford, Rodgers and Robertson, Frederickson walking it off -- got way too much time on these boards almost every year we played SC. That's because until recently that was like the only content we had in beating SC. I always maintained that we want newer memories!

Hell yes!!! The Play is ancient history, and the fact that we keep replaying it demonstrates that we have little else to celebrate over the last 40 years. Give me the Rose Bowls.

NYE games elevate status, a play that took 4 seconds will be nice to think about when we're left out the super league on the other hand

I feel like a lot of the non-blue blood teams that made unusual Rose Bowl appearances in the last 20 years have largely been forgotten.

Objectively, we're better off with the Rose Bowls.

Subjectively, I can't just "give up" having The Play. So I would probably pretend like I was giving up The Play, then, when we got the Rose Bowls, I'd snatch The Play back or something.

The play is old news and it makes Starkey (who sucks) an icon!

I think I asked a similar question years ago: would you trade our swimming and water polo national titles for 6 Rose Bowl appearances over the past 40 years. I think we have about 18 natties combined in those two sports. I can't remember if I asked it on this board or the defunct board. Only a few people answered but basically it's the same it was all for the RBs.

Rose Bowls, without question. It would heave meant actually winning something (conference titles) in that time.

okaydo said:

---

I feel like a lot of the non-blue blood teams that made unusual Rose Bowl appearances in the last 20 years have largely been forgotten.

---

Not by their fans!

I feel like Cal is the kind of program that could really have gotten a huge boost from just a little bit of major success every decade or so. Look at how people packed the stadium for Tedford's teams. There is a fan base, it's just starved.

As John McEnroe would say: You can't be serious"

The Play was amazing but most Cal fans would give up a right arm for an appearance in the Rose Bowl. At least until the new playoff system and destruction of the PAC 12 took place.

Ccajon2 said:

---

I think I asked a similar question years ago: would you trade our swimming and water polo national titles for 6 Rose Bowl appearances over the past 40 years. I think we have about 18 natties combined in those two sports. I can't remember if I asked it on this board or the defunct board. Only a few people answered but basically it's the same it was all for the RBs.

---

Six? Oregon has only 6 in that time period. Washington has 5.

Golden One said:

---

okaydo said:

---

I feel like a lot of the non-blue blood teams that made unusual Rose Bowl appearances in the last 20 years have largely been forgotten.

---

Not by their fans!

---

It's Stanford 38, Iowa 3 after 3 quarters at the 102nd Rose Bowl but who cares just look at that view. pic.twitter.com/SNvHIsSRzH

— Greg Beacham (@gregbeacham) January 2, 2016

Stanford Stadium was surprisingly empty for an OT upset over the #3 team in the country, but the student section was full and is mostly on the field celebrating. pic.twitter.com/LtsULuloPA

— RedditCFB (@RedditCFB) October 3, 2021

I would give up the Play just to have beaten Miami last year, never mind a Rose Bowl.

And as for swimming/water polo titles, I would strongly prefer we didn't even have those programs, so personally, I would trade all those titles for a bag of chips.

Grrrrah76 said:

---

As John McEnroe would say: You can't be serious"

The Play was amazing but most Cal fans would give up a right arm for an appearance in the Rose Bowl. At least until the new playoff system and destruction of the PAC 12 took place.

---

I see it as a proxy for "winning the conference." That's the thing that I'd really want to see Cal do at this point. Pac-12, ACC, whatever, just give me one championship.

(Yes, technically we got a co-championship in 2006 but you know what I mean.)

sycasey said:

---

I feel like Cal is the kind of program that could really have gotten a huge boost from just a little bit of major success every decade or so. Look at how people packed the stadium for Tedford's teams. There is a fan base, it's just starved.

---

Yeah, after Tedford's peak Cal repeatedly trips at the finish line (well more honestly just tripping and falling mid-race the few times we actually get a good start off the blocks) just when it looks like we might have momentum.

• Oct 2015 - #23 Cal at 5-0 vs. #5 Utah at 5-0 in primetime and Jared Goff throws 5 picks and still only lose by 6. Proceed to lose 3 more straight to fall out of the rankings.
• Sep 2019 - #15 Cal at 4-0 with away wins against #14 UW and Ole Miss vs. ASU at 4-1 in primetime and we lose at home by 7. Proceed to lose 3 more straight to fall out of the rankings.
• Wilcox in general from 2017-2023 - Plays to his opponent's level which results in losses to winless teams and "moral victories" with close games (usually a 1 score loss) against good teams. Occasional upset but never with consistent wins to actually build something. Middling seasons for the most part despite beating Ole Miss home/away, upsetting #8 WSU, upsetting #15 UW, ending the losing streak to USC with home & away wins, upsetting #23 Oregon, almost beating Notre Dame in their house,
• 2024 - Followed up a 3-0 start including a road win against Auburn with 4 straight 1-score losses in winnable games, 3 by 1 or 2 points, including against winless FSU away, an all-time choke at home with Gameday against #8 Miami, away against #22 Pitt, and at home against NC State. Cal could have been, and arguably should have been when you factor in games that could've been won with what's considered a high percentage FG attempt, a 7-0 team to start things off which would've led to being ranked. Even if we still lose the other two games we did it'd still be a 10 win season and in the upper part of the ACC.

Who knows how things could've turned out if we won at pivotal moments and managed to build on what success we did have?

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

sycasey said:

---

I feel like Cal is the kind of program that could really have gotten a huge boost from just a little bit of major success every decade or so. Look at how people packed the stadium for Tedford's teams. There is a fan base, it's just starved.

---

Yeah, after Tedford's peak Cal repeatedly trips at the finish line (well more honestly just tripping and falling mid-race the few times we actually get a good start off the blocks) just when it looks like we might have momentum.

• Oct 2015 - #23 Cal at 5-0 vs. #5 Utah at 5-0 in primetime and Jared Goff throws 5 picks and still only lose by 6. Proceed to lose 3 more straight to fall out of the rankings.
• Sep 2019 - #15 Cal at 4-0 with away wins against #14 UW and Ole Miss vs. ASU at 4-1 in primetime and we lose at home by 7. Proceed to lose 3 more straight to fall out of the rankings.
• Wilcox in general from 2017-2023 - Plays to his opponent's level which results in losses to winless teams and "moral victories" with close games (usually a 1 score loss) against good teams. Occasional upset but never with consistent wins to actually build something. Middling seasons for the most part despite beating Ole Miss home/away, upsetting #8 WSU, upsetting #15 UW, ending the losing streak to USC with home & away wins, upsetting #23 Oregon, almost beating Notre Dame in their house,
• 2024 - Followed up a 3-0 start including a road win against Auburn with 4 straight 1-score losses in winnable games, 3 by 1 or 2 points, including against winless FSU away, an all-time choke at home with Gameday against #8 Miami, away against #22 Pitt, and at home against NC State. Cal could have been, and arguably should have been when you factor in games that could've been won with what's considered a high percentage FG attempt, a 7-0 team to start things off which would've led to being ranked. Even if we still lose the other two games we did it'd still be a 10 win season and in the upper part of the ACC.

Who knows how things could've turned out if we won at pivotal moments and managed to build on what success we did have?

---

We win those winnable games we choked and we are 9-0 and ranked facing 6-3 Syracuse at a sold out, rocking Memorial Stadium and I doubt we come out flat like we did.

And if we are 11-0 and ranked facing 10-1 and ranked SMU in Dallas, I'm pretty sure Mendoza plays and we play with confidence. Assuming we still lose, who would play in the ACC Championship Game?
SMU11-1 (8-0)
Cal 11-1 (7-1)
Clemsen 9-3 (7-1)

Seems like the ACC Championship would be a Cal-SMU rematch or SMU just declared champion by virtue of the head to head? I don't see how Clemson jumps us.
We likely make the frikin playoffs (and get destroyed and exposed for the mediocre team we were).

That is how easy our schedule was and what a historic opportunity Wilcox blew with those 4 consecutive 4th quarter chokes finishing 2-6 in conference.

We COULD have won all of those close games, but statistically speaking if you play a lot of close ones then you are likely to split them.

If we define "close" as "games within 8 points or less (one score)," then Cal went 2-5 in those games in 2024. Let's say we go 4-3 instead. That would mean an 8-4 regular season rather than 6-6. Yeah, that probably feels a lot better for the program.

Rose Bowls, and there's no question about it.

I'd imagine that in making those Rose Bowls, there would be plays at least nearly as meaningful as The Play involved. It hasn't worked the other way around, that's for sure.

eastcoastcal said:

---

I might sacrifice my LEFT LEG for a rose bowl

---

I did that years ago and nothing came from it, except now people call me Eileen.

GoOskie said:

---

eastcoastcal said:

---

I might sacrifice my LEFT LEG for a rose bowl

---

I did that years ago and nothing came from it, except now people call me Eileen.

---

eastcoastcal said:

---

I might sacrifice my LEFT LEG for a rose bowl

---

I thought you were gonna say your left nut haha no censoring of clean words.

sycasey said:

---

We COULD have won all of those close games, but statistically speaking if you play a lot of close ones then you are likely to split them.

If we define "close" as "games within 8 points or less (one score)," then Cal went 2-5 in those games in 2024. Let's say we go 4-3 instead. That would mean an 8-4 regular season rather than 6-6. Yeah, that probably feels a lot better for the program.

---

They were not "close games" like USC in 2023 (that Wilcox made a bad decision on at the end but was close all the way through) and still 50-50 even if he makes the right decision, they were all a repeat of the same wrongheaded decision-making as the Miami game: we had a 21 point lead in the 4th quarter with Mendoza throwing the ball downfield. The odds of winning a game where you are ahead 3 TDs in the 4th quarter if you keep doing what built that 3 TD lead are FAR higher than 50-50. As cited by a podcaster linked on this site, the sites that measure these things have the odds of of our winning at that point well over 90%.

We lost that game by adopting the wrong strategy, by trying to run out the clock and win "with defense" despite the fact Ott was getting stuffed all game and we faced the top offense in the country. The game only ended up as a close loss because of that bad decision making. If we scored 1 TD in the 4th quarter we win. Then we did the same thing three more times. In those 4 "close" losses we scored ZERO TDs in the 4th quarter playing conservative, trying to win running up the middle, and not letting Mendoza win the game with his arm. With the emergence of Mendoza we just needed to be Air Raid and stick with it until the end.

GoOskie said:

---

eastcoastcal said:

---

I might sacrifice my LEFT LEG for a rose bowl

---

I did that years ago and nothing came from it, except now people call me Eileen.

---

In your situation, I think I'd prefer to be called Hopalong.

calumnus said:

---

sycasey said:

---

We COULD have won all of those close games, but statistically speaking if you play a lot of close ones then you are likely to split them.

If we define "close" as "games within 8 points or less (one score)," then Cal went 2-5 in those games in 2024. Let's say we go 4-3 instead. That would mean an 8-4 regular season rather than 6-6. Yeah, that probably feels a lot better for the program.

---

They were not "close games" like USC in 2023 (that Wilcox made a bad decision on at the end but was close all the way through) and still 50-50 even if he makes the right decision, they were all a repeat of the same wrongheaded decision-making as the Miami game: we had a 21 point lead in the 4th quarter with Mendoza throwing the ball downfield. The odds of winning a game where you are ahead 3 TDs in the 4th quarter if you keep doing what built that 3 TD lead are FAR higher than 50-50. As cited by a podcaster linked on this site, the sites that measure these things have the odds of of our winning at that point well over 90%.

We lost that game by adopting the wrong strategy, by trying to run out the clock and win "with defense" despite the fact Ott was getting stuffed all game and we faced the top offense in the country. The game only ended up as a close loss because of that bad decision making. If we scored 1 TD in the 4th quarter we win. Then we did the same thing three more times. In those 4 "close" losses we scored ZERO TDs in the 4th quarter playing conservative, trying to win running up the middle, and not letting Mendoza win the game with his arm. With the emergence of Mendoza we just needed to be Air Raid and stick with it until the end.

---

I agree about the poor strategy, I just think it's a stretch to say you should have won ALL of those games if only things had gone differently. Hence me conservatively saying you could turn two of those into wins.

it if means we lose to stanfurd? fsck no

wins against furd are forever. the rose bowl died in 2004.

Ccajon2 said:

---

I think I asked a similar question years ago: would you trade our swimming and water polo national titles for 6 Rose Bowl appearances over the past 40 years. I think we have about 18 natties combined in those two sports. I can't remember if I asked it on this board or the defunct board. Only a few people answered but basically it's the same it was all for the RBs.

---

The main reason for me being excited about swimming and water polo titles is because Cal Football has sucked...