There is one guarantee with Cal football and that is we play to level of our opponents. Last week was a great example of both coaches and players thinking we have it easy so we don't need to hold onto the ball or play strong defense. Today we will see Cal rise and beat SMU.....guaranteed!

Trumpanzee said:

---

There is one guarantee with Cal football and that is we play to level of our opponents. Last week was a great example of both coaches and players thinking we have it easy so we don't need to hold onto the ball or play strong defense. Today we will see Cal rise and beat SMU.....guaranteed!

---

SMU does not have a good running game, so we have a chance. Of course, Stanford has the second worst running game in the country, second worst only to ours, and they ran all over us.

calumnus said:

---

Trumpanzee said:

---

There is one guarantee with Cal football and that is we play to level of our opponents. Last week was a great example of both coaches and players thinking we have it easy so we don't need to hold onto the ball or play strong defense. Today we will see Cal rise and beat SMU.....guaranteed!

---

SMU does not have a good running game, so we have a chance. Of course, Stanford has the second worst running game in the country, second worst only to ours, and they ran all over us.

---

They also do not have a good pass rush.
I like our chances in this one as I expect a close game.
That said I'm most curious to see if we get a 3rd quarter lead what the defensive alignments look like

CNHTH said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Trumpanzee said:

---

There is one guarantee with Cal football and that is we play to level of our opponents. Last week was a great example of both coaches and players thinking we have it easy so we don't need to hold onto the ball or play strong defense. Today we will see Cal rise and beat SMU.....guaranteed!

---

SMU does not have a good running game, so we have a chance. Of course, Stanford has the second worst running game in the country, second worst only to ours, and they ran all over us.

---

They also do not have a good pass rush.
I like our chances in this one as I expect a close game.
That said I'm most curious to see if we get a 3rd quarter lead what the defensive alignments look like

---

And whether we keep the pedal to the metal with Sagapolutele still throwing downfield.

Cal up at the half pic.twitter.com/TGSt3ossVb

— Ghost (@GhostofGarbers) November 30, 2025

Trumpanzee said:

---

There is one guarantee with Cal football and that is we play to level of our opponents. Last week was a great example of both coaches and players thinking we have it easy so we don't need to hold onto the ball or play strong defense. Today we will see Cal rise and beat SMU.....guaranteed!

---

Lol

Trumpanzee said:

---

There is one guarantee with Cal football and that is we play to level of our opponents. Last week was a great example of both coaches and players thinking we have it easy so we don't need to hold onto the ball or play strong defense. Today we will see Cal rise and beat SMU.....guaranteed!

---

Good call!!!

Shocky1 go F yourself

calumnus said:

---

Trumpanzee said:

---

There is one guarantee with Cal football and that is we play to level of our opponents. Last week was a great example of both coaches and players thinking we have it easy so we don't need to hold onto the ball or play strong defense. Today we will see Cal rise and beat SMU.....guaranteed!

---

SMU does not have a good running game, so we have a chance. Of course, Stanford has the second worst running game in the country, second worst only to ours, and they ran all over us.

---

Thank god Cal has a good running game.

Trumpanzee said:

---

There is one guarantee with Cal football and that is we play to level of our opponents.

---

Is SDSU really that bad?

calumnus said:

---

Trumpanzee said:

---

There is one guarantee with Cal football and that is we play to level of our opponents. Last week was a great example of both coaches and players thinking we have it easy so we don't need to hold onto the ball or play strong defense. Today we will see Cal rise and beat SMU.....guaranteed!

---

SMU does not have a good running game, so we have a chance.

---

Should I go delete my late game "they have good backs" post?

CNHTH said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Trumpanzee said:

---

There is one guarantee with Cal football and that is we play to level of our opponents. Last week was a great example of both coaches and players thinking we have it easy so we don't need to hold onto the ball or play strong defense. Today we will see Cal rise and beat SMU.....guaranteed!

---

SMU does not have a good running game, so we have a chance. Of course, Stanford has the second worst running game in the country, second worst only to ours, and they ran all over us.

---

They also do not have a good pass rush.
I like our chances in this one as I expect a close game.
That said I'm most curious to see if we get a 3rd quarter lead what the defensive alignments look like

---

Good call.
SMU had no sacks. And Saga stats were great!!

okaydo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Trumpanzee said:

---

There is one guarantee with Cal football and that is we play to level of our opponents. Last week was a great example of both coaches and players thinking we have it easy so we don't need to hold onto the ball or play strong defense. Today we will see Cal rise and beat SMU.....guaranteed!

---

SMU does not have a good running game, so we have a chance. Of course, Stanford has the second worst running game in the country, second worst only to ours, and they ran all over us.

---

Thank god Cal has a good running game.

---

Today we did!

calumnus said:

---

CNHTH said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Trumpanzee said:

---

There is one guarantee with Cal football and that is we play to level of our opponents. Last week was a great example of both coaches and players thinking we have it easy so we don't need to hold onto the ball or play strong defense. Today we will see Cal rise and beat SMU.....guaranteed!

---

SMU does not have a good running game, so we have a chance. Of course, Stanford has the second worst running game in the country, second worst only to ours, and they ran all over us.

---

They also do not have a good pass rush.
I like our chances in this one as I expect a close game.
That said I'm most curious to see if we get a 3rd quarter lead what the defensive alignments look like

---

And whether we keep the pedal to the metal with Sagapolutele still throwing downfield.

---

Answer?
Yes!!

Trumpanzee said:

---

Shocky1 go F yourself

---

I support this message.

concordtom said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Trumpanzee said:

---

There is one guarantee with Cal football and that is we play to level of our opponents. Last week was a great example of both coaches and players thinking we have it easy so we don't need to hold onto the ball or play strong defense. Today we will see Cal rise and beat SMU.....guaranteed!

---

SMU does not have a good running game, so we have a chance.

---

Should I go delete my late game "they have good backs" post?

---

We had good backs last year and a bad running game. Rafael is pretty good and we had a bad running game (until tonight). It takes more than good running backs to have a good running game. The OL and offensive scheme are critical.

concordtom said:

---

calumnus said:

---

CNHTH said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Trumpanzee said:

---

There is one guarantee with Cal football and that is we play to level of our opponents. Last week was a great example of both coaches and players thinking we have it easy so we don't need to hold onto the ball or play strong defense. Today we will see Cal rise and beat SMU.....guaranteed!

---

SMU does not have a good running game, so we have a chance. Of course, Stanford has the second worst running game in the country, second worst only to ours, and they ran all over us.

---

They also do not have a good pass rush.
I like our chances in this one as I expect a close game.
That said I'm most curious to see if we get a 3rd quarter lead what the defensive alignments look like

---

And whether we keep the pedal to the metal with Sagapolutele still throwing downfield.

---

Answer?
Yes!!

---

Absolutely! Though we did have one critical three and out with Sagapolutele throwing nothing past the line of scrimmage until 3rd down that made it a nail biter.

calumnus said:

---

okaydo said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Trumpanzee said:

---

There is one guarantee with Cal football and that is we play to level of our opponents. Last week was a great example of both coaches and players thinking we have it easy so we don't need to hold onto the ball or play strong defense. Today we will see Cal rise and beat SMU.....guaranteed!

---

SMU does not have a good running game, so we have a chance. Of course, Stanford has the second worst running game in the country, second worst only to ours, and they ran all over us.

---

Thank god Cal has a good running game.

---

Today we did!

---

Probably the most bizarre part of this game.

SMU had 230 yards rushing, Johnson had 128yds on 10 carries.

But as a team they only had 23:04 time of possession.

Cal88 said:

---

SMU had 230 yards rushing, Johnson had 128yds on 10 carries.

But as a team they only had 23:04 time of possession.

---

Our offense did a hell of a job executing and converted on 3rd downs to keep their offense off the field.

Cal88 said:

---

SMU had 230 yards rushing, Johnson had 128yds on 10 carries.

But as a team they only had 23:04 time of possession.

---

Cal was averaging 23 points per game.

38 points is the most points we have scored all year, topping the 35 points we scored against FCS Texas Southern. And with zero points scored by the defense. That was the difference.

pingpong2 said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

SMU had 230 yards rushing, Johnson had 128yds on 10 carries.

But as a team they only had 23:04 time of possession.

---

Our offense did a hell of a job executing and converted on 3rd downs to keep their offense off the field.

---

Also SMU spent almost the whole game in a no-huddle.

Please Cal don’t do the “our coach got fired so we’re magically going to play better” thing https://t.co/aAInQqKLbR

— SMU Football Enthusiast 🐴 (@SMU_fbfan) November 23, 2025

Cal will beat SMU and ruin their playoff chance. pic.twitter.com/lNaQ3UCq4T

— Woke Cal Bot (@calwokebot) August 9, 2025

calumnus said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Trumpanzee said:

---

There is one guarantee with Cal football and that is we play to level of our opponents. Last week was a great example of both coaches and players thinking we have it easy so we don't need to hold onto the ball or play strong defense. Today we will see Cal rise and beat SMU.....guaranteed!

---

SMU does not have a good running game, so we have a chance.

---

Should I go delete my late game "they have good backs" post?

---

We had good backs last year and a bad running game. Rafael is pretty good and we had a bad running game (until tonight). It takes more than good running backs to have a good running game. The OL and offensive scheme are critical.

---

6 OL's seemed to be the answer. One less wr, but we needed that less than we needed the extra OL.

You called it!

I'm still high on this win!

I didn't go to bed until 4 am as I watched the highlights over and over again.

Rushinbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

concordtom said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Trumpanzee said:

---

There is one guarantee with Cal football and that is we play to level of our opponents. Last week was a great example of both coaches and players thinking we have it easy so we don't need to hold onto the ball or play strong defense. Today we will see Cal rise and beat SMU.....guaranteed!

---

SMU does not have a good running game, so we have a chance.

---

Should I go delete my late game "they have good backs" post?

---

We had good backs last year and a bad running game. Rafael is pretty good and we had a bad running game (until tonight). It takes more than good running backs to have a good running game. The OL and offensive scheme are critical.

---

6 OL's seemed to be the answer. One less wr, but we needed that less than we needed the extra OL.

---

Yes, I was so glad to see it after years of being told it was a bad idea. Especially in short yardage/goal line situations. There has to be an OL who used to be a TE or played basketball in high school and can catch too? A pass to your eligible 6th OL off play action would be a good "trick" play.

glb78 said:

---

You called it!

I'm still high on this win!

I didn't go to bed until 4 am as I watched the highlights over and over again.

---

Me too! We should always be this happy......Go Bears!

So now that SMU is our last game of the season every year, and we just spoiled their ACC Championship hopes, does it turn into a bit of a rivalry game? A grudge match?

calumnus said:

---

So now that SMU is our last game of the season every year, and we just spoiled their ACC Championship hopes, does it turn into a bit of a rivalry game? A grudge match?

---

But we don't hate them, maybe they hate us?

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

calumnus said:

---

So now that SMU is our last game of the season every year, and we just spoiled their ACC Championship hopes, does it turn into a bit of a rivalry game? A grudge match?

---

But we don't hate them, maybe they hate us?

---

But they are worse than USC or Stanford, they are spoiled rich kids, children of Dallas oil executives. USC has become a decent academic school, but they are still just an elitist private school that relies on their "alumni network" to pass on wealth to the next generation. And they cheated so bad in football they once got the death penalty, George W. Bush of fake WMD and the Iraq War was their patron for getting into the ACC, Plus they hired Dykes as a consultant within a month of our firing him and made him head coach later that same year. The material is there.

Sure, they haven't spoiled a season for us yet, but once we are good enough to have a season to be spoiled it will be inevitable,

Maybe the fan bases just don't interact enough? Or do we still see them as scrappy upstarts from G5? Hard to hate a scrappy upstart like you hate the Empire.

"[H]ate the Empire? Joe McCarthy has your name.

Anyway, there were many smu folks in section TT, lost of groups of 5 to 10, or so. They all looked the same. Stylishly attired, and beautiful. One could smell the money. Strangely out of place among the riffraff. All very pleasant.

I did hear a funny comment while passing the portopotties on the way out.

'These are the same portopotties that they showed on television that were moved to accommodate the Palestinian protesters.'

lol

calumnus said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

calumnus said:

---

So now that SMU is our last game of the season every year, and we just spoiled their ACC Championship hopes, does it turn into a bit of a rivalry game? A grudge match?

---

But we don't hate them, maybe they hate us?

---

But they are worse than USC or Stanford, they are spoiled rich kids, children of Dallas oil executives. USC has become a decent academic school, but they are still just an elitist private school that relies on their "alumni network" to pass on wealth to the next generation. And they cheated so bad in football they once got the death penalty, George W. Bush of fake WMD and the Iraq War was their patron for getting into the ACC, Plus they hired Dykes as a consultant within a month of our firing him and made him head coach later that same year. The material is there.

Sure, they haven't spoiled a season for us yet, but once we are good enough to have a season to be spoiled it will be inevitable,

Maybe the fan bases just don't interact enough? Or do we still see them as scrappy upstarts from G5? Hard to hate a scrappy upstart like you hate the Empire.

---

Why the attitude? Have they done anything to us, as SC has, or is it the private school manner that you attribute to them? How much do you know about them? Oil man bad? Really? Yeah, they got the death penalty for Dickerson decades ago and they took their medicine. Dykes? What does he have to do with it? Sounds like you just resent the rich.

Rushinbear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

PAC-10-BEAR said:

---

calumnus said:

---

So now that SMU is our last game of the season every year, and we just spoiled their ACC Championship hopes, does it turn into a bit of a rivalry game? A grudge match?

---

But we don't hate them, maybe they hate us?

---

But they are worse than USC or Stanford, they are spoiled rich kids, children of Dallas oil executives. USC has become a decent academic school, but they are still just an elitist private school that relies on their "alumni network" to pass on wealth to the next generation. And they cheated so bad in football they once got the death penalty, George W. Bush of fake WMD and the Iraq War was their patron for getting into the ACC, Plus they hired Dykes as a consultant within a month of our firing him and made him head coach later that same year. The material is there.

Sure, they haven't spoiled a season for us yet, but once we are good enough to have a season to be spoiled it will be inevitable,

Maybe the fan bases just don't interact enough? Or do we still see them as scrappy upstarts from G5? Hard to hate a scrappy upstart like you hate the Empire.

---

Why the attitude? Have they done anything to us, as SC has, or is it the private school manner that you attribute to them? How much do you know about them? Oil man bad? Really? Yeah, they got the death penalty for Dickerson decades ago and they took their medicine. Dykes? What does he have to do with it? Sounds like you just resent the rich.

---

No attitude, I guess I wasn't clear. We now play SMU as our last game of the season every year. That is traditionally a rivalry game, However, we don't have a rivalry with SMU. We have no feelings for them, positive or negative. I was wondering if our upset win spoiling their season might start one. Then giving some reasons we might start to make them our new USC, who used to be a traditional rival of Cal but plays in a different conference than us.

Here is a secret: rivalry hate is made up hate. Stanford, UCLA, USC are actually good schools with a lot of good people and I have a lot of friends and family that went to all three. However, for the fun of football fandom we believe stereotypes about "them." My post was tongue in cheek. How might we start thinking of SMU as a rival since they are now our rivalry game?