CalBarn;841957696 said:

---

You doofus, SO WHAT if he doesn't look good returning kicks? Frankly, I never wanted him there in the first place. Tedford wasted his blueshirt year returning kicks---what a way to recuperate from injury! Are you serious.....he shouldn't get more carries because you don't like the way he returns kickoffs??? That takes the cake for one of the dumbest arguments I have heard! Congratulations! I seriously can't believe anyone would make a comment like that after watching last week's game. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised.....I've read many of your other posts.

---

Doofus, learn to read then get back to me. I recommend English 1A. I did not say half the things you claim to say I've said.

OskiMD;841957702 said:

---

Maybe you should think first before you post.

---

Cry me a river, Dad.

freshfunk;841957571 said:

---

Fair enough. I think you're scrutinizing my words more closely than I'm writing them.

2 series (4 carries) where Biggie produced. Is that "consistent"? Debatable. I'll give it to you though. But I think it's besides the point since RB play is determined by Gould and not JT.

I don't mean "guarantee" so much as "it's so obvious it would've made a huge difference." The follow-up point was that we were getting owned in so many other areas it was ridiculous.

Would we have performed better with Biggie? Maybe. I just don't see it making a big difference in the result of the game (win/loss). I don't think our other backs were particularly bad. It was obvious that their DL was owned our OL and that we couldn't really stop their offense.

---

This freshfunk guy is just getting sad...

Cal was in no way prepared (3 delay of games, 1 after an opponent illegal substituion??), unmotivated (settle for 5 field goal tries? Walk out of bounds on what was one of the last chances to win the game?) and plain terrible. This is on Tedford.

This is NOT the same Tedford back in 2003, so it's really pointless defending him with argumentative techniques like changing the subject, saying "oops that's not what I meant", and drawing strawmen and hyperboles.

Tedford is the direct cause of this and the 8 other losses to USC, as the buck does stop with him, period. A college football team is not a democracy, it is very much a dictatorship, and this dictator SUCKS right now.

You're whole point in your statement is that you question Bigelow's potential to add anything because of his kickoff return(s). Maybe you need to take English Comprehension.

freshfunk;841957705 said:

---

Doofus, learn to read then get back to me. I recommend English 1A. I did not say half the things you claim to say I've said.

---

More personal attacks and more denial.

"Did you see that last kick return from Biggie? Nothing."

"Except for that I didn't see much from Biggie today. "

"Biggie played today. If putting him in guarantees us a win, how come he didn't score a TD? It just took him a couple plays against tOSU. If Biggie is superman, why is his average kick return something like 10-20 yards? WHy doesn't he score?"

Bigelow did just fine with his few opportunities today, and if he had received more opportunities, the result might or might not have been the same, but our chances would have definitely been improved.

You asked for what anyone would have done differently, you got an answer, and you proceed to attack that with playground level arguments that holds zero water with anyone.

freshfunk;841957705 said:

---

Doofus, learn to read then get back to me. I recommend English 1A.

---

Nice post.

Why do anything different??? After averaging 20+ point loses to USC the last 7 years,
we lost by only 18 points today.....I say that's progress. If we can quickly sign him to a 10-year contract extension and he keeps this up, if we gain 2 points a year, we could be beating those guys in 10 years. It's obvious, we need to keep Tedford at all costs,
whatever it takes! O.k, o.k., I'm kidding..... This is far more than about ONE game.....far more than "What would you have done differently?" (in this game) at this point.....we are WAY beyond second guessing a few play calls here..... Our program has sunk to below mediocrity under Tedford. If we could see some reasons for optimism on the field (please don't use the "we have new facilities" argument) the last 5 years, Tedford would have tons of support. It's not like he wasn't revered for several seasons after he came. I was a HUGE fan. But this agony has gone on long enough. Again, this is not about one game. Time for a new direction. Time for a new man at the top, which can make all the difference.

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear;841957485 said:

---

The starting QB, who was very inaccurate today, missed wide open receivers in scoring position numerous times, and threw 2 INTs and 0 TDs, bears no responsibility for the loss? He is a big reason why we lost today. Not as big a reason as the HC, but still a big reason. Sean Mannion (who is a sophomore and whose PER in 2011 his frosh year was exactly the same as Maynard's--127) and several other conference QBs would have won or kept this game a lot closer today. Last week, he was a good reason why we almost won. Give him credit when he's earned it and blame when he deserves it.

---

Yes, he was a big part of why we lost, arguably the biggest as it actually played out on the field. Though, not the sole reason and I think even if he plays as well as last week, we still lose.

Moreover, I think not playing Bigelow in the first half or the 4th quarter could have been a bigger reason as much of the bad play of Maynard might have been avoided--certainly would have reduced all the pressure SC was able to bring on him--with 7 sacks and numerous hurries. I know it is a big what if, but I think it was that critical.

mollydookerbear;841957460 said:

---

Tedford, based on his post game comments, deflected responsibility for the use of Bigelow to Ron Gould.

---

Uh, if I am the head coach and I have a player that did what Biegelow did last week, I talk with my RB coach this week about getting Bigelow in the game early and make sure he understands that is what I want.

Then if during the game, I do not see him and my running game is struggling, I go 5 yards over to my RB coach and say "Hey Ron, why don't we get Bigelow in there and see what he can do."

Tedford defenders are now officially - pathetic.

Let them be.

freshfunk;841957188 said:

---

Well, of course.

Every loss (and win) is on the HC in some way.

The tone, though, of some people here is that this game (as it was today) was TOTALLY winnable and our HC lost it for us. I think THOSE are the people you need to speak to.

---

5 trips to the redzone. 9 points. No, the game was not winnable. :facepalm

BobbyGBear;841957487 said:

---

Tedford's running strategy was key in dominating time of possession through three quarters, and that strategy damn well almost worked.

While it is ridiculous to say we "telegraphed" our plays, you are completely misunderstanding what is going on. It's called baiting, and it did work. Tedford called several masterful scoring plays that were not properly executed (bad blocks, overthrows, etc).

This whole thread should be sent to the recycle bin. Tedford called a great game.

You fake fans are like spoiled children. We just finished the hardest part of one of the toughest schedules in the country. At one point today, we had 0 yes zero, and I mean zero healthy tight ends. We've got a solid team that is improving each week and 8 more games that are all winnable, yet all you want to do is fire the coach.

Go back to your dorms at Furd you fake fans.

---

We did not "dominate the time of possession through three quarters" through three quarters it was 22:47 Cal 21:53 USC, so we had the ball less than a minute more than they did. If they hadn't scored so quickly maybe they would have done better in that stat.

You defend Tedford by blaming the players? Do you understand that the players ARE the team? Not Tedford? Tedford is hired to coach the team. I am not a "fake" fan I am a fan of the Cal Bears. Someone who is a fan of Tedford but not the players is not a Cal fan in my book.

Back to the running game, no one is saying we should not have run, people are saying we should have run more, but given Bigelow a lot more than 4 carries. Sofele got 16 yards in 8 carries. That was not productive. That put us in some obvious passing downs and SC brought a lot of pressure--7 sacks and a lot of hurries and knock downs.

For the record, I never called for Tedford to be fired.

I do agree that most of the rest of the games are winnable. I would like to see Bigelow get the majority of our first and second down carries.

I am interested in your explanation of how passing from an empty back field on first down is "baiting." I would think play-action would better fit that description?

We had several plays with Maynard rolling out right (by design), but we had WRs running routes up the left sideline which is not reachable by a left handed QB rolling right. That seems like a flaw in play design.

richmondisnotghetto;841957613 said:

---

I would have run up the score on Southern Miss and lobbied harder for a Rose Bowl berth in 2004.

Recruiting nationally, gaining more support from donors, and retaining/attracting top coaches would have been easier from that point on.

Fast forward to 2012, and guys like Marquise Lee and Devon Kennard might be on the Cal sideline instead.

---

:beer:

The rest of the games might be "winnable" but we will be fortunate to split it 4-4.

We lack a sense of leadership off and on the field. Without that, it doesn't matter how talented you are, you're going to end up being wildly inconsistent.

We lost while we played well and we lost while we played poorly. That's enough to demoralize a good team. For us, it's enough to be a knockout blow.

freshfunk;841957039 said:

---

That's all good.

You're sure that wins the game for us today though? Or is this just more incessant complaining?

You think we can trick play our way to a win against $C? Keep dreaming.

---

[COLOR="Blue"][SIZE="3"]Maybe you're right. If we only made another SIX FG's, we could have TIED THIS GAME UP !!!! When we're in the game, we have 5 trips into the Red Zone and have 3 FG's to show for it !! Furd beat them with SMASH MOUTH football. That used to be OUR trademark !! Face it ... we don't have an identity !![/SIZE][/COLOR]

CalBarn;841957734 said:

---

Why do anything different??? After averaging 20+ point loses to USC the last 7 years,
we lost by only 18 points today.....I say that's progress. If we can quickly sign him to a 10-year contract extension and he keeps this up, if we gain 2 points a year, we could be beating those guys in 10 years. It's obvious, we need to keep Tedford at all costs,
whatever it takes! O.k, o.k., I'm kidding..... This is far more than about ONE game.....far more than "What would you have done differently?" (in this game) at this point.....we are WAY beyond second guessing a few play calls here..... Our program has sunk to below mediocrity under Tedford. If we could see some reasons for optimism on the field (please don't use the "we have new facilities" argument) the last 5 years, Tedford would have tons of support. It's not like he wasn't revered for several seasons after he came. I was a HUGE fan. But this agony has gone on long enough. Again, this is not about one game. Time for a new direction. Time for a new man at the top, which can make all the difference.

---

[COLOR="Blue"][SIZE="3"]+1 ... AGREED !! One need only look across the Bay to the 49ers to see what a great coach/staff can do with the SAME talent !!![/SIZE][/COLOR]

Absolutely! Maybe there's a third Harbaugh brother?!!?

I think fresh funk was asking what we could have done different SCHEMATICALLY speaking. A very interesting question indeed. Anyone want to chime in on that question ?

I actually think what we were trying to do on offense was not awful. We did have open receivers and created some good situations on O. Just had a QB unable to process the D, make a read, and deliver the ball under severe pressure all night.

And, yes, we ALL agree playing Bigs more would have been a good idea.

FF,

Why are you reading into the game so much? I was at the Coliseum in my schwitty Cal visitor seat. This game was not like last week at the Shoe. (After Williams intercepted that pass, I actually let myself believe that Cal was going to beat OSU. We know what happened after that.)

At no time did I think Cal was going to win yesterday. And I actually agree with you that Bigs probably would not have made the difference between a win and a loss. He would have made it closer, but Cal just isn't good enough.

But here's the big difference in our takeaways. It's not on Maynard or D'Amato or any player. It's on JT and the assistants (and to some extent, Sandy and the AD).

This is CFB, JT is in charge of everything. He buys the groceries, he's the chef and he gets to decide the menu (old Parcells metaphor).

JT has the authority, how are you NOT holding him accountable?

You ask posters here (since some are b*tching about the loss) what they would do differently that would guarantee a win. How is that relevant?

I work at an investment fund. One of the few (but important) things I have in common with JT is that our key performance measurements are 100% transparent. Mine is return on the fund, his is W-L. If I have a crappy quarter or even worse, a full year of bad returns, our investor relations department is not going ask our investors (big or small) what "they would do differently." It's not relevant. They just take their money out of the fund.

Unfortunately, that's not an option for most of us. We are always going to be Cal fans. What we would do differently as HC of Cal is of no consequence. As you can see from the majority of replies to your OP, the relevant answer to your post is that most of us would get a new HC.

CrimsonBear;841957886 said:

---

FF,

Why are you reading into the game so much? I was at the Coliseum in my schwitty Cal visitor seat. This game was not like last week at the Shoe. (After Williams intercepted that pass, I actually let myself believe that Cal was going to beat OSU. We know what happened after that.)

At no time did I think Cal was going to win yesterday. And I actually agree with you that Bigs probably would not have made the difference between a win and a loss. He would have made it closer, but Cal just isn't good enough.

But here's the big difference in our takeaways. It's not on Maynard or D'Amato or any player. It's on JT and the assistants (and to some extent, Sandy and the AD).

This is CFB, JT is in charge of everything. He buys the groceries, he's the chef and he gets to decide the menu (old Parcells metaphor).

JT has the authority, how are you NOT holding him accountable?

You ask posters here (since some are b*tching about the loss) what they would do differently that would guarantee a win. How is that relevant?

I work at an investment fund. One of the few (but important) things I have in common with JT is that our key performance measurements are 100% transparent. Mine is return on the fund, his is W-L. If I have a crappy quarter or even worse, a full year of bad returns, our investor relations department is not going ask our investors (big or small) what "they would do differently." It's not relevant. They just take their money out of the fund.

Unfortunately, that's not an option for most of us. We are always going to be Cal fans. What we would do differently as HC of Cal is of no consequence. As you can see from the majority of replies to your OP, the relevant answer to your post is that most of us would get a new HC.

---

Good analogy Crimson...well said.

freshfunk;841957075 said:

---

THat's besides the point.

I think we just got outperformed and out-talented at too many positions. I don't think the coaching decisions made today lost us the game. (This is separated from the long term development of the team by the HC.)

---

Isn't the job of the HC to ensure that we don't get out-talented or out performed on the field. Any one that accepts otherwise accepts that our HC does not need to be a winner. Im hoping to have a winner of a coach, not one that is satisfied to aim for the middle of the Pac.

MiltyBear;841957709 said:

---

This freshfunk guy is just getting sad...

Cal was in no way prepared (3 delay of games, 1 after an opponent illegal substituion??), unmotivated (settle for 5 field goal tries? Walk out of bounds on what was one of the last chances to win the game?) and plain terrible. This is on Tedford.

This is NOT the same Tedford back in 2003, so it's really pointless defending him with argumentative techniques like changing the subject, saying "oops that's not what I meant", and drawing strawmen and hyperboles.

Tedford is the direct cause of this and the 8 other losses to USC, as the buck does stop with him, period. A college football team is not a democracy, it is very much a dictatorship, and this dictator SUCKS right now.

---

I wasn't asking about his entire body of work. I was asking what you would've done differently today to win. If that question offends you then it's time to move on to the next thread or start some meds.

BobbyGBear;841957445 said:

---

I also want to add for all the fake fans on this board, go watch the highlights, we ALMOST WON THE GAME. We had the ****ing thing in our hands and lost it. Now I'm not saying that's acceptable.

0-5 in the red zone.

3 wide open touchdowns that we missed. Damn!

So close!!!! If Maynard plays this week like he did last week, we woulda won!

Sooooo....

"Let's fire our coach yay fake fans unite!!!"

---

When should we expect to win one of these games?

I think what Freshfunk was trying to do was see what we would have done differently than Tedford. The open-endedness of this question can cause trouble and I think this thread has probably run its course.

Let me just say tho that given the team we have and the talent within it, you go to your strengths. You try and have Maynard hit the short outs and the occasional 20+ to his brother. But in order to be successful in that, you use the running game to grind, bruise, wind the clock and stack more of the D into the line.

It seems to me that we have a back that is capable of doing this, but he was not used for that purpose. To me, this represents a terrible waste and failure of insight into what team the coach actually has. Tedfords gameplan should rest on three basic tenets:

1. Maynard is not a come from behind QB. He cannot rally a comeback with his arm.
2. Keenan Allen is arguably the most talented player on the team. Get him the ball, good things happen.
3. Brandon Bigelow has enough talent to get at least 100 yards per game, perhaps a touchdown at minimum.

So, keeping these three in mind, if u have a running back with talent, you use him, minimally, to open up the passing game. You try and score early with runs and short gain passing so that in the second half, u can open the play book. Put Maynard in a good position so that he has a chance to succeed. Bigelow is a player that can do this.

I really don't know if Tedford is aware of what he has on this team and that is what is troubling to me.

SoCalBear323;841957750 said:

---

5 trips to the redzone. 9 points. No, the game was not winnable. :facepalm

---

This is pretty consistent with recent Cal football (sadly). You talk about it like its a fluke. When was the last time we scored a non-garbage TD against them? SC derp-ed themselves out of 2 TDs.

rjgoode;841957850 said:

---

I think fresh funk was asking what we could have done different SCHEMATICALLY speaking. A very interesting question indeed. Anyone want to chime in on that question ?

I actually think what we were trying to do on offense was not awful. We did have open receivers and created some good situations on O. Just had a QB unable to process the D, make a read, and deliver the ball under severe pressure all night.

And, yes, we ALL agree playing Bigs more would have been a good idea.

---

Thank you.

Game management, playcalling, personnel, etc. what would you have changed to win today?

I ask this and people think I'm defending JT. I think that's pretty hilarious.

Point is people are quick to criticize him and so I'd rather read about what decisions you would make to win instead of hearing all the whining.

I don't think we played a perfect game but I think SC played too well for us to win. It seems that the only thing people can come up with is "more biggie" and are entirely ignoring our defense which got run over.

Cal_Fan2;841957894 said:

---

Good analogy Crimson...well said.

---

Agreed

freshfunk;841957919 said:

---

Thank you.

Game management, playcalling, personnel, etc. what would you have changed to win today?

I ask this and people think I'm defending JT. I think that's pretty hilarious.

Point is people are quick to criticize him and so I'd rather read about what decisions you would make to win instead of hearing all the whining.

I don't think we played a perfect game but I think SC played too well for us to win. It seems that the only thing people can come up with is "more biggie" and are entirely ignoring our defense which got run over.

---

Setting aside not playing Bigelow, which is huge:

1. One issue is that we start the game playing vanilla offense against a fresh and amped defense. The idea being to set up misdirection later. However, the beginning of the game is exactly the time to take advantage of SC's speed, fresh legs, adrenaline and aggressiveness to get them going the wrong way and out of position. They scout us. They know our tendencies. Playing vanilla early is one of the things that puts us into a hole. Under JT we have never been good at climbing out of holes. Our line is not good enough, and ZM is not a good enough QB to lead a comeback victory on the road at USC.

I knew we would lose the game on our first series when we miraculously got the ball on the interception and then ran Sofele three times (including after losing 4 on 1st) and then punted on 4th and inches. Sc got the ball and once again got into the red zone in 4 plays and this time they scored and never looked back.

2. With three of our TEs injured and our line struggling with injuries we could really take a page out of Harbaugh's playbook and put in extra linemen for short yardage. It is a simple, easy to implement solution to our problem that Stanford has demonstrated repeatedly over the last 5 years works effectively against SC.

3. No sweeps or 7 step drops. Our line is not good enough, SC's defense is too fast. Any play that takes that much time needs believable misdirection (play action on 3rd and 20 is not believable and only distracts our own players).

4. When rolling out Maynard to the right side, all of the receivers need to be in patterns on the right side of the field. Treggs streaking up the left sideline on that play is useless--there is a reason he was left undefended. A left-hander cannot throw deep left rolling right. Even when Harbaugh would have luck roll right (and he is a right hander) he would have Uwusu come back over the middle from the left side. Every time. 90% of the time the play would be underneath for the easy toss, but if the safties came up to play the underneath routes, Luck could throw to Uwusu deep on the right side.

5. After every single hand-off (even zone read options), Maynard should be rolling left. That might draw away some of the defense and would better set up play action. (Maynard did do a good job on a couple of delayed draws of selling the pass).

CrimsonBear;841957886 said:

---

FF,

Why are you reading into the game so much?

You ask posters here (since some are b*tching about the loss) what they would do differently that would guarantee a win. How is that relevant?

If I have a crappy quarter or even worse, a full year of bad returns, our investor relations department is not going ask our investors (big or small) what "they would do differently." It's not relevant. They just take their money out of the fund.

Unfortunately, that's not an option for most of us. We are always going to be Cal fans. What we would do differently as HC of Cal is of no consequence. As you can see from the majority of replies to your OP, the relevant answer to your post is that most of us would get a new HC.

---

Great post in response to a pointless thread! The menu won't change until this chef is replaced. He picks every ingredient and it tastes crappy... :cry:

calumnus;841957961 said:

---

Setting aside not playing Bigelow, which is huge:

1. One issue is that we start the game playing vanilla offense against a fresh and amped defense. The idea being to set up misdirection later. However, the beginning of the game is exactly the time to take advantage of SC's speed, fresh legs, adrenaline and aggressiveness to get them going the wrong way and out of position. They scout us. They know our tendencies. Playing vanilla early is one of the things that puts us into a hole. Under JT we have never been good at climbing out of holes. Our line is not good enough, and ZM is not a good enough QB to lead a comeback victory on the road at USC.

I knew we would lose the game on our first series when we miraculously got the ball on the interception and then ran Sofele three times (including after losing 4 on 1st) and then punted on 4th and inches. Sc got the ball and once again got into the red zone in 4 plays and this time they scored and never looked back.

2. With three of our TEs injured and our line struggling with injuries we could really take a page out of Harbaugh's playbook and put in extra linemen for short yardage. It is a simple, easy to implement solution to our problem that Stanford has demonstrated repeatedly over the last 5 years works effectively against SC.

3. No sweeps or 7 step drops. Our line is not good enough, SC's defense is too fast. Any play that takes that much time needs believable misdirection (play action on 3rd and 20 is not believable and only distracts our own players).

4. When rolling out Maynard to the right side, all of the receivers need to be in patterns on the right side of the field. Treggs streaking up the left sideline on that play is useless--there is a reason he was left undefended. A left-hander cannot throw deep left rolling right. Even when Harbaugh would have luck roll right (and he is a right hander) he would have Uwusu come back over the middle from the left side. Every time. 90% of the time the play would be underneath for the easy toss, but if the safties came up to play the underneath routes, Luck could throw to Uwusu deep on the right side.

5. After every single hand-off (even zone read options), Maynard should be rolling left. That might draw away some of the defense and would better set up play action. (Maynard did do a good job on a couple of delayed draws of selling the pass).

---

Vanilla offense: How do you think our first series against $C compares to OSU? Against OSU we had a pretty balanced offensive. You get the run game going and that opens up the pass game (as everyone agrees here). Ergo you HAVE TO try to get a run game going.

I didn't see us running anything out of the ordinary against OSU. The difference being execution.

Lineman taking over TE: This would be interesting to see but it's not like we're deep at OL. Also I doubt this is something that's even been practiced. You can't just draw up plays that have an extra lineman and no TE and expect the kids to know how to run the plays without practice. Nice idea but wouldn't work in reality because you have to practice this.

7 step drops: I don't recall seeing much/any of this. Even with the 5 step drops, ZM didn't have much time for plays to develop.

Rolling out the opposite way: I found this bizarre too.

Rolling out more: Actually I thought he rolled out too much. On a number of plays he rolled out of the pocket to the point where he would go outside protection and make it very easy for an end that was being blocked to shed his blocker resulting in a sack. In a number of these cases he was getting some pressure but his blocks were still being held.

Calumnus makes some great points. All I can add is Harbaugh was able to beat USC down there with a lot less than what we have. Don't think for 1 second that a coach with more on the ball would not make a difference.

FF, you're way overselling this SC team. That defense kind of sucks. Freaking Syracuse scored FOUR TDs against them. We played straight up, imagination free, scared, not to lose football. Per usual.

freshfunk;841957919 said:

---

Thank you.

Game management, playcalling, personnel, etc. what would you have changed to win today?

I ask this and people think I'm defending JT. I think that's pretty hilarious.

Point is people are quick to criticize him and so I'd rather read about what decisions you would make to win instead of hearing all the whining.

I don't think we played a perfect game but I think SC played too well for us to win. It seems that the only thing people can come up with is "more biggie" and are entirely ignoring our defense which got run over.

---

The opponent has a lot to do with how well the other team looks. You know when SC looks their best? During walkthrough-Friday. They are unstoppable.

freshfunk;841957007 said:

---

What would you have done differently?

And make your case for how that would've won us the game.

Catch: You can't switch out our players for players NOT on our current team.

I'm not apologizing for him but I don't think coaching lost us the game. And, frankly, I want to see the obvious things that JT missed that you guys think wouldve won us the game.

---

Games aren't won on gameday. Games are won 4-5 season before the game is played. Philosophies and systems are laid out. Players are recruited to fit into the system. Coaches instill skills, culture and plays. Strength and conditioning builds players up to be bigger, stronger and faster. Four years of physical, mental and emotional growth of players leads to a team who knows who they are, what they are supposed to do, how to do it. Those seasons of coaching should give players the best possible chance to be successful.

The best teams, as far back as i can remember, didn't do anything special gameplanning for particular games. They played their brand of ball and did their thing better than anyone else.

pappysghost;841958059 said:

---

Calumnus makes some great points. All I can add is Harbaugh was able to beat USC down there with a lot less than what we have. Don't think for 1 second that a coach with more on the ball would not make a difference.

---

I'm not saying winning against $C is impossible. Of course that's ridiculous.

Like I said before. To me it comes down to two things:
* Your team's talent and playing up to its potential.
* Your opponent's talent and playing up to their potential.

If both teams play to their potential, then the one with greater talent wins (coaches & players).

Upsets happen all the time because teams that have more talent don't play to their potential.

With the way $C was rolling (on offense and defense) where were we not playing to our potential?

Sure our guys may be underdeveloped and that's on the coaches. I won't deny that. But I don't think there was a big difference talent/potential-wise from OSU game last week. I think $C is just WAY better than OSU was and that's why we were able to stay in it against OSU but get utterly dominated by $C.