moonpod;842340266 said:

---

very winnable are sac state (with a competent D coordinator this should NOT be an issue), colorado (macintyre lost richardson and he's awhiles away from making them truly competitive otherwise) arizona (rich rod actually had a pretty good amount of turnover) NU (I don't buy the fitz kool aide)

Schedule unfriendly but otherwise winnable are OSU (lost cooks the best offensive player in the PAC last year) and BYU (BY who?) in my mind.

the maybes are the Washington's--Peterson is reloading his offensive backfield and installing a new system and clearly had some cultural issues in the off season as well. I think he is gonna be a thorn in our side in the future, but THIS year they may be very up and down. Leach has leach, but other than that honestly not a lot of talent that "scares" anyone. But the ol pirate is crafty so...

Miracles are the LA schools, furd and the quacks

---

I would put OSU and UW in a not likely to win column. Though a miracle isn't required I have a real hard time seeing us win against them

Like I said, I think Peterson has some growing pains this year. THIS YEAR.

OSU is replacing cooks. That kid was AMAZING and it shows with what he's doing in NFL camp this year. Yeah. Never a good game for us but that was Tedford, and with Dykes the slate, for better or for worse, is clean

moonpod;842340279 said:

---

Like I said, I think Peterson has some growing pains this year. THIS YEAR.

OSU is replacing cooks. That kid was AMAZING and it shows with what he's doing in NFL camp this year. Yeah. Never a good game for us but that was Tedford, and with Dykes the slate, for better or for worse, is clean

---

All the reports coming in on Davis are amazing ... not just his catching but everyone is stressing his route running and speed.
Makes him sound like another DJax. Goff and the two frosh are enjoying throwing to him.

tl;dr. Every single one of you is crazy. Go Bears!

jamonit;842340245 said:

---

Fair enough... I would have bet money you were in the we will be worse this year camp. That is a good way to look at it.... I see 4-5 wins, but with a better chance at 3 wins than 6 and I think 7+ is just as likely as 2 or less... So I would probably go

33% 5 wins
32% 4 wins
15% 3 wins
10% 6 wins
5% 7+
5% 2-

---

Here is what you don't get. It is not that people are bashing the coaching staff by saying we will only win 2. They are bashing last years performance. You find it acceptable under the circumstances. You are looking at 4-8 as great progress. I see 5-19, with 2 wins against FCS teams as completely unacceptable. Frankly, I think you are the one being negative, thinking the roster isn't capable of better

jamonit;842340218 said:

---

Massive roster turnover... We lost what 6 players that played a lot last year? Bigelow was horrible, Moala and Coleman were ok, Camp sucked, Kam Jack I thought was good, Fortt (I keep forgetting about) was decent although I thought Barton was just as good.... Seriously we didn't lose that much from last year and we possibly get Avery, Jalil, Scarlett, McClure, Trevor Davis (he could be our best WR), Adcock, Allensworth, Sina (granted haven't seen much just speculation), etc that wasn't available last year. Those guys are way better than the people we lost. Not to mention we don't have a ton of FR starting especially on Off and even more especially on the OL.

Sorry forgot Hunter who played a lot and is a big loss.

Editing in your response also... What roster turn over?

---

I'm not the guy you were addressing, and I don't know if I'd say "'massive" roster turnover, but:

- Rodgers? Apparently Green Bay thinks he is good.

- (yeah yeah) Tagaloa

- For some reason it really bums me out that we lost Ragin and to a much lesser extent Whitener. Reasonably talented players that went through their growing pains, forced into the 2-deep last year, and now will likely emerge as contributors elsewhere.

- D'Amato?

- From first few games before total meltdown McCain. Perhaps he had to go but I thought the NW game changed when he and of course Avery went out (for different reasons).

As to your original question, I am on record as predicting 4 wins. But I am a Dykes doubter and I don't see how 4 wins should make us think Dykes and crew are good. I think he is likely mediocre. Last season he turned an awful situation into a little worse than awful (epochally terrible, worst in 100 years of mostly bad seasons). This year I expect him to take a mediocre situation and turn it into something a little worse than mediocre: 4 wins.

So I think 4 wins would indeed be an improvement, but far from a vindication. 8 wins would be a vindication.

Either way, as someone else said, I've already made a bet. I made my annual low-level ESP donation for 2 seats, got two more eastside seats for buddies, and will be there cheering for the players at Memorial on Saturdays.

I say we extend Dykes and get rid of you.

OneKeg;842340348 said:

---

I'm not the guy you were addressing, and I don't know if I'd say "'massive" roster turnover, but:

- Rodgers? Apparently Green Bay thinks he is good.

- (yeah yeah) Tagaloa

- For some reason it really bums me out that we lost Ragin and to a much lesser extent Whitener. Reasonably talented players that went through their growing pains, forced into the 2-deep last year, and now will likely emerge as contributors elsewhere.

- D'Amato?

- From first few games before total meltdown McCain. Perhaps he had to go but I thought the NW game changed when he and of course Avery went out (for different reasons).

As to your original question, I am on record as predicting 4 wins. But I am a Dykes doubter and I don't see how 4 wins should make us think Dykes and crew are good. I think he is likely mediocre. Last season he turned an awful situation into a little worse than awful (epochally terrible, worst in 100 years of mostly bad seasons). This year I expect him to take a mediocre situation and turn it into something a little worse than mediocre: 4 wins.

So I think 4 wins would indeed be an improvement, but far from a vindication. 8 wins would be a vindication.

Either way, as someone else said, I've already made a bet. I made my annual low-level ESP donation for 2 seats, got two more eastside seats for buddies, and will be there cheering for the players at Memorial on Saturdays.

---

8 wins .... i think 6 wins and a bowl win = 7 is grounds for vindication ?

going4roses;842340357 said:

---

8 wins .... i think 6 wins and a bowl win = 7 is grounds for vindication ?

---

Ok I'm down. 7 wins including bowl = vindication and feast of crows for me, not that anyone would care. We'd be too happy celebrating and it would be a huge relief to not have to pay off another big contract.

No bet required in return. I have no desire for jamonit to stop posting or eat crow if we suck again. I like his posts, and any amount of crow-eating by him won't make it any better in that case.

NYCGOBEARS;842340296 said:

---

tl;dr. Every single one of you is crazy. Go Bears!

---

Seconded.

freshfunk;842340259 said:

---

Ok saw his list.

My take: Only 5 (maybe 6) games are winnable. The others are most likely losses for us. So reaching 4-5 wins would mean that we win all but 1 of the winnable set which sounds really high. A 50% chance of winning these games strikes me as more reasonable (which would give us 2-3 wins).

---

Sac state, CO, AZ, Northwestern, Washington, WSU, BYU, OSU, USC, Stanford, Oregon, UCLA

In that order of our best chances imo.

freshfunk;842340273 said:

---

I would put OSU and UW in a not likely to win column. Though a miracle isn't required I have a real hard time seeing us win against them

---

Washington lost their 3 year starting SR QB, a stud RB who rushed for 1700+ yards and 20 TDs, and one of the best TEs in college football. They do that while learning an all new system and making a lot of changes.

OaktownBear;842340312 said:

---

Here is what you don't get. It is not that people are bashing the coaching staff by saying we will only win 2. They are bashing last years performance. You find it acceptable under the circumstances. You are looking at 4-8 as great progress. I see 5-19, with 2 wins against FCS teams as completely unacceptable. Frankly, I think you are the one being negative, thinking the roster isn't capable of better

---

I think the roster has a lot of talent, but they are really young.... really young without a lot of SRs leadership or upperclassmen.

OneKeg;842340348 said:

---

I'm not the guy you were addressing, and I don't know if I'd say "'massive" roster turnover, but:

- Rodgers? Apparently Green Bay thinks he is good.

- (yeah yeah) Tagaloa

- For some reason it really bums me out that we lost Ragin and to a much lesser extent Whitener. Reasonably talented players that went through their growing pains, forced into the 2-deep last year, and now will likely emerge as contributors elsewhere.

- D'Amato?

- From first few games before total meltdown McCain. Perhaps he had to go but I thought the NW game changed when he and of course Avery went out (for different reasons).

As to your original question, I am on record as predicting 4 wins. But I am a Dykes doubter and I don't see how 4 wins should make us think Dykes and crew are good. I think he is likely mediocre. Last season he turned an awful situation into a little worse than awful (epochally terrible, worst in 100 years of mostly bad seasons). This year I expect him to take a mediocre situation and turn it into something a little worse than mediocre: 4 wins.

So I think 4 wins would indeed be an improvement, but far from a vindication. 8 wins would be a vindication.

Either way, as someone else said, I've already made a bet. I made my annual low-level ESP donation for 2 seats, got two more eastside seats for buddies, and will be there cheering for the players at Memorial on Saturdays.

---

Rodgers was good... how he is doing in GB means nothing to what he brought to Cal which was a pretty good season. I think Trevor Davis will more than make up the stats we will lose from Rodgers tho.

Tagaloa? he was benched because he was so bad.. they tried him at OG because his feet weren't good enough. He was benched for Okafor... he wasn't going to play for us and didn't for much of the season that isn't a lose in the massive turn over column.

Ragin and Whitener both hardly played... the contention that we won't be as good is because from last year's team we had massive roster turnover.. losing 2 players from our bench doesn't affect from last year to this one.

Chris McCain played like 3 games... having him leave does not affect our roster.

Now D'Amato was a great pull... he was really good last year so losing him may come back to hurt us.

The point being we didn't have some massive roster turnover of stud players. We lost Rodgers who was good, Kam Jack who was good, Coleman and Moala who were ok, Fortt who was pretty good when healthy, Hunter a nice back up DT, D'Amato a really good kicker, Bigelow who was horrible for us, and Camp who was horrible for us. I may have missed some but that is nothing to what other teams lost and we get players that are really good and didn't play much if at all in Scarlet, Avery, McClure, Trevor Davis, Allensworth, Jalil, Sina, Adcock, etc

Our talent is better this year not worse and there was no massive turnover and hardly any loses from from the players that actually played last year.

jamonit;842340382 said:

---

Washington lost their 3 year starting SR QB, a stud RB who rushed for 1700+ yards and 20 TDs, and one of the best TEs in college football. They do that while learning an all new system and making a lot of changes.

---

Chris Petersen vs Sonny Dykes

jamonit;842340385 said:

---

Rodgers was good... how he is doing in GB means nothing to what he brought to Cal which was a pretty good season. I think Trevor Davis will more than make up the stats we will lose from Rodgers tho.

Tagaloa? he was benched because he was so bad.. they tried him at OG because his feet weren't good enough. He was benched for Okafor... he wasn't going to play for us and didn't for much of the season that isn't a lose in the massive turn over column.

Ragin and Whitener both hardly played... the contention that we won't be as good is because from last year's team we had massive roster turnover.. losing 2 players from our bench doesn't affect from last year to this one.

Chris McCain played like 3 games... having him leave does not affect our roster.

Now D'Amato was a great pull... he was really good last year so losing him may come back to hurt us.

The point being we didn't have some massive roster turnover of stud players. We lost Rodgers who was good, Kam Jack who was good, Coleman and Moala who were ok, Fortt who was pretty good when healthy, Hunter a nice back up DT, D'Amato a really good kicker, Bigelow who was horrible for us, and Camp who was horrible for us. I may have missed some but that is nothing to what other teams lost and we get players that are really good and didn't play much if at all in Scarlet, Avery, McClure, Trevor Davis, Allensworth, Jalil, Sina, Adcock, etc

Our talent is better this year not worse and there was no massive turnover and hardly any loses from from the players that actually played last year.

---

Sure. I'm not Panda Bear or whoever it was that originally talked about massive turnover and how we would be worse. I think we'll be better - hence my 4 win prediction.

I could quibble on some things, like I remember Ragin and Whitener being forced into action more than you remember. And McCain was one of the big reasons why we actually had a semblance of a pass rush and were competitive against NW - his departure was just another factor in the utter unraveling of our D.

I was just pointing out that our turnover, while not massive, was not small, and while it doesn't mean we will be worse, it certainly may somewhat offset our improvement.

By the way, did anyone mention Drew (likely?) and Espitia as guys we lost? Drew started most of last year, correct?

I base the 1 win will have, possibly 2, off of last years performance and how sonny coaches. The excuses he made don't help either. If we start off 0-5, I do believe the team will quit on sonny just like the did tedford. We all remember the Oregon state game. The rain, tedford basically alone. If we don't get an early start, the season will be off midway thru. I do think we can win at least 1, with maybe a win coming from Colorado. But, r chances do seem low.

OaktownBear;842340173 said:

---

1. Name all these people who said we couldn't win more than 2. I don't think many have said that.

---

There are 11 guys/gals (as of now) who voted for 2 wins or less on the polling thread. The names are listed there.

OneKeg;842340391 said:

---

Sure. I'm not Panda Bear or whoever it was that originally talked about massive turnover and how we would be worse. I think we'll be better - hence my 4 win prediction.

I could quibble on some things, like I remember Ragin and Whitener being forced into action more than you remember. And McCain was one of the big reasons why we actually had a semblance of a pass rush and were competitive against NW - his departure was just another factor in the utter unraveling of our D.

I was just pointing out that our turnover, while not massive, was not small, and while it doesn't mean we will be worse, it certainly may somewhat offset our improvement.

By the way, did anyone mention Drew (likely?) and Espitia as guys we lost? Drew started most of last year, correct?

---

It wasn't even close to a lot much less massive. Ragin had 2 tackles and 1 sack... Whitener had 6 tackles. McCain played in some of 3 games with only 11 tackles total! Pretty sure that won't be a huge lose for us. Maximo had I think 1 catch and no tackles. Now Drew did have 50 tackles and depending what happens with him is an actual lose to our depth. You think losing a few starters and a few backups and a few 3rd, 4th string players are loses? Standford lost 4 starting OL, starting TB, starting Safety, Starting MLB, starting DE (that had 15 sacks!), etc. ASU lost 9 defensive starters... Washington lost starting QB, starting RB, starting TE, top yardage WR including losing over half of their receiving yardage, also lost 3 of their 4 starting secondary players... Those are examples of losing massive amounts...

We lost

a good starting Inside WR in Rodgers
a bad sometimes starting RB, sometimes slot receiver in Bigelow
2 ok Starting DTs in Coleman and Moala
a good starting CB in Kam Jack
a good Kicker in D'Amato
an ok backup safety probably in Drew
a bad starting DE in Camp
a pretty good LB who started when healthy in Fortt
and players that didn't play that much last year at all.

That isn't massive or even a lot. That is way less than most teams by far. PLUS we now get access to Trevor Davis, McClure, Avery, Scarlett, Sina, Jalil, Allensworth, Adcock, etc. which I would say are better by far than the people we lost. So please stop with the high massive turnover. It just isn't true. It isn't even a lot and really with the players we will have this year compared to last year we actually improve compared to last year in terms of talent.

freshfunk;842340386 said:

---

Chris Petersen vs Sonny Dykes

---

Chris Peterson needs to replace a 3 year starting QB, I mean come on this is stupid... We lose 6 starters and a few players that didn't do anything and people keep pointing how much turn over we had. They keep saying "well me MIGHT be better, but every else got much better". This is so stupid. Washington lost 2966 of their 3384 passing yards, 2000 of their 3100 rushing yards, 1800 of their 3384 receiving yards... 21 of their 25 TD passes, 25 of their 35 rushing TDs, 14 of their 25 receiving TDs. They lost 3 starting DBs including both Safeties. They are learning a new system. They are having a lot of culture change going on there. While yes long term Chris Petersen can get their team turned around this will be a tough year for him.

jamonit;842340433 said:

---

It wasn't even close to a lot much less massive. Ragin had 2 tackles and 1 sack... Whitener had 6 tackles. McCain played in some of 3 games with only 11 tackles total! Pretty sure that won't be a huge lose for us. Maximo had I think 1 catch and no tackles. Now Drew did have 50 tackles and depending what happens with him is an actual lose to our depth. You think losing a few starters and a few backups and a few 3rd, 4th string players are loses? Standford lost 4 starting OL, starting TB, starting Safety, Starting MLB, starting DE (that had 15 sacks!), etc. ASU lost 9 defensive starters... Washington lost starting QB, starting RB, starting TE, top yardage WR including losing over half of their receiving yardage, also lost 3 of their 4 starting secondary players... Those are examples of losing massive amounts...

---

and Ragin also had 1.5 sacks on back-to-back plays in just 1 game. he, among others, had high ceilings. but like another poster pointed out, it's a damn shame that these guys took their lumps and made mistakes as true freshman at Cal, but will now be making more significant contributions at other schools.

beeasyed;842340439 said:

---

and Ragin also had 1.5 sacks on back-to-back plays in just 1 game. he, among others, had high ceilings. but like another poster pointed out, it's a damn shame that these guys took their lumps and made mistakes as true freshman at Cal, but will now be making more significant contributions at other schools.

---

Ragin....Buh legacy.

beeasyed;842340439 said:

---

and Ragin also had 1.5 sacks on back-to-back plays in just 1 game. he, among others, had high ceilings. but like another poster pointed out, it's a damn shame that these guys took their lumps and made mistakes as true freshman at Cal, but will now be making more significant contributions at other schools.

---

He barely played last year.... Barely... While I get long term it sucks to lose him, but saying that we lost Ragin so our team is affected from the plays he made last year now gone is a false statement considering he barely played and didn't do very much at all. Yes it sucks, but it has nothing to do with what we lost from last year.

jamonit;842340448 said:

---

He barely played last year.... Barely... While I get long term it sucks to lose him, but saying that we lost Ragin so our team is affected from the plays he made last year now gone is a false statement considering he barely played and didn't do very much at all. Yes it sucks, but it has nothing to do with what we lost from last year.

---

read what i wrote....

i gave you a stat from a game, said Ragin has high potential, and that it's unfortunate that he made his frosh mistakes at Cal and will likely be making a bigger contribution for someone else this year (in our conference).

never said losing Ragin alone means our team will be noticeably worse off.

beeasyed;842340451 said:

---

read what i wrote....

i gave you a stat from a game, said Ragin has high potential, and that it's unfortunate that he made his frosh mistakes at Cal and will likely be making a bigger contribution for someone else this year (in our conference).

never said losing Ragin alone means our team will be noticeably worse off.

---

Right and I agreed with that... It sucks, but I was just making sure people that keep claiming massive or a lot of turnover which means we will be worse this year that we actually did not lose that much production from last years team at all. I agree losing Ragin sucks, but Whitener I wasn't that high on. He seemed really slow to me. That reminds me we get Broussard back as well and he is going to be a good Mike for us!

ragin was a loss for the future. He MIGHT have played some or a lot this year, but it's open to dispute with Broussard now apparently holding the middle, Jefferson on one side and a plethora of options for the other side now. He certainly has a lot of athletic potential, but it is what it is now.

LB depth assuming health isn't too bad suddenly. Broussard, Nickerson and Tandy middle (I think). Jefferson, Barton, Wainwright, Gibson, Downs etc on the outsides....it looks suddenly maybe better.

Like CB suddenly looks better too after being VERY worried about the depth

moonpod;842340477 said:

---

ragin was a loss for the future. He MIGHT have played some or a lot this year, but it's open to dispute with Broussard now apparently holding the middle, Jefferson on one side and a plethora of options for the other side now. He certainly has a lot of athletic potential, but it is what it is now.

LB depth assuming health isn't too bad suddenly. Broussard, Nickerson and Tandy middle (I think). Jefferson, Barton, Wainwright, Gibson, Downs etc on the outsides....it looks suddenly maybe better.

Like CB suddenly looks better too after being VERY worried about the depth

---

My concerns start and end with the DL. What we have is an unknown quantity (outside of scarlett) and we don't have much of it. If we can't consistently hold the LOS on defense we are in for a long season on defense again.

jamonit;842340458 said:

---

Right and I agreed with that... It sucks, but I was just making sure people that keep claiming massive or a lot of turnover which means we will be worse this year that we actually did not lose that much production from last years team at all. I agree losing Ragin sucks, but Whitener I wasn't that high on. He seemed really slow to me. That reminds me we get Broussard back as well and he is going to be a good Mike for us!

---

every team experiences 20-30% turnover, every year. and most of those guys are the better players (either turning pro or graduating). yet everyone else is a lot better. our coaching is/was abysmal. we made a lot of changes. it should be noticeably better this year. it has to be, or sonny needs to go. or maybe make kaufman the new coach and demote sonny to OC if art has success on D.

Vandalus;842340494 said:

---

My concerns start and end with the DL. What we have is an unknown quantity (outside of scarlett) and we don't have much of it. If we can't consistently hold the LOS on defense we are in for a long season on defense again.

---

i think we held the LOS alright last year, but that was it. we stalled at the LOS, didn't get much push, and gave the opposing QB an eternity (in fb time) to throw to his targets.

no pass rush at ALL. while DT is a concern, healthy DE is even more critical. we desperately need Scarlett, Barr, Sina etc. to play consistently. i had high hopes for Antoine Davis when he signed, same goes for John Johnson this year. excited to see what they can do.

i think between David Davis and Mekari, we'll get some decent 2nd team play. will be a dropoff whenever Jalil and Kelly aren't in the mix though, from what it looks like now. Wilfley, Clark, and Manley, i don't expect to see much of, but still 3 weeks left to go.

and in addition to all of that...Cal needs to earn back its credibility. we need to instill fear into the opposing QBs, and confidence into our team. i think that starts and ends with the defense. we need to roll hard and fast against Northwestern Game 1 if we want a decent season.


edit: is Sina really playing DE at 275??? or is that his injury weight?

would agree with Ed. We held the LOS. We just didn't friggin do anything else after that. QBs parked themselves comfortably back there. Backs got to the edge

blah blah blah

moonpod;842340515 said:

---

would agree with Ed. We held the LOS. We just didn't friggin do anything else after that. QBs parked themselves comfortably back there. Backs got to the edge

blah blah blah

---

Man Camp was so bad at containing the edge. Really hoping Scarlett can stay healthy and make a difference there.

calbear93;842340185 said:

---

I don't think you are quite getting it. People have claimed here that we will not win more than 2 games. Jam is asking those people to back up their claims. Jam never stated that we will win more than 5 games. Got it?

---

In post #19, Jam stated "I am willing to put my belief that we will win over 3 games on the line... " I concluded that he meant that Cal will win a minimum of 4 and when asked, he confirmed that. Neither of us mentioned 5 games won...

My laughter was directed at his post that while telling those with a contrary view to "step up," he declined the counter offer. Not saying anyone was right or wrong, just that it was humorous. Does that clear it up any?

moonpod;842340515 said:

---

would agree with Ed. We held the LOS. We just didn't friggin do anything else after that. QBs parked themselves comfortably back there. Backs got to the edge

blah blah blah

---

Yeah I mean - maybe I wasn't clear enough. In pass D the interior D line is not supposed to hold the LOS. They are supposed to penetrate. Depending upon the call it's either attack (assuming pass) or hold the LOS and read run/pass and then react accordingly. This is a gross oversimplification obviously, but generally it holds true, especially for a defensive tackle position. If you hold position for a run d call, and see pass you get after the QB.

Frankly, I am very concerned about our numbers, size and strength in the middle of our defense in holding up against the run. Last year, we routinely were gashed in the middle of our defense, and if we have any injuries to our talented guys (read Moose), we will again be relying upon our youngish and smaller LB's to make the right run fits. Last year we gave up 4.9 yards per rush (versus gaining 3.5 on offense). We ranked 100th in rush defense per attempt. Our total rush D per game was 87th in D1, and that was only a reflection of how poor our pass defense was (we were last in the country @ 341 yards per game... second last was Idaho who gave up 315 per game!). As the adage goes, If you can't rush and you can't stop the rush you are not going to win very many games. Of course for us, it could be amended to "if you can't stop anything at all you are going to be lucky to win even one game against a FCS team."

CalZebra2012;842340521 said:

---

In post #19, Jam stated "I am willing to put my belief that we will win over 3 games on the line... " I concluded that he meant that Cal will win a minimum of 4 and when asked, he confirmed that. Neither of us mentioned 5 games won...

My laughter was directed at his post that while telling those with a contrary view to "step up," he declined the counter offer. Not saying anyone was right or wrong, just that it was humorous. Does that clear it up any?

---

I am declining the 5 or more never post again bet. My bet is simple and not nearly the risk. If you don't see the difference in me asking people that are locked hard on not winning more than 2 games to not post after we do until the season is over or I won't for at least a month compared to me saying they may win 4-5 games, but I feel very confident they will win more than 2 for sure to me not taking a bet of 5 or more with a lot more risk I don't know what to tell you. There is a difference and as you can see by the lack of people taking the bet no one really truly believes we will only win 2. No one really truly believes we will be worse this year. Everyone is expecting improvement with exception of GB54.

jamonit;842340531 said:

---

I am declining the 5 or more never post again bet. My bet is simple and not nearly the risk. If you don't see the difference in me asking people that are locked hard on not winning more than 2 games to not post after we do until the season is over or I won't for at least a month compared to me saying they may win 4-5 games, but I feel very confident they will win more than 2 for sure to me not taking a bet of 5 or more with a lot more risk I don't know what to tell you. There is a difference and as you can see by the lack of people taking the bet no one really truly believes we will only win 2. No one really truly believes we will be worse this year. Everyone is expecting improvement with exception of GB54.

---

I see the difference. Again, I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong just that "step up" and "no thanks" sounded funny in the same response. You'd be INSANE to say Cal will win 5 games. You did say that you believed that they will win 4. I personally don't believe that we'll win more than 2 but I'm not willing to bet on it, just like you won't bet on 4 wins. Incidentally, you not posting doesn't benefit me in any manner. I'm fine with your opinion.

Just to set things straight, I, and many others that share my opinion, pray that we are wrong and that Cal will win many games. Some of us just believe that it's not going to happen yet. It's not negative to state an objective opinion, particularly when some of us can articulate why we believe what we do. I'm still rooting for Cal, still going to sit through rainy games with disheartening scores. And I always will.