Wags;842595696 said:

---

I've been saying for weeks that WSU is the real deal.
We are really lucky that we played them early.

---

We should have played Oregon before Adams got well, too. :headbang

pappysghost;842592993 said:

---

Great, we can roll a lousy team down to there 3rd string QB. We could have won that game with any of the high school QB's in the area, let alone the ones on our roster. I'm not impressed with the 760 total yards. Get 500+ next week and then talk to me. Score 35 points next week and then talk to me. Keep Goff upright next week and then talk to me. Hold Stanford under 200 yards rushing next week and then talk to me. Throw half as many TD's next week and then talk to me. Play a game with 1 turnover next week and then talk to me. Show me we have at least scouted the Stanford offense - hold Hogan under 75 yards rushing and then talk to me. Keep McCaffrey from having 300+ yards of total offense and then talk to me.

Working the clock?!! OMG, we should have been working the clock more towards the end of the 3rd and in the 4th. Absolutely absurd to be snapping the ball with 15+ seconds on the play clock under those circumstances. I almost had to turn it off. For $5 million a year you would think our coach would have a sense for when milking the clock is just as important or more than getting points. Whoever is calling the plays should understand this. We've got serious problems that Stanford will expose next week. I predict we'll have more pass interference penalties than TD passes. It's not going to be pretty.

---

Earlier this year the gripe on this board was "Sonny hasn't beaten a team with a winning record."
Now that Sonny has beaten WSU (7-3) and SDU (7-3); the gripe on this board is "Sonny has beaten a good team...("good" by my standards)."

68great;842595820 said:

---

Earlier this year the gripe on this board was "Sonny hasn't beaten a team with a winning record."
Now that Sonny has beaten WSU (7-3) and SDU (7-3); the gripe on this board is "Sonny has beaten a good team...("good" by my standards)."

---

How about "Sonny hasn't beaten a team ranked in the top 25 (polls or Sagarin rankings)?"

berkeleybear;842595830 said:

---

how about "sonny hasn't beaten a team ranked in the top 25 (polls or sagarin rankings)?"

---

wsu

How about we admit were really pleased to be boel eligible. I am. And I am one who thought he was a failure because he couldn't beat a team with a winning record. Well, now he has. Wash St. I don't count SDSU as a win that matters, though it is one of the six. I am really happy for Sonny, the team, and for we alums and fans.

oski003;842595836 said:

---

wsu

---

I should have phrased it as how about "Sonny hasn't beaten a team ranked in the top 25 (polls or Sagarin rankings) at the time that Cal played them?"

How about "Sonny hasn't beaten an in state PAC-12 team?"

1979bear;842595838 said:

---

How about we admit were really pleased to be boel eligible. I am. And I am one who thought he was a failure because he couldn't beat a team with a winning record. Well, now he has. Wash St. I don't count SDSU as a win that matters, though it is one of the six. I am really happy for Sonny, the team, and for we alums and fans.

---

OK so SDSU is not in the PAC12; but it is a team with a winning record and will be going to a bowl this season.
I too am happy for us alums.
[Sorry I couldn't pass that up that grammatical error. My 6th grade teacher Sister Mary Magdalene would call me aloud out in class whenever I failed to use the objective case following a preposition. "to me, to us, for me, for us .... (blah, blah, blah)."]

BerkeleyBear;842595847 said:

---

How about "Sonny hasn't beaten an in state PAC-12 team?"

---

Sonny has beaten CU, Wazzu and Oregon State in-state.

How about beat a California or Arizona Pac-12 team? He's got two shots at it in the next two weeks.

How about ... so what?
If we beat $c or fucla or furd, the focus will just narrow to whining about the remaining ones we haven't beaten.
So, have a bottle of cheap wine, and whine on.

Golden One;842592999 said:

---

I agree that it's not going to be pretty. We'll be manhandled by Stanfurd. Won't be close.

---

Would love to have you speak to the team before the game. Or, better yet, where were you before the "82 Big Game, or the 2003 Cal-USC game? Having played, and coached, and now a devoted fan, I approach each game the same way: we CAN win. Good luck to our outstanding students/athletes.

Go Bears. Beat Furd.

:beer:

You have just nailed it.

SonOfCalVa;842595856 said:

---

How about ... so what?
If we beat $c or fucla or furd, the focus will just narrow to whining about the remaining ones we haven't beaten.
So, have a bottle of cheap wine, and whine on.

---

Okay, so how about "Sonny hasn't gotten Cal to the Rose Bowl?"

I may whine, but never with cheap wine.

68great;842595820 said:

---

Earlier this year the gripe on this board was "Sonny hasn't beaten a team with a winning record."
Now that Sonny has beaten WSU (7-3) and SDU (7-3); the gripe on this board is "Sonny has beaten a good team...("good" by my standards)."

---

I was the one that first discussed Sonny's record against winning teams and I have never made an issue about him never beating a team with a winning record. (I acknowledge others have). I analyzed his record not just at Cal but as a head coach overall. Of the top of my head, I believe it was 3-29, but don't have my data handy. I certainly was planning to update it at the end of the year when the records are actually in.

Right now, if WSU keeps up like they are, that will be easily Dykes most impressive win to date. And I wont caveat that with the "good thing we got them early". We got them when we got them and we beat them. No telling if they are better now than then. I tend to think if they are better now, it is marginal. They turned the ball over I think 4 times and we barely hung on. It was a good win. I'm less impressed with SDSU. They were terrible in out of conference, don't play Boise, and their conference is terrible - the second place teams in their division have bad losses also. Honestly, not sure it is a better win than UT and UW. But a win is a win and when you start the season 3-29 you take it.

But do you really think the point of analyzing his record against winning teams is to say he hasn't beaten one? And then if he beats one we move on and never analyze his record against winning teams. Check. did that. Now I can lose the next 100 and no one can say a thing.

His record overall against winning teams is a very relevant stat and his record over time is a relevant stat. (obviously if he was 8-0 against winning teams this year it would pretty much put an end to the relevance of his time at LaTech). I have no intention of being unfair. I do have every intention of discussing it whether it implies he is good or poor.

OaktownBear;842595870 said:

---

Right now, if WSU keeps up like they are, that will be easily Dykes most impressive win to date. And I wont caveat that with the "good thing we got them early". We got them when we got them and we beat them. No telling if they are better now than then. I tend to think if they are better now, it is marginal. They turned the ball over I think 4 times and we barely hung on. It was a good win.

---

I would characterize WSU as about on par with Cal. WSU's Sagarin ranking is 40 while Cal's is 31.

I think a signficant difference between WSU and Cal is schedule (and hence Cal's higher Sagarin ranking). I believe that WSU played Oregon (and beat them) when Vernon Adams was out, and WSU has Arizona and Colorado instead of Utah and USC. If Cal had WSU's schedule, Cal could well be 7-3 or 8-2 (or maybe even 9-1 if one thinks that Cal could have beaten Oregon without Vernon Admans), but schedules are what they are, and teams must play the schedule as it is arranged.

Irishbear;842595857 said:

---

Would love to have you speak to the team before the game. Or, better yet, where were you before the "82 Big Game, or the 2003 Cal-USC game? Having played, and coached, and now a devoted fan, I approach each game the same way: we CAN win. Good luck to our outstanding students/athletes.

Go Bears. Beat Furd.

:beer:

---

I was at both of the games you mentioned. In my opinion, however, the talent disparity between Cal and its opponent was not as great in either of those as it is in Saturday's Big Game. There is no comparison between the OL and DL of Stanfurd and the OL and DL of Cal. And that's where the game will be won. They will stop our running game and put incredible pressure on Goff, thereby neutralizing our passing game. We will not be able to stop McCaffrey or put significant pressure on Hogan. I wish it weren't so, but I'm afraid it is. I also, however, wish good luck to our student athletes. GO BEARS!

Golden One;842595887 said:

---

In my opinion, however, the talent disparity between Cal and its opponent was not as great in either of those as it is in Saturday's Big Game. There is no comparison between the OL and DL of Stanfurd and the OL and DL of Cal. And that's where the game will be won. They will stop our running game and put incredible pressure on Goff, thereby neutralizing our passing game. We will not be able to stop McCaffrey or put significant pressure on Hogan. I wish it weren't so, but I'm afraid it is. I also, however, wish good luck to our student athletes. GO BEARS!

---

LSJU certainly has more talent on the LOS than Cal does, and the old adage is that "the game of football is won and lost at the line of scrimmage."

The talant disparity between the 1982 Big Game teams and the 2003 Cal-USC teams was relatively less than it is in this year's Big Game. However, this year's Big Game talent disparity is probably the smallest since at least 2011.

I think that Cal could win on Saturday, but I don't think that is the likely outcome.

How many times has Cal won on the farm as a double digit underdog? I don't think that it has happened very often.

The probabilities indicate that LSJU will likely win, but I'd love to see Cal bring the Axe back to Berkeley, and we'll have an appropriate Grand crus Champagne ready just in case.

I'm not saying you take your foot off the gas. Just let the play clock run down another 10 to 15 seconds before you snap the ball. Why unnecessarily leave extra time on the clock? Because we can't score if the defense gets to rest another 10 seconds? That's absurd.

BerkeleyBear;842595903 said:

---

LSJU certainly has more talent on the LOS than Cal does, and the old adage is that "the game of football is won and lost at the line of scrimmage."

The talant disparity between the 1982 Big Game teams and the 2003 Cal-USC teams was relatively less than it is in this year's Big Game. However, this year's Big Game talent disparity is probably the smallest since at least 2011.

I think that Cal could win on Saturday, but I don't think that is the likely outcome.

How many times has Cal won on the farm as a double digit underdog? I don't think that it has happened very often.

The probabilities indicate that LSJU will likely win, but I'd love to see Cal bring the Axe back to Berkeley, and we'll have an appropriate Grand crus Champagne ready just in case.

---

Why is 1982 part of this conversation? We had a better record than they did and Cal had a lot of good players including several future NFL guys. There was no issue of talent disparity going into that game.

BerkeleyBear;842595847 said:

---

How about "Sonny hasn't beaten an in state PAC-12 team?"

---

How about amending the agreement that we 'must' play UCLA and USC every year. It might guarantee us one extra victory by substituting an AZ or Colo. It's ridiculous to compel us to play the LA schools every year and the Furd as presently constituted. It's enough we play our arch-rival every November. We don't have to please the Trojans so their fans get a Bay Area Weekend every season. Both school exist in the midst of great recruitment opportunities and take advantage of that to our detriment. It's enough that recruits must have a 3.0 out of high school. Do we also have to punish ourselves by playing the two top recruitment schools in California? You want to see a better W-L record, get rid of the LA schools on our schedule.

6bear6;842596315 said:

---

How about amending the agreement that we 'must' play UCLA and USC every year. It might guarantee us one extra victory by substituting an AZ or Colo. It's ridiculous to compel us to play the LA schools every year and the Furd as presently constituted. It's enough we play our arch-rival every November. We don't have to please the Trojans so their fans get a Bay Area Weekend every season. Both school exist in the midst of great recruitment opportunities and take advantage of that to our detriment. It's enough that recruits must have a 3.0 out of high school. Do we also have to punish ourselves by playing the two top recruitment schools in California? You want to see a better W-L record, get rid of the LA schools on our schedule.

---

But USC and UCLA love to play us every year; it gives them one guaranteed win. Sort of like us playing Grambling or Portland State.

6bear6;842596315 said:

---

How about amending the agreement that we 'must' play UCLA and USC every year. It might guarantee us one extra victory by substituting an AZ or Colo. It's ridiculous to compel us to play the LA schools every year and the Furd as presently constituted. It's enough we play our arch-rival every November. We don't have to please the Trojans so their fans get a Bay Area Weekend every season. Both school exist in the midst of great recruitment opportunities and take advantage of that to our detriment. It's enough that recruits must have a 3.0 out of high school. Do we also have to punish ourselves by playing the two top recruitment schools in California? You want to see a better W-L record, get rid of the LA schools on our schedule.

---

Sigh

Irishbear;842595857 said:

---

Would love to have you speak to the team before the game. Or, better yet, where were you before the "82 Big Game, or the 2003 Cal-USC game? Having played, and coached, and now a devoted fan, I approach each game the same way: we CAN win. Good luck to our outstanding students/athletes.

Go Bears. Beat Furd.

:beer:

---

Thanks for the post.
Funny how many fans who demand a "never give up" "never surrender" attitude from the team don't show one for themselves.
Of course it is a HUGE challenge to beat stanfurd. But get out there and DO IT!
As Yoda said to Luke Skywalker: "Do not 'Try'. But 'Do'.

And may the Force be with the Golden Bears!

6bear6;842596315 said:

---

How about amending the agreement that we 'must' play UCLA and USC every year. It might guarantee us one extra victory by substituting an AZ or Colo. It's ridiculous to compel us to play the LA schools every year and the Furd as presently constituted. It's enough we play our arch-rival every November. We don't have to please the Trojans so their fans get a Bay Area Weekend every season. Both school exist in the midst of great recruitment opportunities and take advantage of that to our detriment. It's enough that recruits must have a 3.0 out of high school. Do we also have to punish ourselves by playing the two top recruitment schools in California? You want to see a better W-L record, get rid of the LA schools on our schedule.

---

JesusFuckingChrist. You want to see a better W-L record, build a better program. Hire a fucking coach who can make the southern schools not want to play US.

BearsWiin;842596333 said:

---

JesusFuckingChrist. You want to see a better W-L record, build a better program. Hire a fucking coach who can make the southern schools not want to play US.

---

Quit your bitching and name Sonny's successor. Right now, all we're doing is banging our heads against a wall playing the LA schools. It's plain stupid!

6bear6;842596335 said:

---

Quit your bitching and name Sonny's successor. Right now, all we're doing is banging our heads against a wall playing the LA schools. It's plain stupid!

---

Your bullshit defeatism makes me want to puke.

BearsWiin;842596336 said:

---

Your bullshit defeatism makes me want to puke.

---

Don't let me stop you. Go ahead and puke. Stick your head down a toilet and flush.

6bear6;842596335 said:

---

Quit your bitching and name Sonny's successor. Right now, all we're doing is banging our heads against a wall playing the LA schools. It's plain stupid!

---

Maybe Cal should ask that Stanfurd should be moved to the PAC12 South so we wouldn't have to play Stanfurd every year as well.:sarc:

68great;842596349 said:

---

Maybe Cal should ask that Stanfurd should be moved to the PAC12 South so we wouldn't have to play Stanfurd every year as well.:sarc:

---

When did I say we shouldn't play the Furd? You missed the boat. It sailed and you didn't read my proposal. Just in case you missed it, it's based on the following:
Historically:
USC v. Cal - 68-30; they've won the last 12 in a row and 15 of their historical losses came before 1941.
UCLA v. Cal - 52-32; they've won the last 3 in a row and 8 of the last 15.
I'm proposing that we don't play BOTH LA schools every year. I'm not saying cancel them completely. Play one of them one year, the other the next. It's a bit fairer to Cal. If they were in our division there would be no basis for complaint, but since they are not what obligation do we have to continue the present setup?

I agree with Oak and others who have said that the win against the Cougs earlier in the year at home is likely the best in the SD era. Generally speaking, that's not saying much, but the Cougs are indeed looking like a good team this year...

With respect to them and other teams being better now, compared to earlier in the season, that can be a touchy topic and I like the approach Oak took there. We beat them.

If I were asked though, I would say that they are an improved ball club now, at least on offense. I like to look at PPG for the year, vs OOC play. Typically, as one might imagine, PPG will usually be lower in conference games, given the increased level of competition. The Cougs, as well as Stanford, really shine here though, with notably higher point production in conference games. As some might have guessed, we are one of the worst, 11th, just ahead of Arizona...

One can possibly attribute this to a team that is really coming together, like a young one, or with a young QB, one who is rapidly improving with much upside still ahead. Or, maybe to a coaching staff who is quite good at game planning familiar foes (conference opponents)...

6bear6;842596335 said:

---

Quit your bitching and name Sonny's successor. Right now, all we're doing is banging our heads against a wall playing the LA schools. It's plain stupid!

---

If you wish to discuss the wisdom of playing the LA schools every year as its own issue, fine. But when the discussion is the performance of the coach and you use it as a justification for the coach's record, that is not appropriate in my view. Every Cal coach for decades has played the LA schools every year. When the Pac-10 used to play 8 games, we always played the LA schools. Stanford is playing them right along with us and is winning the conference after beating both of them. He knew the schedule when he took the job. We could also give him an easier out of conference schedule if you want to do that. (I for one would rather play three patsies and keep the LA schools). We could leave the conference. If doing these things would be what Cal feels is best for the program going forward regardless of who the coach is, so be it. But Sonny has a schedule to play. It is his responsibility to perform against that schedule. Your response to his poor record against winning teams seems to be "Play fewer winning teams". I don't think that is the right way to go.

As for the question of whether we should play them every year outside of the coaching question, these are two of the longest running football rivalries around. It means something to a lot of our fans on both sides. I think we should maintain that tradition even if we lose a few more. We have been very competitive with UCLA for quite a while. Since ending the streak in 1990, we have a winning record against them (14-12) (Through Snyder, Gilby, Mooch, Holmoe, Tedford and Dykes.) Gilby had a winning record against them. Holmoe managed 2-3. Tedford had a winning record against them. And if you take the streak out of the equation, our overall record against them is 32-35-1. There is no historical reason to think we should not compete against them.

We've had a much tougher go against USC, as have most teams. Still would rather play against them and use that to strive to be better. We have played them since 1915. I think some things are important. Even if we took them off the schedule, we'd only miss them 1 out of 3 years. I don't see that ending the tradition so that we could have a somewhat easier game once every three years makes sense. I also don't think that 1 somewhat more difficult game every three years justifies this as an excuse for the coaches record being poor. If it makes you feel better to call Sonny 12-21 instead of 11-22 over his three years, fine by me. though, given it would give him extra games against Utah and ASU in the first two years, I'd say it is questionable that he would have had a better record.

Pac12 bureaucrats going to check with BI for scheduling, league re-assignments?
Or is this just doldum blather?

OaktownBear;842596289 said:

---

Why is 1982 part of this conversation? We had a better record than they did and Cal had a lot of good players including several future NFL guys. There was no issue of talent disparity going into that game.

---

I believe that IrishBear brought it up, but as I recall LSJU was considered by some to be a slightly better team with Elway (though the talent level was relatively close), and I think that LSJU would have gone to a bowl if they had won the Big Game.

the entire south outside of colorado is pretty good. even if we played arizona instead of say ucla or usc this year, i dont think that usc or ucla is substantially better than arizona this year if arizona has solomon playing.

6bear6;842596353 said:

---

When did I say we shouldn't play the Furd? You missed the boat. It sailed and you didn't read my proposal. Just in case you missed it, it's based on the following:
Historically:
USC v. Cal - 68-30; they've won the last 12 in a row and 15 of their historical losses came before 1941.
UCLA v. Cal - 52-32; they've won the last 3 in a row and 8 of the last 15.
I'm proposing that we don't play BOTH LA schools every year. I'm not saying cancel them completely. Play one of them one year, the other the next. It's a bit fairer to Cal. If they were in our division there would be no basis for complaint, but since they are not what obligation do we have to continue the present setup?

---

Nice cherry pick of the data on UCLA. They've won a whole 8 out of the last 15 (of course that number would be 5 out of 12 when Sonny took over) Since we started to get somewhat serious about football again and ended the streak in 1990, we are 14-12 against them. Or 14-9 when Sonny isn't coaching. Snyder was 2-3 (winning the last 2). Gilby was 3-1. Mooch lost his only shot. Holmoe managed 2-3. Tedford was 7-4. Since Snyder, no Cal coach has been further than 1 game under .500 (Mooch because he only played one game). Well, no coach but one. If you take Sonny out of the equation, we've not only been competitive against them over a 25 year period, we've gotten the better of them. Actually, EVEN INCLUDING SONNY'S FUTILITY, we've gotten the better of them.