This thread really captures the psyche of an SC toolbag (except cheating, they're good at hiding that from public view)

I don't even like the word ******, but man do they have a lock on it.

Three key themes

• We would have lost to Texas, Stanfurd and Western Michigan
• They really, really hate Wilcox. A lot.
• They are ******s

Favorite line: Clay Helton knows PAC 12 in an out and he designed USC to rule the PAC 12.


edit: wow, I didn't know that feminine products were banned on BI.

But seriously: It's annoying that people are downgrading our victories. I mean, jesus, our first game was on the road, 3,000 miles away, with a first-time head coach, with a QB who never took a snap.


Today I listened to Jon Wilner interview longtime (since 1996) USC beat reporter Scott Wolf, he kind of paints Helton as a moron. But just the right kind of moron to run USC -- as in, he's not Lane Kiffin dumb, but not Pete Carroll brilliant.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/01/podcast-inside-uscs-scott-wolf-on-the-hype-the-depth-chart-and-the-potential-traps-awaiting-the-trojans-and-much-more/

Clay Helton is definitely not in the Bill Walsh spectrum of coaching intelligentsia. I have a feeling that Wilcox will be there someday, if not already.

95bears said:

---

This thread really captures the psyche of an SC toolbag (except cheating, they're good at hiding that from public view)

I don't even like the word ******, but man do they have a lock on it.

Three key themes

• We would have lost to Texas, Stanfurd and Western Michigan
• They really, really hate Wilcox. A lot.
• They are ******s

Favorite line: Clay Helton knows PAC 12 in an out and he designed USC to rule the PAC 12.


edit: wow, I didn't know that feminine products were banned on BI.

---

Is it "tampon", or a brand, like "Always"? So many of them have six letters!

Going to guess this rhymes with swooshery.

If we win a couple of conference championships and start to sound like that, I hope the moderators will do the right thing and kill this board.

Sebastabear said:

---

Going to guess this rhymes with swooshery.

---

Ding ding ding.

okaydo said:

---

But seriously: It's annoying that people are downgrading our victories. I mean, jesus, our first game was on the road, 3,000 miles away, with a first-time head coach, with a QB who never took a snap.


Today I listened to Jon Wilner interview longtime (since 1996) USC beat reporter Scott Wolf, he kind of paints Helton as a moron. But just the right kind of moron to run USC -- as in, he's not Lane Kiffin dumb, but not Pete Carroll brilliant.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/01/podcast-inside-uscs-scott-wolf-on-the-hype-the-depth-chart-and-the-potential-traps-awaiting-the-trojans-and-much-more/

---

Tee Martin is exactly a MENSA candidate either. He still has one of the lowest Wunderlic scores ever recorded. We're talking Jeff George territory. But when you recruit the kind of low character/low intelligence athlete-students that USC does, that may work out for them. It means a bunch of W's but also a lot of guys in legal trouble and and not a single person on the All-Academic first of second teams. I suppose that's one way to build a program but I'm just glad we don't go that route.

Who cares about their board and what they have to say? USC football owns Cal. Period. Until the Bears win they can talk **** forever and it won't change how I feel.

I'm glad some of them are talking smack. It means they're taking us seriously again. I have a lot of SC friends and we used to talk **** to each other but somewhere in the last several years it just stopped because it wasn't fun anymore since an SC victory was taken for granted.

oskirules said:

---

If we win a couple of conference championships and start to sound like that, I hope the moderators will do the right thing and kill this board.

---

Not sure your mods have anything to worry about.

The level of obnoxiousness is very high but cmon. Cal hasn't shown a pulse in a game against them for a long time and they are feeling insecure cause after Texas and west mich with a Stanford contrast they don't really know what to make of the team. F them but we need to show something on the field Saturday

moonpod said:

---

The level of obnoxiousness is very high but cmon. Cal hasn't shown a pulse in a game against them for a long time and they are feeling insecure cause after Texas and west mich with a Stanford contrast they don't really know what to make of the team. F them but we need to show something on the field Saturday

---

I know this is fashionable to say, because 13 is ugly, but it's not true. In 2015, we scored with 3:52 left to cut their lead to 27-21. We needed one stop. We did not get it. Still, that's a pulse. In 2014, we were down 38-16 midway through the 4th and got two scores to cut it to 38-30. We did not get the onside kick, and they won. Still, if you have an onside kick with a chance to win/tie, that's a pulse. In both of those games, we are a couple plays from victory. Let's not act like they were all like 2010.

2015 we KNEW (and the condoms knew) we weren't gonna get that stop.
2014 as much as we closed that scoring gap at no point did the condoms feel threatened. That was the ?sebastian Avery? Unsportsmanlike conduct game wasn't it? Weren't we blown out in the first half and the toejams slept walked through the beginning of the 2nd half. I was in the stands at the mausoleum. Cmon man. You know we haven't TRULY scared them in a game in awhile. Unfortunately RIGHT NOW they have every right to be obnoxious ******s vis a vis this game. I hope Wilcox slaps their douchy faces hard on sat and it wakes them up and changes that. Be nice REAL NICE to ruin their season

moonpod said:

---

2015 we KNEW (and the condoms knew) we weren't gonna get that stop.
2014 as much as we closed that scoring gap at no point did the condoms feel threatened. That was the ?sebastian Avery? Unsportsmanlike conduct game wasn't it? Weren't we blown out in the first half and the toejams slept walked through the beginning of the 2nd half. I was in the stands at the mausoleum. Cmon man. You know we haven't TRULY scared them in a game in awhile. Unfortunately RIGHT NOW they have every right to be obnoxious ******s vis a vis this game. I hope Wilcox slaps their douchy faces hard on sat and it wakes them up and changes that. Be nice REAL NICE to ruin their season

---

As I recall, we even had their running back stopped behind the first down marker on 3rd down, but he made a second effort to get across. No, we didn't know. After a dozen or so losses in a row, you don't believe, but you don't know. You can be a pessimist all you like. But you can't say we haven't "shown a pulse" in years when 2 of the last 3 years we were one possession away.

This isn't about being a pessimist. I'm actually fairly optimistic we are gonna give them a game with a punchers chance at an upset.

72CalBear said:

---

Who cares about their board and what they have to say? USC football owns Cal. Period. Until the Bears win they can talk **** forever and it won't change how I feel.

---

that's not in dispute. I think it's worth reminding ourselves why we hate them. That they're mildy irritated that this might not be a free spot on the bingo card is an amusing bonus.

GMP said:

---

moonpod said:

---

The level of obnoxiousness is very high but cmon. Cal hasn't shown a pulse in a game against them for a long time and they are feeling insecure cause after Texas and west mich with a Stanford contrast they don't really know what to make of the team. F them but we need to show something on the field Saturday

---

I know this is fashionable to say, because 13 is ugly, but it's not true. In 2015, we scored with 3:52 left to cut their lead to 27-21. We needed one stop. We did not get it. Still, that's a pulse. In 2014, we were down 38-16 midway through the 4th and got two scores to cut it to 38-30. We did not get the onside kick, and they won. Still, if you have an onside kick with a chance to win/tie, that's a pulse. In both of those games, we are a couple plays from victory. Let's not act like they were all like 2010.

---

I think this kind of typifies one thing thats wrong with a Bears fan. Downplaying the streak. Does it really matter that we were somehow "close" to tying the game with a touchdown in 2015? An onside kick away from getting the ball with an 8 point deficit?

In 2015 it was 24-7 midway at 9 minutes into the 3rd quarter. That's not having a pulse. It was 24-14 with 5 minutes left in the 3rd quarter. Still a loss. I suppose we did show a pulse when it was too late.

In 2014, it was 31-9 at halftime. That's a pulse? It was 38-16 with 11 minutes to go in the 4th. USC obviously took their foot off the gas. We weren't in that game until the miracle prospect of an onside kick recovery.

Forget about arguing the past games. It doesn't matter. We lost. Whether we had a pulse or not. We lost. Please let's just win this weekend and put to bed for a year the SC snobbery.

philly1121 said:

---

GMP said:

---

moonpod said:

---

The level of obnoxiousness is very high but cmon. Cal hasn't shown a pulse in a game against them for a long time and they are feeling insecure cause after Texas and west mich with a Stanford contrast they don't really know what to make of the team. F them but we need to show something on the field Saturday

---

I know this is fashionable to say, because 13 is ugly, but it's not true. In 2015, we scored with 3:52 left to cut their lead to 27-21. We needed one stop. We did not get it. Still, that's a pulse. In 2014, we were down 38-16 midway through the 4th and got two scores to cut it to 38-30. We did not get the onside kick, and they won. Still, if you have an onside kick with a chance to win/tie, that's a pulse. In both of those games, we are a couple plays from victory. Let's not act like they were all like 2010.

---

I think this kind of typifies one thing thats wrong with a Bears fan. Downplaying the streak. Does it really matter that we were somehow "close" to tying the game with a touchdown in 2015? An onside kick away from getting the ball with an 8 point deficit?

In 2015 it was 24-7 midway at 9 minutes into the 3rd quarter. That's not having a pulse. It was 24-14 with 5 minutes left in the 3rd quarter. Still a loss. I suppose we did show a pulse when it was too late.

In 2014, it was 31-9 at halftime. That's a pulse? It was 38-16 with 11 minutes to go in the 4th. USC obviously took their foot off the gas. We weren't in that game until the miracle prospect of an onside kick recovery.

Forget about arguing the past games. It doesn't matter. We lost. Whether we had a pulse or not. We lost. Please let's just win this weekend and put to bed for a year the SC snobbery.

---

I'm not downplaying the streak. I'm just disputing the assertion we "haven't showed a pulse" against them, which is what I think is wrong with (some) Cal fans. 13 in a row sucks, but again - they weren't all 2010. If the assertion had been, "The level of obnoxiousness is high, but come on, they've beat us 13 in a row," I would have not commented.

GMP said:

---

moonpod said:

---

2015 we KNEW (and the condoms knew) we weren't gonna get that stop.
2014 as much as we closed that scoring gap at no point did the condoms feel threatened. That was the ?sebastian Avery? Unsportsmanlike conduct game wasn't it? Weren't we blown out in the first half and the toejams slept walked through the beginning of the 2nd half. I was in the stands at the mausoleum. Cmon man. You know we haven't TRULY scared them in a game in awhile. Unfortunately RIGHT NOW they have every right to be obnoxious ******s vis a vis this game. I hope Wilcox slaps their douchy faces hard on sat and it wakes them up and changes that. Be nice REAL NICE to ruin their season

---

As I recall, we even had their running back stopped behind the first down marker on 3rd down, but he made a second effort to get across. No, we didn't know. After a dozen or so losses in a row, you don't believe, but you don't know. You can be a pessimist all you like. But you can't say we haven't "shown a pulse" in years when 2 of the last 3 years we were one possession away.

---

It was nice to see us come back in 2014, but in 2015 even if we got that stop, do you think we would have been able to march down for the winning score, especially since Goff threw 2 picks that day, including a pick-6? Except for 2006 and 2007, and maybe 2008, we haven't shown that we could seriously threaten them, in 2015 Helton went pretty conservative with the gameplan because he knew he didn't have to worry too much.

MoragaBear said:

---

Breaking news! Cal's got a new OC!

"The Cal offense is led by offensive coordinator Marques Tuiasosopo"

---

I'm excited to see Marques take over the Baldwin offense, now that Baldwin is HC. I wish Coach Wilcox good luck in the NFL - thanks for the Rose Bowls! Go Bears!

Sincerely,
2021

Strykur said:

---

GMP said:

---

moonpod said:

---

2015 we KNEW (and the condoms knew) we weren't gonna get that stop.
2014 as much as we closed that scoring gap at no point did the condoms feel threatened. That was the ?sebastian Avery? Unsportsmanlike conduct game wasn't it? Weren't we blown out in the first half and the toejams slept walked through the beginning of the 2nd half. I was in the stands at the mausoleum. Cmon man. You know we haven't TRULY scared them in a game in awhile. Unfortunately RIGHT NOW they have every right to be obnoxious ******s vis a vis this game. I hope Wilcox slaps their douchy faces hard on sat and it wakes them up and changes that. Be nice REAL NICE to ruin their season

---

As I recall, we even had their running back stopped behind the first down marker on 3rd down, but he made a second effort to get across. No, we didn't know. After a dozen or so losses in a row, you don't believe, but you don't know. You can be a pessimist all you like. But you can't say we haven't "shown a pulse" in years when 2 of the last 3 years we were one possession away.

---

It was nice to see us come back in 2014, but in 2015 even if we got that stop, do you think we would have been able to march down for the winning score, especially since Goff threw 2 picks that day, including a pick-6? Except for 2006 and 2007, and maybe 2008, we haven't shown that we could seriously threaten them, in 2015 Helton went pretty conservative with the gameplan because he knew he didn't have to worry too much.

---

Okay so your assertion is if Cal's defense had a pulse in 2014 and 2015, those games were very winnable? I would agree. And would you say Cal's defense now has said pulse? I would also agree. And would all that suggest that maybe SC fans shouldn't be so quick to assume Saturday's game will be an easy win for SC? Yes. Yes it would. Because even under Sonny "no defense, one-dimensional offense" Dykes, Cal has had competitive games against SC. There's no reason to expect less with better coaches and the game at home. (Not that there aren't match up issues, there certainly are.)

Go Bears!!

Here's an interesting quote from Paul Chryst at Wisconsin about Wilcox and his time at the crap SC program:

"I was fortunate because I felt like I had a ton of people who knew that situation," Chryst told the newspaper. "I think it's: 'What did you learn? How did you come out of it?' And (it helped) when you knew what was in his control and what wasn't. I think those things are what helps build you. We're products of our experiences and how we go through them.

"Then when you heard the whole story not from Justin, but from others you're pumped, actually."

Thoroughly enjoying this thread.

You may not be laughing Saturday evening!

The reality is that SC hasn't beaten anyone worth a damn yet. Their fans need to sober up.

Strykur said:

---

GMP said:

---

moonpod said:

---

2015 we KNEW (and the condoms knew) we weren't gonna get that stop.
2014 as much as we closed that scoring gap at no point did the condoms feel threatened. That was the ?sebastian Avery? Unsportsmanlike conduct game wasn't it? Weren't we blown out in the first half and the toejams slept walked through the beginning of the 2nd half. I was in the stands at the mausoleum. Cmon man. You know we haven't TRULY scared them in a game in awhile. Unfortunately RIGHT NOW they have every right to be obnoxious ******s vis a vis this game. I hope Wilcox slaps their douchy faces hard on sat and it wakes them up and changes that. Be nice REAL NICE to ruin their season

---

As I recall, we even had their running back stopped behind the first down marker on 3rd down, but he made a second effort to get across. No, we didn't know. After a dozen or so losses in a row, you don't believe, but you don't know. You can be a pessimist all you like. But you can't say we haven't "shown a pulse" in years when 2 of the last 3 years we were one possession away.

---

It was nice to see us come back in 2014, but in 2015 even if we got that stop, do you think we would have been able to march down for the winning score, especially since Goff threw 2 picks that day, including a pick-6? Except for 2006 and 2007, and maybe 2008, we haven't shown that we could seriously threaten them, in 2015 Helton went pretty conservative with the gameplan because he knew he didn't have to worry too much.

---

I have no idea. But the fact you're asking if we would have made a game-winning drive sorta proves my point. We had a pulse that day. Geeze.

It's pretty clear that Helton is an ok coach. I think he's the perfect coach for Cal to have at USC...he is just good enough not to get fired, but not good enough to ever be dominant. It's also clear that he's a very reactionary coach as well. I mean this is the clown who gave Max Browne the starting job because he had seniority even though everyone knew Darnold was better. The days of "always compete" of Pete Carroll are over.

hanky1 said:

---

It's pretty clear that Helton is an ok coach. I think he's the perfect coach for Cal to have at USC...he is just good enough not to get fired, but not good enough to ever be dominant. It's also clear that he's a very reactionary coach as well. I mean this is the clown who gave Max Browne the starting job because he had seniority even though everyone knew Darnold was better. The days of "always compete" of Pete Carroll are over.

---

I preferred Sarkisian for this reason

ibhoagiesforlife said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

It's pretty clear that Helton is an ok coach. I think he's the perfect coach for Cal to have at USC...he is just good enough not to get fired, but not good enough to ever be dominant. It's also clear that he's a very reactionary coach as well. I mean this is the clown who gave Max Browne the starting job because he had seniority even though everyone knew Darnold was better. The days of "always compete" of Pete Carroll are over.

---

I preferred Sarkisian for this reason

---

Tequila Steve for head coach, Joey Freshwater for OC.

hanky1 said:

---

It's pretty clear that Helton is an ok coach. I think he's the perfect coach for Cal to have at USC...he is just good enough not to get fired, but not good enough to ever be dominant. It's also clear that he's a very reactionary coach as well. I mean this is the clown who gave Max Browne the starting job because he had seniority even though everyone knew Darnold was better. The days of "always compete" of Pete Carroll are over.

---

LULZ...That's not why Max started over Sam. It had everything to do with roster management and not going into the season with only Sam, Matt Fink, and Jalen Greene as the only scholarship QB's.