bowers is learning! he threw it away...

People want to spin it one way or another. The fact is SC is a top ten team. Cal isn't a top 25 team. The disparity showed up in the score. Cal's defense is MUCH improved, the offense is considerably worse than last year.

This team is very much on target for 6-7 wins and a bowl, which is a HUGE accomplishment for Wilcox. But 6-7 win teams get stomped by the big boys. Let's not act surprised at this score, we should have expected it.

The turnaround will take time. Cal needs talent and coaches need experience. Cal is 2-3 years from being at a level where beating an SC can be a reasonable expectation.

Cal got stomped this year but had potential. Next year it'll be a close game. Year 3, maybe Cal's year. The long-term prospects are good.

Go Bears!!

Noa has some big balls and a big HEART!!!!!!!

01Bear said:

---

gotta prepare for my 20th high school reunion...see you all later...

---

Class of 1997

oursdor said:

---

510 Bear said:

---

I see everyone still hopes we become a Pac-12 contender instantly under Wilcox. The truth hurts, doesn't it?

We will definitely get better with him in charge, but it's going to be one step forward and two steps back. And will need us to step recruiting, which is the thing that takes the longest. Back in the JT era, we could say "we have talent, we're just not using it". Can you honestly say that now?

---

I don't think anyone is saying that four games in and only two weeks removed from a dogfight against an FCS team.

But the coaching is so clearly an upgrade at every single spot that we can't help but be excited about the future.

---

I don't think any of us expected to be a Pac-12 contender. I'd be thrilled if we make it to a bowl game, which is still possible. This is not in a game we anticipated winning. We need three more wins. I still think we have a good chance against Stanford Southern Branch, and Colorado. We should be able to beat Oregon State and Arizona.

How about a screen pass?

veasy

Veasy !!!

What a catch !

Uthaithani said:

---

People want to spin it one way or another. The fact is SC is a top ten team. Cal isn't a top 25 team. The disparity showed up in the score. Cal's defense is MUCH improved, the offense is considerably worse than last year.

This team is very much on target for 6-7 wins and a bowl, which is a HUGE accomplishment for Wilcox. But 6-7 win teams get stomped by the big boys. Let's not act surprised at this score, we should have expected it.

The turnaround will take time. Cal needs talent and coaches need experience. Cal is 2-3 years from being at a level where beating an SC can be a reasonable expectation.

Cal got stomped this year but had potential. Next year it'll be a close game. Year 3, maybe Cal's year. The long-term prospects are good.

Go Bears!!

---

I agree with you. If we had Robertson and Parker we may have had a chance in this game. Losing Robertson is a killer against speed like SC has.

6 turnovers and we beat the spread? That says something

Score is respectable

m2bear said:

---

Veasy !!!

What a catch !

---

Nice throw too

we make that field goal and we' be one on-side kick away from a chance.

On sides?

88Bear said:

---

Uthaithani said:

---

People want to spin it one way or another. The fact is SC is a top ten team. Cal isn't a top 25 team. The disparity showed up in the score. Cal's defense is MUCH improved, the offense is considerably worse than last year.

This team is very much on target for 6-7 wins and a bowl, which is a HUGE accomplishment for Wilcox. But 6-7 win teams get stomped by the big boys. Let's not act surprised at this score, we should have expected it.

The turnaround will take time. Cal needs talent and coaches need experience. Cal is 2-3 years from being at a level where beating an SC can be a reasonable expectation.

Cal got stomped this year but had potential. Next year it'll be a close game. Year 3, maybe Cal's year. The long-term prospects are good.

Go Bears!!

---

I agree with you. If we had Robertson and Parker we may have had a chance in this game. Losing Robertson is a killer against speed like SC has.

---

Parker?

txwharfrat said:

---

88Bear said:

---

I agree with you. If we had Robertson and Parker we may have had a chance in this game. Losing Robertson is a killer against speed like SC has.

---

Parker?

---

Peter. Pulls in balls like nobody's business.

LOL at the onside kick!

Nice job bears defense

That was a TERRIBLE onside kick. What do they practice on with kickers?

Uthaithani said:

---

People want to spin it one way or another. The fact is SC is a top ten team. Cal isn't a top 25 team. The disparity showed up in the score. Cal's defense is MUCH improved, the offense is considerably worse than last year.

This team is very much on target for 6-7 wins and a bowl, which is a HUGE accomplishment for Wilcox. But 6-7 win teams get stomped by the big boys. Let's not act surprised at this score, we should have expected it.

The turnaround will take time. Cal needs talent and coaches need experience. Cal is 2-3 years from being at a level where beating an SC can be a reasonable expectation.

Cal got stomped this year but had potential. Next year it'll be a close game. Year 3, maybe Cal's year. The long-term prospects are good.

Go Bears!!

---

100%

Six ****ing turnovers....

txwharfrat said:

---

88Bear said:

---

Uthaithani said:

---

People want to spin it one way or another. The fact is SC is a top ten team. Cal isn't a top 25 team. The disparity showed up in the score. Cal's defense is MUCH improved, the offense is considerably worse than last year.

This team is very much on target for 6-7 wins and a bowl, which is a HUGE accomplishment for Wilcox. But 6-7 win teams get stomped by the big boys. Let's not act surprised at this score, we should have expected it.

The turnaround will take time. Cal needs talent and coaches need experience. Cal is 2-3 years from being at a level where beating an SC can be a reasonable expectation.

Cal got stomped this year but had potential. Next year it'll be a close game. Year 3, maybe Cal's year. The long-term prospects are good.

Go Bears!!

---

I agree with you. If we had Robertson and Parker we may have had a chance in this game. Losing Robertson is a killer against speed like SC has.

---

Parker?

---

Ha! Sorry - I meant Watson.. I must have South Park on the brain!

$C is not that good of a team. I don't think they're top 10.
They may end up there because they have an easier schedule than others.
Darnold made some bad mistakes today. He's good, but he's no first round prospect.

On the other hand, we have an awful schedule, but if we keep growing, we have a shot at winning enough to go to a bowl game.

oskirules said:

---

Nice job bears defense

---

Defense should be proud of their play.

+1

4mybears said:

---

$S is not that good of a team. I don't think they're top 10.
They may end up there because they have an easier schedule than others...

---

Have you watched CFB this year?

It's Alabama, Clemson and _________??? They're not great but I certainly don't think there are 10 better.

Welp. Bears beat the spread. Defense was good, offense and ST were forgettable. We played this game with a number of key players out and another who got injured during the game. I agreee with those who say SC isn't a playoff team, but they'll finish in the top ten.

SC dominated Furd in a way they did not dominate Cal. UW is the last "sure loss" on the schedule. There are 7 games that are winnable left on the schedule and Cal needs three. With the way the team is playing, the math looks good.

Those who were hoping for more than a lower-tier bowl, sorry. That was going to be a big stretch. Those hopeful for a rebuild should be feeing pretty happy.

Go Bears!!

Uthaithani said:

---

People want to spin it one way or another. The fact is SC is a top ten team. Cal isn't a top 25 team. The disparity showed up in the score. Cal's defense is MUCH improved, the offense is considerably worse than last year.

This team is very much on target for 6-7 wins and a bowl, which is a HUGE accomplishment for Wilcox. But 6-7 win teams get stomped by the big boys. Let's not act surprised at this score, we should have expected it.

The turnaround will take time. Cal needs talent and coaches need experience. Cal is 2-3 years from being at a level where beating an SC can be a reasonable expectation.

Cal got stomped this year but had potential. Next year it'll be a close game. Year 3, maybe Cal's year. The long-term prospects are good.

Go Bears!!

---

That's what I was thinking too. Not that we're F'd in the A and will go 4-8 this year. But you can't deny that we showed some weaknesses at certain points during our first 3 wins.

We CAN win a few more and get to a bowl if this coaching staff is as good as I hoped and we learn from what went wrong.

Uthaithani said:

---

Welp. Bears beat the spread. Defense was good, offense and ST were forgettable. We played this game with a number of key players out and another who got injured during the game. I agreee with those who say SC isn't a playoff team, but they'll finish in the top ten.

SC dominated Furd in a way they did not dominate Cal. UW is the last "sure loss" on the schedule. There are 7 games that are winnable left on the schedule and Cal needs three. With the way the team is playing, the math looks good.

Those who were hoping for more than a lower-tier bowl, sorry. That was going to be a big stretch. Those hopeful for a rebuild should be feeing pretty happy.

Go Bears!!

---

Well said. Cal has nothing to be ashamed of (other than some questionable play calling by the OC). If we can beat Stanford, Southern Branch, Arizona, and Oregon State, this would be an extremely successful season and Wilcox would be a serious candidate for conference COY.

And I think we have a decent chance against Oregon and Washington State.

The season is far from over.

oursdor said:

---

---

Shades of 2004

tough to watch the last quarter but let's not forget we hung in there for 3 quarters. defense was stout. run game looked pretty good. Just too much desperation at the end.

oursdor said:

---

---

This. The game was even, except for the turnovers. I'm not saying the turnovers don't count, obviously they do. But this was not a total domination by SC. Cal was competitive. We lost because our QB didn't handle pressure like theirs did (which is to be expected), and had some bad turnovers.

oursdor said:

---

---

When SC only needs 5 yards to score a TD, yardage comparisons become irrelevant. But yes, Cal's inefficiency on offense has been a problem for three games now and Baldwin needs to figure things out.

oursdor said:

---

4mybears said:

---

$S is not that good of a team. I don't think they're top 10.
They may end up there because they have an easier schedule than others...

---

Have you watched CFB this year?

It's Alabama, Clemson and _________??? They're not great but I certainly don't think there are 10 better.

---

They nearly lost to Texas. I'd love to see them play Washington and Oregon.

IMHO, Ohio State, TCU, Penn State, Auburn, VT, possibly Michigan and Wisconsin...are better, but will play tougher games.

Let's see next week @ Wazzu.

Maybe I'm just toooo tired of listening to the Darnold for president relentless broadcast.

Back to the point: Go Bears!