Me too. I generally avoid betting on Cal games, but when I do, it's against Cal for the emotional hedge.bearsandgiants said:
Now that sports gambling is legal, time for a lovely emotional hedge on this one. Take the points and buy yourself a Cal victory. Get compensated handsomely in the event of a loss. Or catch lightning in a bottle with cash and a Cal victory if they win by a field goal or less. Love it! Go Bears!
yup. that's why you take unc. if we win, you essentially "bought" the cal win. totally worth it to start the season 1-0. If we lose, you at least win your bet. And if we win by 1, 2 or three, you also win your bet. If we win by 4, you're happy and you get your money back. You win either way. I'll gladly pay a few bucks to start the season on a winning streak. We likely won't be favored in many games though. Anyhow, it's my philosophy on this. Definitely eases the pain of a Cal loss.Richmondbear2 said:
Cal is favored (-4)
UNC is a mess right now. They're kinda like the Cal of the ACC right now,i.e., the tarheels are going to get eaten up again this season. So the Bears should win their Berkeley match; if they don't, then Cal will have a very s#!%ty season themselves.bearsandgiants said:yup. that's why you take unc. if we win, you essentially "bought" the cal win. totally worth it to start the season 1-0. If we lose, you at least win your bet. And if we win by 1, 2 or three, you also win your bet. If we win by 4, you're happy and you get your money back. You win either way. I'll gladly pay a few bucks to start the season on a winning streak. We likely won't be favored in many games though. Anyhow, it's my philosophy on this. Definitely eases the pain of a Cal loss.Richmondbear2 said:
Cal is favored (-4)
Check UNC out a bit more on your academic comment. Pretty well respected second level public along with Texas, Wisconsin, Washington. Yes, not a Cal, but.....TheSouseFamily said:
UNC's top running back is Jordan Brown (ok, technically Jordon Brown). I wonder if he insisted on having a good blocking fullback before agreeing to enroll in a program not exactly known for their athletic or academic credentials.
OdontoBear66 said:Check UNC out a bit more on your academic comment. Pretty well respected second level public along with Texas, Wisconsin, Washington. Yes, not a Cal, but.....TheSouseFamily said:
UNC's top running back is Jordan Brown (ok, technically Jordon Brown). I wonder if he insisted on having a good blocking fullback before agreeing to enroll in a program not exactly known for their athletic or academic credentials.
Agreed. Just wanted to differentiate. When our APR at Cal sucked it did not reflect on the quality of education at Cal..TheSouseFamily said:OdontoBear66 said:Check UNC out a bit more on your academic comment. Pretty well respected second level public along with Texas, Wisconsin, Washington. Yes, not a Cal, but.....TheSouseFamily said:
UNC's top running back is Jordan Brown (ok, technically Jordon Brown). I wonder if he insisted on having a good blocking fullback before agreeing to enroll in a program not exactly known for their athletic or academic credentials.
I don't disagree that the university has a good academic reputation. I'm referring more so to the rampant academic fraud that's occurred over several decades to boost the athletics department, including the football team. It wasn't long ago that the football team was put on probation and had a bowl ban, leading to the firing of Butch Davis because of academic (and other) issues. Heck, the university had its entire accreditation suspended because of the depths of the problems there.
So you're saying it dependshanky1 said:
We should win this game by 10 points if we don't crap our pants.
Slight crap of pants = win a close game
Total crap of pants = loss
Why not also add category, diarrhea = lose convincinglyheartofthebear said:So you're saying it dependshanky1 said:
We should win this game by 10 points if we don't crap our pants.
Slight crap of pants = win a close game
Total crap of pants = loss
Depend Men's and/or Women's Maximum Absorbancy Underware are $9 off this month, for Cal fans and non...heartofthebear said:So you're saying it dependshanky1 said:
We should win this game by 10 points if we don't crap our pants.
Slight crap of pants = win a close game
Total crap of pants = loss
UNC's academics are very good. Just because you're not aware of that doesn't make them less so, just makes you more ignorant.TheSouseFamily said:
UNC's top running back is Jordan Brown (ok, technically Jordon Brown). I wonder if he insisted on having a good blocking fullback before agreeing to enroll in a program not exactly known for their athletic or academic credentials.
Uthaithani said:UNC's academics are very good. Just because you're not aware of that doesn't make them less so, just makes you more ignorant.TheSouseFamily said:
UNC's top running back is Jordan Brown (ok, technically Jordon Brown). I wonder if he insisted on having a good blocking fullback before agreeing to enroll in a program not exactly known for their athletic or academic credentials.
Based on what, exactly? Cal got kind of lucky in beating UNC last year in what was basically a toss-up game. And a first game of the season. UNC improved as the season progressed, while Cal regressed significantly. Both teams finished with losing records.hanky1 said:
We should win this game by 10 points if we don't crap our pants.
Slight crap of pants = win a close game
Total crap of pants = loss
Uthaithani said:Based on what, exactly? Cal got kind of lucky in beating UNC last year in what was basically a toss-up game. And a first game of the season. UNC improved as the season progressed, while Cal regressed significantly. Both teams finished with losing records.hanky1 said:
We should win this game by 10 points if we don't crap our pants.
Slight crap of pants = win a close game
Total crap of pants = loss
UNC's coach has a pretty strong winning track record over his tenure, while Cal's HC has yet to record a winning season as HC.
UNC's recruiting over the past 4 years has been significantly better than Cal's. So Cal returns more starters (but their losses are more significant and the returning talent is generally poor, and a lot of it still injured), but arguably less talent. Is this spread assuming Cal's star WR is back and at 100%? Because it's probably better than 50/50 he won't play in that game. There are a significant number of injured Cal players expected to return, and some of them won't (law of averages). Their back-ups have been less than impressive, especially on offense.
I have no idea if Cal has a reliable kicker who can get the ball through the uprights. I would assume this spread assumes Cal can make the relatively easy FGs which are a key part of Baldwin's offense (at least they were last season).
The game is played at home for Cal, and the Bears are being given HFA plus one point. Basically a toss-up on a neutral field. Given all the above, I'd say that's about right. This looks like an evenly matched game with Cal a slight favorite because they're at home. No reason to expect Cal to win by 10 or more, unless you're blinded by hope. Depending on injuries, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see UNC take this one and I'd call this game a coin flip.
UNC went 3-9. They were last in the ACC all by themselves with a record of 1-7. Early in the year, they beat Old Dominion, who went 5-7 and 3-5 in Conference USA. They won 2 of their last 3 games by beating 5-7, 3-5 Pitt and FCS opponent West Carolina.Uthaithani said:Based on what, exactly? Cal got kind of lucky in beating UNC last year in what was basically a toss-up game. And a first game of the season. UNC improved as the season progressed, while Cal regressed significantly. Both teams finished with losing records.hanky1 said:
We should win this game by 10 points if we don't crap our pants.
Slight crap of pants = win a close game
Total crap of pants = loss
UNC's coach has a pretty strong winning track record over his tenure, while Cal's HC has yet to record a winning season as HC.
UNC's recruiting over the past 4 years has been significantly better than Cal's. So Cal returns more starters (but their losses are more significant and the returning talent is generally poor, and a lot of it still injured), but arguably less talent. Is this spread assuming Cal's star WR is back and at 100%? Because it's probably better than 50/50 he won't play in that game. There are a significant number of injured Cal players expected to return, and some of them won't (law of averages). Their back-ups have been less than impressive, especially on offense.
I have no idea if Cal has a reliable kicker who can get the ball through the uprights. I would assume this spread assumes Cal can make the relatively easy FGs which are a key part of Baldwin's offense (at least they were last season).
The game is played at home for Cal, and the Bears are being given HFA plus one point. Basically a toss-up on a neutral field. Given all the above, I'd say that's about right. This looks like an evenly matched game with Cal a slight favorite because they're at home. No reason to expect Cal to win by 10 or more, unless you're blinded by hope. Depending on injuries, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see UNC take this one and I'd call this game a coin flip.
Boy that's a whole lot of wrong. Having read this carefully I believe the bolded text is the only correct statement I could find.Uthaithani said:Based on what, exactly? Cal got kind of lucky in beating UNC last year in what was basically a toss-up game. And a first game of the season. UNC improved as the season progressed, while Cal regressed significantly. Both teams finished with losing records.hanky1 said:
We HWe should win this game by 10 points if we don't crap our pants.
Slight crap of pants = win a close game
Total crap of pants = loss
UNC's coach has a pretty strong winning track record over his tenure, while Cal's HC has yet to record a winning season as HC.
UNC's recruiting over the past 4 years has been significantly better than Cal's. So Cal returns more starters (but their losses are more significant and the returning talent is generally poor, and a lot of it still injured), but arguably less talent. Is this spread assuming Cal's star WR is back and at 100%? Because it's probably better than 50/50 he won't play in that game. There are a significant number of injured Cal players expected to return, and some of them won't (law of averages). Their back-ups have been less than impressive, especially on offense.
I have no idea if Cal has a reliable kicker who can get the ball through the uprights. I would assume this spread assumes Cal can make the relatively easy FGs which are a key part of Baldwin's offense (at least they were last season).
The game is played at home for Cal, and the Bears are being given HFA plus one point. Basically a toss-up on a neutral field. Given all the above, I'd say that's about right. This looks like an evenly matched game with Cal a slight favorite because they're at home. No reason to expect Cal to win by 10 or more, unless you're blinded by hope. Depending on injuries, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see UNC take this one and I'd call this game a coin flip.
More correct statements.....Sebastabear said:Boy that's a whole lot of wrong. Having read this carefully I believe the bolded text is the only correct statement I could find.Uthaithani said:Based on what, exactly? Cal got kind of lucky in beating UNC last year in what was basically a toss-up game. And a first game of the season. UNC improved as the season progressed, while Cal regressed significantly. Both teams finished with losing records.hanky1 said:
HWe HWe should win this game by 10 points if we don't crap our pants.
Slight crap of pants = win a close game
Total crap of pants = loss
UNC's coach has a pretty strong winning track record over his tenure, while Cal's HC has yet to record a winning season as HC.
UNC's recruiting over the past 4 years has been significantly better than Cal's. So Cal returns more starters (but their losses are more significant and the returning talent is generally poor, and a lot of it still injured), but arguably less talent. Is this spread assuming Cal's star WR is back and at 100%? Because it's probably better than 50/50 he won't play in that game. There are a significant number of injured Cal players expected to return, and some of them won't (law of averages). Their back-ups have been less than impressive, especially on offense.
I have no idea if Cal has a reliable kicker who can get the ball through the uprights. I would assume this spread assumes Cal can make the relatively easy FGs which are a key part of Baldwin's offense (at least they were last season).
The game is played at home for Cal, and the Bears are being given HFA plus one point. Basically a toss-up on a neutral field. Given all the above, I'd say that's about right. This looks like an evenly matched game with Cal a slight favorite because they're at home. No reason to expect Cal to win by 10 or more, unless you're blinded by hope. Depending on injuries, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see UNC take this one and I'd call this game a coin flip.
Uthaithani said:Based on what, exactly? Cal got kind of lucky in beating UNC last year in what was basically a toss-up game. And a first game of the season. UNC improved as the season progressed, while Cal regressed significantly. Both teams finished with losing records.hanky1 said:
BWe should win this game by 10 points if we don't crap our pants.
Slight crap of pants = win a close game
Total crap of pants = loss
UNC's coach has a pretty strong winning track record over his tenure, while Cal's HC has yet to record a winning season as HC.
UNC's recruiting over the past 4 years has been significantly better than Cal's. So Cal returns more starters (but their losses are more significant and the returning talent is generally poor, and a lot of it still injured), but arguably less talent. Is this spread assuming Cal's star WR is back and at 100%? Because it's probably better than 50/50 he won't play in that game. There are a significant number of injured Cal players expected to return, and some of them won't (law of averages). Their back-ups have been less than impressive, especially on offense.
I have no idea if Cal has a reliable kicker who can get the ball through the uprights. I would assume this spread assumes Cal can make the relatively easy FGs which are a key part of Baldwin's offense (at least they were last season).
The game is played at home for Cal, and the Bears are being given HFA plus one point. Basically a toss-up on a neutral field. Given all the above, I'd say that's about right. This looks like an evenly matched game with Cal a slight favorite because they're at home. No reason to expect Cal to win by 10 or more, unless you're blinded by hope. Depending on injuries, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see UNC take this one and I'd call this game a coin flip.
Really well said. Defense is our thing and we will demonstrate our strength all season. Although we finished 5-7 last year, the final two games were exceedingly close losses. One of the games was on the road in Pasadena, the other in Palo Alto. The difference could reasonably be attributed to home field advantage to the opponent. Our record from last season may be deceptive to those looking from the outside.XXXBEAR said:Uthaithani said:Based on what, exactly? Cal got kind of lucky in beating UNC last year in what was basically a toss-up game. And a first game of the season. UNC improved as the season progressed, while Cal regressed significantly. Both teams finished with losing records.hanky1 said:
BWe should win this game by 10 points if we don't crap our pants.
Slight crap of pants = win a close game
Total crap of pants = loss
UNC's coach has a pretty strong winning track record over his tenure, while Cal's HC has yet to record a winning season as HC.
UNC's recruiting over the past 4 years has been significantly better than Cal's. So Cal returns more starters (but their losses are more significant and the returning talent is generally poor, and a lot of it still injured), but arguably less talent. Is this spread assuming Cal's star WR is back and at 100%? Because it's probably better than 50/50 he won't play in that game. There are a significant number of injured Cal players expected to return, and some of them won't (law of averages). Their back-ups have been less than impressive, especially on offense.
I have no idea if Cal has a reliable kicker who can get the ball through the uprights. I would assume this spread assumes Cal can make the relatively easy FGs which are a key part of Baldwin's offense (at least they were last season).
The game is played at home for Cal, and the Bears are being given HFA plus one point. Basically a toss-up on a neutral field. Given all the above, I'd say that's about right. This looks like an evenly matched game with Cal a slight favorite because they're at home. No reason to expect Cal to win by 10 or more, unless you're blinded by hope. Depending on injuries, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see UNC take this one and I'd call this game a coin flip.
I studied what you wrote....and I like the contrarian view which I assume was made just for the sake of argument
But c'mon, You really wouldn't bet against Cal -a program, staff, and players who fully expect a bowl game, loaded with veteran starters, in their home opener with an improving defense, returning QB and RB, a corps of excellent receivers, and a veteran offensive line against a school coming off a 3-9 season, different time zone, only known for basketball and that wears light blue?
And won't Cal be wearing UA uniforms for the first time? Can't wait!