Another Bear said:

---

This thread is why Cal can't have nice things.

---

It sucks that Cal's acting program is so pathetic when we have Chris Pine, John Cho, that old lady from Titanic and that dude from that Mockingbird movie as alums.

okaydo said:

---

It sucks that Cal's acting program is so pathetic when we have Chris Pine, John Cho, that old lady from Titanic and that dude from that Mockingbird movie as alums.

---

Don't forget the Beav!

85Bear said:

---

okaydo said:

---

It sucks that Cal's acting program is so pathetic when we have Chris Pine, John Cho, that old lady from Titanic and that dude from that Mockingbird movie as alums.

---

Don't forget the Beav!

---

How can I forget: Just saw a tweet about him the other day.

Man, UC Berkeley was so great in the 90s.

okaydo said:

---

Man, UC Berkeley was so great in the 90s.

---

You know very well that Buffy and Oz attended UC Sunnydale in Season 4, not UC Berkeley.

Sebastabear said:

---

okaydo said:

---

Man, UC Berkeley was so great in the 90s.

---

You know very well that Buffy and Oz attended UC Sunnydale in Season 4, not UC Berkeley.

---

It's long been my dream to start a thread titled "Go Bears!"

This thread is one step closer to that dream coming true.

okaydo said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

okaydo said:

---

Man, UC Berkeley was so great in the 90s.

---

You know very well that Buffy and Oz attended UC Sunnydale in Season 4, not UC Berkeley.

---

---

So? Are you not familiar with the UC-Sunnydale Sather gate?

Sebastabear said:

---

okaydo said:

---

Sebastabear said:

---

okaydo said:

---

Man, UC Berkeley was so great in the 90s.

---

You know very well that Buffy and Oz attended UC Sunnydale in Season 4, not UC Berkeley.

---

---

So? Are you not familiar with the UC-Sunnydale Sather gate?

---

You know how there are a bunch of "day in the life" of a UC Berkeley student videos?

Well, my dream is to one day film a "Day in the Life" video of a UC Berkeley student, except it's filmed at UCLA. It would totally troll the Bruins. There would be extras wearing Cal shirts. There would be cheesy "UC Berkeley" signs everywhere. The "student" would walk by the giant bear on campus point to it, and stroll around all the brick buildings. He would live in the Sproul Hall dorm, named after of course Robert Gordon Sproul.. That would be fun.

71Bear said:

---

okaydo said:

---

---

...yielding a grand total of one post-season win (a low level bowl game).

---

Sebastabear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

okaydo said:

---

---

...yielding a grand total of one post-season win (a low level bowl game).

---

I really think you'd save time if you just changed your sig line to "I hate you all".

---

Cal8285 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

GMP said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

71Bear said:

---

KenBurnski said:

---

Nobody:
71Bear: I DISAGREE

---

No problem. Quite frankly, what has made this site the place it is has become is the variety of opinions expressed by the posters. While it is not what it once was (RIP, Grey), it is still the "go-to" place for conversation about Cal athletics. The day it becomes a lock-step "Cal is perfect, dissenters not wanted" is the day I'll step away. Fortunately, with voices like Yogi and Blue, we are still a ways from that day.

---

Your original response (minimizing the fact that Cal is unique in having 3 high draft picks) was not a differing opinion. It was just a negative nelly response to something that, unequivocally, Cal fans can and should take pride in and want to publicize. Why the immediate negative reaction/comment?

I love the fact that dissenters have a place here. But oftentimes, people confuse dissent and debate for being curmudgeonly and knee jerk negative. When something good happens (high draft picks), why do you feel the need to immediately respond with a totally unrelated negative point?

---

You hit the mark BG...I would dearly love the ability to dissent, but it comes to how you do it.
I can agree with 71Bear at times in context, but the way he expresses comes off not too well.
The old expression "It is not necessarily what you say, but how you say it."

---

OTOH, some of us subscribe to the direct approach - don't mince words, say what you have to say and move on. The notion of treading lightly to avoid conflict is a load of crap. What was it that Jack Nicholson said to Tom Cruise?

---

You know his character set in motion a murder, covered it up, and was arrested right after that, right?

---

Yes, I saw the movie....

---

So are you suggesting that your direct approach is a load of simplistic crap that many people would say isn't true?

Since you saw the movie, you know that Jack Nicholson said to Tom Cruise that he can't handle the truth, and then said his "truth"-- "Santiago's death while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence while grotesque, and incomprehensible, to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that well, you need me on that wall!"

While difficult to be sure what a fictional character is thinking, I suspect most of the characters and much (not all) of the audience listening to Jessup, and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin, think that what he said is not the truth. Santiago's death probably didn't save lives, overall, Jessup's existence probably doesn't save lives. We don't want him on that wall, we don't need him on that wall. I suspect that Aaron Sorkin would tell you that people of honor will not agree that what Jessup said is "truth." Odd for you to cite Jessup in support of your position.

However, your "truth" is a very different "truth" from that of Jessup, because you responded to something that Cal accomplished with an undisputable truth, things that Cal has not accomplished. Unlike Jessup's statement, we can't really argue that what you said isn't true.

But it isn't like we can't handle the truth, or don't know the truth. Oh no, Cal fans know the truth all too well. And we frequently acknowledge that truth, sometimes depressingly and sometimes jokingly, Which is why we need to focus on the victories once in awhile, however meaningless they may be.

Of course, OF COURSE, everything positive that Cal has accomplished in my lifetime can be responded to with more significant things Cal has not accomplished. We ALL know that. But we're Cal fans anyway. Part of how we handle the truth is to focus on the small positives, even if in a rational world, they don't make up for the negatives. If we don't do that, we'll end up as old grumps, perhaps even old grumps who don't bother to go to games anymore because we no longer find that the positives we get out of going give us enough joy to make it worth going.

If you always want to throw cold water on what others wish to celebrate with respect to Cal athletics, the truth will pretty much always allow that. You have a choice to respond with over a thousand different truths, or respond with silence. Sometimes, in the response to a Cal fan trying desperately to find a win, desiring not to become an unhappy old grump, it is better to either respond with another positive truth or to just stay silent.

I'd rather be silent once in awhile than be a grump who needs to throw cold water immediately whenever anyone else wants to be happy about something Cal. "I'm not happy, so I'm going to do my damnedest to make sure everyone else sees the truths that make me unhappy, and then they all can be unhappy like me." Damn, I sure don't want to be that grump.

Even if I become a total grump in the future, I hope I don't feel the need to help create other grumps. There are times when it is appropriate to respond to something positive with a negative counterpoint, but a big part of wisdom is knowing when that moment is, and when it is the moment to stay silent. I do not always have that wisdom, but I try.

---

Very good post. I especially like your comments that of course for every great thing that you can come up with for Cal there are some bad things you can find against Cal.

I am basically an optimistic person and like to look on the bright side. This does not mean that I don't realize there are negative things. Just why should I waste my time on them. Life's too short.
For example when I am particularly down after a painful loss or a bad season I dig up one of the many high points of Cal football in the past I am not just talking about events such as the 1982 BG. Or 2009 BG. But even more recently we had the 2016 Cal vs Utah classic. The #11 ranked offense against Cal's #120 defense. Cal's criticized (rightly so) defense held for 7 straight downs inside the 10 yard line for a spectacular win.
Just last year JW pulled off two great wins that have to be low-scoring miracles.

SD's win over Utah is just as true as the many frustrating losses that SD gave Cal Fans. Am I happy that SD is gone. Yes. But that does not take away the joy of watching the Utah win in person.

JW's wins against USC and UW are true. Just as true as the BG loss or the Bowl game loss. But I like to focus on the wins
JW's wins are even more satisfying since unlike SD's win over Utah JW's wins are harbingers if better things to come.

"Folks are usually about as happy as they make their minds up to be." ...


Abraham Lincoln

Many thanks for the last few posts, beginning with 8285's. All very well said and very uplifting.

71Bear said:

---

OTOH, some of us subscribe to the direct approach - don't mince words, say what you have to say and move on. The notion of treading lightly to avoid conflict is a load of crap. What was it that Jack Nicholson said to Tom Cruise?

---

You mean right before he got put under arrest for being an *******, coward, law breaker?

What was your point?

Cal8285 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

GMP said:

---

71Bear said:

---

OdontoBear66 said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

71Bear said:

---

KenBurnski said:

---

Nobody:
71Bear: I DISAGREE

---

No problem. Quite frankly, what has made this site the place it is has become is the variety of opinions expressed by the posters. While it is not what it once was (RIP, Grey), it is still the "go-to" place for conversation about Cal athletics. The day it becomes a lock-step "Cal is perfect, dissenters not wanted" is the day I'll step away. Fortunately, with voices like Yogi and Blue, we are still a ways from that day.

---

Your original response (minimizing the fact that Cal is unique in having 3 high draft picks) was not a differing opinion. It was just a negative nelly response to something that, unequivocally, Cal fans can and should take pride in and want to publicize. Why the immediate negative reaction/comment?

I love the fact that dissenters have a place here. But oftentimes, people confuse dissent and debate for being curmudgeonly and knee jerk negative. When something good happens (high draft picks), why do you feel the need to immediately respond with a totally unrelated negative point?

---

You hit the mark BG...I would dearly love the ability to dissent, but it comes to how you do it.
I can agree with 71Bear at times in context, but the way he expresses comes off not too well.
The old expression "It is not necessarily what you say, but how you say it."

---

OTOH, some of us subscribe to the direct approach - don't mince words, say what you have to say and move on. The notion of treading lightly to avoid conflict is a load of crap. What was it that Jack Nicholson said to Tom Cruise?

---

You know his character set in motion a murder, covered it up, and was arrested right after that, right?

---

Yes, I saw the movie....

---

So are you suggesting that your direct approach is a load of simplistic crap that many people would say isn't true?

Since you saw the movie, you know that Jack Nicholson said to Tom Cruise that he can't handle the truth, and then said his "truth"-- "Santiago's death while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence while grotesque, and incomprehensible, to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that well, you need me on that wall!"

While difficult to be sure what a fictional character is thinking, I suspect most of the characters and much (not all) of the audience listening to Jessup, and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin, think that what he said is not the truth. Santiago's death probably didn't save lives, overall, Jessup's existence probably doesn't save lives. We don't want him on that wall, we don't need him on that wall. I suspect that Aaron Sorkin would tell you that people of honor will not agree that what Jessup said is "truth." Odd for you to cite Jessup in support of your position.

However, your "truth" is a very different "truth" from that of Jessup, because you responded to something that Cal accomplished with an undisputable truth, things that Cal has not accomplished. Unlike Jessup's statement, we can't really argue that what you said isn't true.

But it isn't like we can't handle the truth, or don't know the truth. Oh no, Cal fans know the truth all too well. And we frequently acknowledge that truth, sometimes depressingly and sometimes jokingly, Which is why we need to focus on the victories once in awhile, however meaningless they may be.

Of course, OF COURSE, everything positive that Cal has accomplished in my lifetime can be responded to with more significant things Cal has not accomplished. We ALL know that. But we're Cal fans anyway. Part of how we handle the truth is to focus on the small positives, even if in a rational world, they don't make up for the negatives. If we don't do that, we'll end up as old grumps, perhaps even old grumps who don't bother to go to games anymore because we no longer find that the positives we get out of going give us enough joy to make it worth going.

If you always want to throw cold water on what others wish to celebrate with respect to Cal athletics, the truth will pretty much always allow that. You have a choice to respond with over a thousand different truths, or respond with silence. Sometimes, in the response to a Cal fan trying desperately to find a win, desiring not to become an unhappy old grump, it is better to either respond with another positive truth or to just stay silent.

I'd rather be silent once in awhile than be a grump who needs to throw cold water immediately whenever anyone else wants to be happy about something Cal. "I'm not happy, so I'm going to do my damnedest to make sure everyone else sees the truths that make me unhappy, and then they all can be unhappy like me." Damn, I sure don't want to be that grump.

Even if I become a total grump in the future, I hope I don't feel the need to help create other grumps. There are times when it is appropriate to respond to something positive with a negative counterpoint, but a big part of wisdom is knowing when that moment is, and when it is the moment to stay silent. I do not always have that wisdom, but I try.

---

Damn it i should have read down the thread!!!

71Bear said:

---

KenBurnski said:

---

Nobody:
71Bear: I DISAGREE

---

No problem. Quite frankly, what has made this site the place it is has become is the variety of opinions expressed by the posters. While it is not what it once was (RIP, Grey), it is still the "go-to" place for conversation about Cal athletics. The day it becomes a lock-step "Cal is perfect, dissenters not wanted" is the day I'll step away. Fortunately, with voices like Yogi and Blue, we are still a ways from that day.

---

I'm a distinct minority on this board, but not for the reason people think. But this board has always been teetering on the edge of being a booster club rather than a discussion forum, which is the reason why I'll never again be the paying customer I once was. I spend my money where I can say what I mean without having it parsed by other people to be something it's not, just as they did with you in this thread.

People on this board definitely would have been comfortable in King's Landing cause they love lining up and shouting "Shame!"

NavyBear said:

---

Quote:

---

I am basically an optimistic person and like to look on the bright side. This does not mean that I don't realize there are negative things. Just why should I waste my time on them. Life's too short.

---

Thanks for this upbeat post of yours and the other folks on this board that do so. I am a random lurker whose only connection to Cal was this board for years (as I was deployed - at-sea - and could not get other websites to load.) This occurred through two sea-tours and countless months at sea.

I am just selecting your post to respond to, but I can probably pull a dozen others that are current in both hoops and football. Truly appreciate the info posts and the highlight posts (like yours.)

That said, the folks who are bitter and who bring up politics in non-OT boards really poison the well. Granted I have a love-hate relation with Cal, but I have always recognized it as a special place. Folks who make things personal, who have big egos, and/or turn their cannons on each other, I just don't get.

---

You mean like starting a thread about the racial composition of our athletic departments' head coaches?

71Bear said:

---

Fortunately, with voices like Yogi and Blue, we are still a ways from that day.

---

Truth. Also Blue provides a lot of information regarding the outstanding Mountain West Conference Football teams, which I used to totally ignore. Now, if their football games on on TV, I'll use them for commercial time filler while I'm watching something else.

Is that Goff on the right? I'm not sure, because he appears to be the same height as Rodgers, despite being 2 inches taller. But it could be the angle, or Rodgers standing on his tippy toes.




Actually, Rodgers is taller than that Goff-looking dude who is probably Goff on the right.

Yogi Bear said:

---

NavyBear said:

---

Quote:

---

I am basically an optimistic person and like to look on the bright side. This does not mean that I don't realize there are negative things. Just why should I waste my time on them. Life's too short.

---

Thanks for this upbeat post of yours and the other folks on this board that do so. I am a random lurker whose only connection to Cal was this board for years (as I was deployed - at-sea - and could not get other websites to load.) This occurred through two sea-tours and countless months at sea.

I am just selecting your post to respond to, but I can probably pull a dozen others that are current in both hoops and football. Truly appreciate the info posts and the highlight posts (like yours.)

That said, the folks who are bitter and who bring up politics in non-OT boards really poison the well. Granted I have a love-hate relation with Cal, but I have always recognized it as a special place. Folks who make things personal, who have big egos, and/or turn their cannons on each other, I just don't get.

---

You mean like starting a thread about the racial composition of our athletic departments' head coaches?

---

Disagree. The thread on the lack of diversity among Cal's HC's is more of a "Cal can do better" thread than a "Cal is terrible" thread.
Even the people most critical of certain hires did not say they were not going to support the Cal team in question

GivemTheAxe said:

---

Yogi Bear said:

---

NavyBear said:

---

Quote:

---

I am basically an optimistic person and like to look on the bright side. This does not mean that I don't realize there are negative things. Just why should I waste my time on them. Life's too short.

---

Thanks for this upbeat post of yours and the other folks on this board that do so. I am a random lurker whose only connection to Cal was this board for years (as I was deployed - at-sea - and could not get other websites to load.) This occurred through two sea-tours and countless months at sea.

I am just selecting your post to respond to, but I can probably pull a dozen others that are current in both hoops and football. Truly appreciate the info posts and the highlight posts (like yours.)

That said, the folks who are bitter and who bring up politics in non-OT boards really poison the well. Granted I have a love-hate relation with Cal, but I have always recognized it as a special place. Folks who make things personal, who have big egos, and/or turn their cannons on each other, I just don't get.

---

You mean like starting a thread about the racial composition of our athletic departments' head coaches?

---

Disagree. The thread on the lack of diversity among Cal's HC's is more of a "Cal can do better" thread than a "Cal is terrible" thread.
Even the people most critical of certain hires did not say they were not going to support the Cal team in question

---

It also is a thread that discounts the observed perception is false with regards to Cal historically. We have and have had diversity. That moment in time reflects a false perception of Cal athletics in attitude toward diversity.

It is frustrating to see next level talents leave Cal without seeing major results at Cal in terms of wins and losses.

We had two players drafted in the MLB first round but didn't get a postseason win this year. Frustrating.

Goff had a good record at Cal (I'm not going to relitigate year by year) but when you have a #1 draft pick and haven't been to the Rose Bowl in over 50 years it's frustrating to see that talent go by without major results.

I can support them at the next level and be happy for them while still being frustrated as a fan.

I can agree with a lot of what is said here on both sides. 71 has an agenda, so instead of celebrating the success of these individual athletes who all did their best for their Cal teams, which is what unites them, he chose to focus on the post season failures of Cal teams when they played.

Football, basketball, and baseball are all team sports, and winning beyond the regular season requires many of the planets to line up in your favor. One player does not bring you championships in any of these three sports, no matter how great he is. Vic Bottari was the Cal player most covered by the press when his team was the last Cal team to win a Rose Bowl, but he needed 5 All-Americans blocking for him and playing defense for him, along with several other players of almost that same high ability to win that Rose Bowl. The game was won on 4th and goal with Cal up 7-0, and coach Stub Ellison sent in a play. The Bears said no, they sent the play back and ran their own play for Bottari and he scored, sealing the win.

In football and baseball, no one player can bring you a championship. You need several good players. If 71 has watched many team sports, he has to know that. Basketball is the only sport where you can ride the back of a great player or two, and get to a championship, and it is arguably less of a team sport than football and baseball. Pattern play of the early days through the 1960s and 1970s has all but disappeared, replaced by motion offenses, enabling more individual and less team play. If you have two good players, you can get all the way to the Final Four, if they and their teammates are good enough. That is not true in football and baseball. In baseball and football, especially with all the specialization today, you need many more good players than ever before to win a championship.

Finally, you need good coaching today because there are more parts to a team, and more video and data available to every coach. You need to have all your key players healthy and unaffected by injuries. Basketball is the most vulnerable because their rotation has so few players in it, that if one key player goes down, there goes the season. You also need a favorable draw in any playoff system, so you are depending on a number of judges who may or may not know the game well, to make the selections of who plays who. You need little things like the chemistry between players, which is most difficult to achieve if you have too many star players, or if they don't get along. You need great scouting, great conditioning, and great player development coaches, along with great strategy and tactics.

To accuse a University of signing a great athlete and then not winning with him, no matter how well he played, as being something under the University's control is ludicrous. Cal does the best it can with its different goals, which are mostly achieved, even without winning championships. We would all like to see more championships, but to get them means changing the priorities of the University. The change over the years from a time when Cal was one of the dominant schools athletically is because rules have been put in place to allow the schools like USC and Arizona to still be competitive and dominant in football and basketball, and allow them to spend the amounts of money that Cal does not have. Cal has actually done quite decently, considering the lack of facilities at Cal. I am one who does not particularly follow Cal athletes in the pros, any more than I follow Cal engineering graduates in the engineering profession (which I do), but I think we should celebrate the achievement of being picked high in the drafts for these three men in three different sports. It continues to spread the idea that Cal is unique in many ways.

Over the years, Cal has been able to recruit some of the very best football players (obviously). What has hurt us has been lack of depth to enable those players' teams to win the conference, etc. Doesn't mean that the top players "failed" at Cal - rather imo that they lifted poor or average teams to get results above what their overall talent levels merited.

SFCityBear said:

---

The game was won on 4th and goal with Cal up 7-0, and coach Stub Ellison sent in a play. The Bears said no, they sent the play back and ran their own play for Bottari and he scored, sealing the win.

---

Thanks for this tidbit; I'd never heard that. So Steve Levy didn't pull a "Levy" against TAMU. He pulled a "Bottari."

Did Coach Ellison ream out Vic on the sideline after the score?

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

The game was won on 4th and goal with Cal up 7-0, and coach Stub Ellison sent in a play. The Bears said no, they sent the play back and ran their own play for Bottari and he scored, sealing the win.

---

Thanks for this tidbit; I'd never heard that. So Steve Levy didn't pull a "Levy" against TAMU. He pulled a "Bottari."

Did Coach Ellison ream out Vic on the sideline after the score?

---

I'm having a brain cramp. What was the Levy play? I don't seem to remember it.

As for Ellison chewing out Bottari, I doubt it. My father told me that story. He went to every home game of the Thunder Team, and also went to the Rose Bowl. He said that Ellison was not a very good coach, and according to my dad, several times during the season, the players sent plays back and ran their own play instead.

SFCityBear said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

The game was won on 4th and goal with Cal up 7-0, and coach Stub Ellison sent in a play. The Bears said no, they sent the play back and ran their own play for Bottari and he scored, sealing the win.

---

Thanks for this tidbit; I'd never heard that. So Steve Levy didn't pull a "Levy" against TAMU. He pulled a "Bottari."

Did Coach Ellison ream out Vic on the sideline after the score?

---

I'm having a brain cramp. What was the Levy play? I don't seem to remember it.

As for Ellison chewing out Bottari, I doubt it. My father told me that story. He went to every home game of the Thunder Team, and also went to the Rose Bowl. He said that Ellison was not a very good coach, and according to my dad, several times during the season, the players sent plays back and ran their own play instead.

---

The Levy Play: It was at the end of the 2006 Holiday Bowl against Texas A&M. This was Steve's redshirt senior year IIRC. We were winning the game handily, with the ball on the goal line with time running down. A number of our backups who rarely played were in the game, including Levy and a walk-on running back whose name escapes me. Tedford called for victory formation, with Levy taking a knee. Levy instead called a running play to our walk-on running back, who scored a TD, probably the only TD of his career. The crowd erupts, the band plays, the cheerleaders cheer. Levy and Co. jog back to the sideline, pretty happy with themselves. But Tedford is livid at the insubordination. He grabs Steve by the facemark on the sideline and chews him out on national TV.

After that play, we had some good debates here about chain of command, military discipline, respecting your opponent, running up the score, rewarding walk-ons with scoring opportunities, etc. (Levy was himself originally a walk-on, I believe.)

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

FuzzyWuzzy said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

The game was won on 4th and goal with Cal up 7-0, and coach Stub Ellison sent in a play. The Bears said no, they sent the play back and ran their own play for Bottari and he scored, sealing the win.

---

Thanks for this tidbit; I'd never heard that. So Steve Levy didn't pull a "Levy" against TAMU. He pulled a "Bottari."

Did Coach Ellison ream out Vic on the sideline after the score?

---

I'm having a brain cramp. What was the Levy play? I don't seem to remember it.

As for Ellison chewing out Bottari, I doubt it. My father told me that story. He went to every home game of the Thunder Team, and also went to the Rose Bowl. He said that Ellison was not a very good coach, and according to my dad, several times during the season, the players sent plays back and ran their own play instead.

---

The Levy Play: It was at the end of the 2006 Holiday Bowl against Texas A&M. This was Steve's redshirt senior year IIRC. We were winning the game handily, with the ball on the goal line with time running down. A number of our backups who rarely played were in the game, including Levy and a walk-on running back whose name escapes me. Tedford called for victory formation, with Levy taking a knee. Levy instead called a running play to our walk-on running back, who scored a TD, probably the only TD of his career. The crowd erupts, the band plays, the cheerleaders cheer. Levy and Co. jog back to the sideline, pretty happy with themselves. But Tedford is livid at the insubordination. He grabs Steve by the facemark on the sideline and chews him out on national TV.

After that play, we had some good debates here about chain of command, military discipline, respecting your opponent, running up the score, rewarding walk-ons with scoring opportunities, etc. (Levy was himself originally a walk-on, I believe.)

---

Thanks FuzzyWuzzy. I did watch that game. I loved Steve Levy, and thought he should have been given a real shot at the QB job, as we always seemed to play well and won with him at the helm. I remember the play now that you describe but did not remember the controversy. I must have been celebrating or turned off the TV and missed the Tedford tirade. I know I was not aware of the Bear Insider in 2006, or I would have heard about it. Tedford had a similar tirade with Riley, after playing a great game as a freshman, but screwed up the final play.

okaydo said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

This thread is why Cal can't have nice things.

---

It sucks that Cal's acting program is so pathetic when we have Chris Pine, John Cho, that old lady from Titanic and that dude from that Mockingbird movie as alums.

---

You need to add Sanaa Lathan to your list:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanaa_Lathan

https://m.imdb.com/name/nm0005125/