One of the Washington's has to go 7-5.

Why does anyone care, or not?

Wait... star this post if you care (and then reply to explain why)!!!

Star this post if you do not care (and then reply to explain why not)!!!

chazzed said:

---

Well, at least it's not the tired joke about Buh. Which tired schtick will go away first: this poster's, Blueballs', or Cal Strong's?

---

chazzed continues to hurt my feelings....sniff......I' ve been here longer than your you-know-what organ
and I know that I'll be here long after you fade away chazzed.

golden sloth said:

---

How many teams with winning records did we play when our starting qb was healthy?

Also, I get tired of fans incessant complaining. Its Thanksgiving be grateful we have the axe, we have a team they plays hard, and we are getting healthy again.

---

We have two wins against teams with winning records. One was with Garbers at QB the other was with Modster at QB.

The issue is not our starting QB or our backup QB, both are capable college QBs.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

One of the Washington's has to go 7-5.

Why does anyone care, or not?

---

We care because it beats losing regardless of opponents record!

I only care in so much as it further shows the P12 north was ripe for the picking this year. No dominant teams. Wasted opportunity that may not come around again for a while.

PtownBear1 said:

---

I only care in so much as it further shows the P12 north was ripe for the picking this year. No dominant teams. Wasted opportunity that may not come around again for a while.

---

Some would consider Oregon a dominant team but certainly the rest of the north was beatable. Next year, Stanford and UW are likely to return to form, Oregon won't have much, if any, drop-off leaving WSU and OSU to contend with us for the middle/bottom. In the south, USC, ASU and UCLA were very young and the first 2 pretty good when all the pieces could get on the field. It's going to be tough sledding for Cal to show improvement, especially as we'll lose several of our best defenders.

59bear said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

I only care in so much as it further shows the P12 north was ripe for the picking this year. No dominant teams. Wasted opportunity that may not come around again for a while.

---

Some would consider Oregon a dominant team but certainly the rest of the north was beatable. Next year, Stanford and UW are likely to return to form, Oregon won't have much, if any, drop-off leaving WSU and OSU to contend with us for the middle/bottom. In the south, USC, ASU and UCLA were very young and the first 2 pretty good when all the pieces could get on the field. It's going to be tough sledding for Cal to show improvement, especially as we'll lose several of our best defenders.

---

Well some can say Oregon was dominant but I firmly believe we would have beat them this year with a competent (not all world or anything just mediocre) OC and/or if Garbers hadn't gotten injured. Same with Oregon State and ASU. We would be 9-2 on track right now to re-play Utah in the conference championship.

Agree with your assessment for next year. It's going to be tough sledding in the Pac. What gives me hope though is the offense should be much improved with a lot of returning experience and new coaches to better develop them. Meanwhile our defense loses a few key players, but the defense playing below expectations this year could result in our defensive coaches largely remaining intact, and a resurgence on D.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

One of the Washington's has to go 7-5.

Why does anyone care, or not?

---

A more telling stat...

Games in which Garbers played in the second half, Cal is 5-0
Games in which Garbers did not play in the second half, Cal is 1-5

The issue was the lack of a qualified #2 QB.

PtownBear1 said:

---

59bear said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

I only care in so much as it further shows the P12 north was ripe for the picking this year. No dominant teams. Wasted opportunity that may not come around again for a while.

---

Some would consider Oregon a dominant team but certainly the rest of the north was beatable. Next year, Stanford and UW are likely to return to form, Oregon won't have much, if any, drop-off leaving WSU and OSU to contend with us for the middle/bottom. In the south, USC, ASU and UCLA were very young and the first 2 pretty good when all the pieces could get on the field. It's going to be tough sledding for Cal to show improvement, especially as we'll lose several of our best defenders.

---

Well some can say Oregon was dominant but I firmly believe we would have beat them this year with a competent (not all world or anything just mediocre) OC and/or if Garbers hadn't gotten injured. Same with Oregon State and ASU. We would be 9-2 on track right now to re-play Utah in the conference championship.

Agree with your assessment for next year. It's going to be tough sledding in the Pac. What gives me hope though is the offense should be much improved with a lot of returning experience and new coaches to better develop them. Meanwhile our defense loses a few key players, but the defense playing below expectations this year could result in our defensive coaches largely remaining intact, and a resurgence on D.

---

Why stop at a conference championship - we should have been in the playoffs discussion! Heck, Garbers would have been a Heisman candidate if not for his injury.

Delusional Cal fan. 'If ...." applies to every team in the country. If you play the 'if' game from another point of view Cal could easily be 1 - 10. Easily.

I'm happy we beat Stanford and have the opportunity to play in a bowl game, but make no mistake about it, Cal is a mediocre P5 football team no matter who is playing qb.

KoreAmBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

One of the Washington's has to go 7-5.

Why does anyone care, or not?

---

A more telling stat...

Games in which Garbers played in the second half, Cal is 5-0
Games in which Garbers did not play in the second half, Cal is 1-5

The issue was the lack of a qualified #2 QB.

---

Oh brother not sure why you keep ragging on Modster. Garbers is clearly our #1. But he's still got a lot to prove before you crown him. Modster played well in the one game the offense was designed for him. Plus I guess everyone is locked into whatever performance you want to look at. If that's the case I don't think Modster ever played as bad as game as Garbers did in the Cheez-It Bowl. Garbers is good, but he ain't THAT good yet (and a lot of it is a function of the rest of the offense including our man BB) and Modster ain't THAT bad as you say for the same reasons.

---

Five words...

The Axe is in Berkeley.

CG against Stanford:

67% completion percentage
285 passing yards
9.5 yards/attempt
158 Rating

All of these are above seasonal averages for the Stanford D.

Chase, with his feet, 5.5 yards/run, had some dang clutch runs too of course...

In a must-win game for Stanford to get bowl eligible, at home, Cal beat them, got the axe and bowl eligible themselves...

With Bowers toward the end of 2017, CG now with some experience, and even Modster with a few games under-his-belt, the improvement in QB play is notable; and how that translates into a more productive offense.

In our last six games of 2017 (Pac-12 opponents), we averaged 31 PPG, with Ross Bowers at QB. Continuity at QB is noteworthy.

I'm looking for 30+ tomorrow...

Cal89 said:

---

Geez, wasn't our best season in recent memory 2004? I don't think we beat all that many teams with winning records then also. Looks like ASU had a winning record that season, and the much remembered Southern Miss game. Let's dump on that banner season, LOL. Only 20% of our 10 wins came against winning teams.

We beat Southern Cal in LA last year, Stanford this year, and let's make LA ours again tomorrow, and finish 7-5. If so, this team could have easily been 8-4, maybe even 9-3.

I'm thankful we have JW as our HC.

---

FWIW Oregon State finished 7-5, and UCLA finished 6-6 after going 6-5 in the regular season and then losing the Vegas Bowl to Wyoming. AFA, NMSU, and Oregon all finished 5-6, so they would have had winning records had Cal not beaten them. IIRC one of the things that screwed Cal in the computers was ASU's loss to Arizona - some of the metrics gave extra credit for beating a 9-win team.

...just means that Cal is a pretty good mediocre team...nothing more, nothing less......in the circles that the Bears tends to play in.....now if Cal joined the MWC (I just posted this to jerk certain boneheads who annoy me) ....oh the glory!

MathTeacherMike said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

59bear said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

I only care in so much as it further shows the P12 north was ripe for the picking this year. No dominant teams. Wasted opportunity that may not come around again for a while.

---

Some would consider Oregon a dominant team but certainly the rest of the north was beatable. Next year, Stanford and UW are likely to return to form, Oregon won't have much, if any, drop-off leaving WSU and OSU to contend with us for the middle/bottom. In the south, USC, ASU and UCLA were very young and the first 2 pretty good when all the pieces could get on the field. It's going to be tough sledding for Cal to show improvement, especially as we'll lose several of our best defenders.

---

Well some can say Oregon was dominant but I firmly believe we would have beat them this year with a competent (not all world or anything just mediocre) OC and/or if Garbers hadn't gotten injured. Same with Oregon State and ASU. We would be 9-2 on track right now to re-play Utah in the conference championship.

Agree with your assessment for next year. It's going to be tough sledding in the Pac. What gives me hope though is the offense should be much improved with a lot of returning experience and new coaches to better develop them. Meanwhile our defense loses a few key players, but the defense playing below expectations this year could result in our defensive coaches largely remaining intact, and a resurgence on D.

---

Why stop at a conference championship - we should have been in the playoffs discussion! Heck, Garbers would have been a Heisman candidate if not for his injury.

Delusional Cal fan. 'If ...." applies to every team in the country. If you play the 'if' game from another point of view Cal could easily be 1 - 10. Easily.

I'm happy we beat Stanford and have the opportunity to play in a bowl game, but make no mistake about it, Cal is a mediocre P5 football team no matter who is playing qb.

---

I believe we're a decent set of offensive coaches away from breaking into the top third of the P12. If you don't, that's fine and you're probably right, but why are you following Cal football then or even on this discussion forum with that mentality?

PtownBear1 said:

---

59bear said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

I only care in so much as it further shows the P12 north was ripe for the picking this year. No dominant teams. Wasted opportunity that may not come around again for a while.

---

Some would consider Oregon a dominant team but certainly the rest of the north was beatable. Next year, Stanford and UW are likely to return to form, Oregon won't have much, if any, drop-off leaving WSU and OSU to contend with us for the middle/bottom. In the south, USC, ASU and UCLA were very young and the first 2 pretty good when all the pieces could get on the field. It's going to be tough sledding for Cal to show improvement, especially as we'll lose several of our best defenders.

---

Well some can say Oregon was dominant but I firmly believe we would have beat them this year with a competent (not all world or anything just mediocre) OC and/or if Garbers hadn't gotten injured. Same with Oregon State and ASU. We would be 9-2 on track right now to re-play Utah in the conference championship.

Agree with your assessment for next year. It's going to be tough sledding in the Pac. What gives me hope though is the offense should be much improved with a lot of returning experience and new coaches to better develop them. Meanwhile our defense loses a few key players, but the defense playing below expectations this year could result in our defensive coaches largely remaining intact, and a resurgence on D.

---

We definitely would have beaten OSU and ASU. Looking back, it's really amazing that we only lost to Oregon 17-7, all things considered.

sycasey said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

71Bear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

One of the Washington's has to go 7-5.

Why does anyone care, or not?

---

A more telling stat...

Games in which Garbers played in the second half, Cal is 5-0
Games in which Garbers did not play in the second half, Cal is 1-5

The issue was the lack of a qualified #2 QB.

---

Oh brother not sure why you keep ragging on Modster. Garbers is clearly our #1. But he's still got a lot to prove before you crown him. Modster played well in the one game the offense was designed for him. Plus I guess everyone is locked into whatever performance you want to look at. If that's the case I don't think Modster ever played as bad as game as Garbers did in the Cheez-It Bowl. Garbers is good, but he ain't THAT good yet (and a lot of it is a function of the rest of the offense including our man BB) and Modster ain't THAT bad as you say for the same reasons.

---

Yeah, Modster is a qualified backup. The issue is not that, it's having an offensive system where the backup can't easily step in and perform well.

---

Exactly. Modster stepped in for an injured Rosen and tore us up. He and Rosen are both pro-style QBs, so they work the same game plan well. Playing under center against WSU Modster lead us to our best offensive production of the entire year.

As 71 points out, Every game that we give Garbers first team reps all week and game plan for him to be the only QB but he does end up playing the second half and we do not change the game plan for Modster, we lose.

PtownBear1 said:

---

MathTeacherMike said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

59bear said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

I only care in so much as it further shows the P12 north was ripe for the picking this year. No dominant teams. Wasted opportunity that may not come around again for a while.

---

Some would consider Oregon a dominant team but certainly the rest of the north was beatable. Next year, Stanford and UW are likely to return to form, Oregon won't have much, if any, drop-off leaving WSU and OSU to contend with us for the middle/bottom. In the south, USC, ASU and UCLA were very young and the first 2 pretty good when all the pieces could get on the field. It's going to be tough sledding for Cal to show improvement, especially as we'll lose several of our best defenders.

---

Well some can say Oregon was dominant but I firmly believe we would have beat them this year with a competent (not all world or anything just mediocre) OC and/or if Garbers hadn't gotten injured. Same with Oregon State and ASU. We would be 9-2 on track right now to re-play Utah in the conference championship.

Agree with your assessment for next year. It's going to be tough sledding in the Pac. What gives me hope though is the offense should be much improved with a lot of returning experience and new coaches to better develop them. Meanwhile our defense loses a few key players, but the defense playing below expectations this year could result in our defensive coaches largely remaining intact, and a resurgence on D.

---

Why stop at a conference championship - we should have been in the playoffs discussion! Heck, Garbers would have been a Heisman candidate if not for his injury.

Delusional Cal fan. 'If ...." applies to every team in the country. If you play the 'if' game from another point of view Cal could easily be 1 - 10. Easily.

I'm happy we beat Stanford and have the opportunity to play in a bowl game, but make no mistake about it, Cal is a mediocre P5 football team no matter who is playing qb.

---

I believe we're a decent set of offensive coaches away from breaking into the top third of the P12. If you don't, that's fine and you're probably right, but why are you following Cal football then or even on this discussion forum with that mentality?

---

I'm not going to nominate Baldwin and his offensive staff for the coaching hall of fame but I think our problems go beyond coaching. Among other things, we lack speed at all the key spots on offense, are thin (and young) on the OL and no one has shown much more than adequacy at QB. Some of that (mainly recruiting) may be on the coaches but it's really hard to be better than the material you put on the field and the only games we've lost when we weren't outmanned were to OSU and, maybe, ASU. I still think Wilcox wants to build a team on the Wisconsin model: tough "D". big strong OL. heavy run game and a QB who won't lose games. Now he needs to get the horses to do it. It won't surprise me if he revamps the offensive staff for next year but it will surprise me if we're very much better.

59bear said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

MathTeacherMike said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

59bear said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

I only care in so much as it further shows the P12 north was ripe for the picking this year. No dominant teams. Wasted opportunity that may not come around again for a while.

---

Some would consider Oregon a dominant team but certainly the rest of the north was beatable. Next year, Stanford and UW are likely to return to form, Oregon won't have much, if any, drop-off leaving WSU and OSU to contend with us for the middle/bottom. In the south, USC, ASU and UCLA were very young and the first 2 pretty good when all the pieces could get on the field. It's going to be tough sledding for Cal to show improvement, especially as we'll lose several of our best defenders.

---

Well some can say Oregon was dominant but I firmly believe we would have beat them this year with a competent (not all world or anything just mediocre) OC and/or if Garbers hadn't gotten injured. Same with Oregon State and ASU. We would be 9-2 on track right now to re-play Utah in the conference championship.

Agree with your assessment for next year. It's going to be tough sledding in the Pac. What gives me hope though is the offense should be much improved with a lot of returning experience and new coaches to better develop them. Meanwhile our defense loses a few key players, but the defense playing below expectations this year could result in our defensive coaches largely remaining intact, and a resurgence on D.

---

Why stop at a conference championship - we should have been in the playoffs discussion! Heck, Garbers would have been a Heisman candidate if not for his injury.

Delusional Cal fan. 'If ...." applies to every team in the country. If you play the 'if' game from another point of view Cal could easily be 1 - 10. Easily.

I'm happy we beat Stanford and have the opportunity to play in a bowl game, but make no mistake about it, Cal is a mediocre P5 football team no matter who is playing qb.

---

I believe we're a decent set of offensive coaches away from breaking into the top third of the P12. If you don't, that's fine and you're probably right, but why are you following Cal football then or even on this discussion forum with that mentality?

---

I'm not going to nominate Baldwin and his offensive staff for the coaching hall of fame but I think our problems go beyond coaching. Among other things, we lack speed at all the key spots on offense, are thin (and young) on the OL and no one has shown much more than adequacy at QB. Some of that (mainly recruiting) may be on the coaches but it's really hard to be better than the material you put on the field and the only games we've lost when we weren't outmanned were to OSU and, maybe, ASU. I still think Wilcox wants to build a team on the Wisconsin model: tough "D". big strong OL. heavy run game and a QB who won't lose games. Now he needs to get the horses to do it. It won't surprise me if he revamps the offensive staff for next year but it will surprise me if we're very much better.

---

100% correct - our coaches are only as effective as the talent on hand. The saying 'it's not about the x's and o',' it's about the Jimmies and Joes' sums up Cal football.

The Wisconsin model would be ideal except I don't see the emphasis on linemen which is fundamental in Wisconsin's success. We should be over-recruiting linemen in an attempt to not only develop all-conference level linemen, but to develop the depth needed to sustain success through injuries.

I think Wilcox it solid, but short sighted. Wilcox is a 6-6,, 6-7, 7-6 type of coach. Most Cal fans seem to be content with that.

The Missouri coach got fired today after 3 years of 6-6 records in the SEC. Just saying.

MathTeacherMike said:

---

59bear said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

MathTeacherMike said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

59bear said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

I only care in so much as it further shows the P12 north was ripe for the picking this year. No dominant teams. Wasted opportunity that may not come around again for a while.

---

Some would consider Oregon a dominant team but certainly the rest of the north was beatable. Next year, Stanford and UW are likely to return to form, Oregon won't have much, if any, drop-off leaving WSU and OSU to contend with us for the middle/bottom. In the south, USC, ASU and UCLA were very young and the first 2 pretty good when all the pieces could get on the field. It's going to be tough sledding for Cal to show improvement, especially as we'll lose several of our best defenders.

---

Well some can say Oregon was dominant but I firmly believe we would have beat them this year with a competent (not all world or anything just mediocre) OC and/or if Garbers hadn't gotten injured. Same with Oregon State and ASU. We would be 9-2 on track right now to re-play Utah in the conference championship.

Agree with your assessment for next year. It's going to be tough sledding in the Pac. What gives me hope though is the offense should be much improved with a lot of returning experience and new coaches to better develop them. Meanwhile our defense loses a few key players, but the defense playing below expectations this year could result in our defensive coaches largely remaining intact, and a resurgence on D.

---

Why stop at a conference championship - we should have been in the playoffs discussion! Heck, Garbers would have been a Heisman candidate if not for his injury.

Delusional Cal fan. 'If ...." applies to every team in the country. If you play the 'if' game from another point of view Cal could easily be 1 - 10. Easily.

I'm happy we beat Stanford and have the opportunity to play in a bowl game, but make no mistake about it, Cal is a mediocre P5 football team no matter who is playing qb.

---

I believe we're a decent set of offensive coaches away from breaking into the top third of the P12. If you don't, that's fine and you're probably right, but why are you following Cal football then or even on this discussion forum with that mentality?

---

I'm not going to nominate Baldwin and his offensive staff for the coaching hall of fame but I think our problems go beyond coaching. Among other things, we lack speed at all the key spots on offense, are thin (and young) on the OL and no one has shown much more than adequacy at QB. Some of that (mainly recruiting) may be on the coaches but it's really hard to be better than the material you put on the field and the only games we've lost when we weren't outmanned were to OSU and, maybe, ASU. I still think Wilcox wants to build a team on the Wisconsin model: tough "D". big strong OL. heavy run game and a QB who won't lose games. Now he needs to get the horses to do it. It won't surprise me if he revamps the offensive staff for next year but it will surprise me if we're very much better.

---

100% correct - our coaches are only as effective as the talent on hand. The saying 'it's not about the x's and o',' it's about the Jimmies and Joes' sums up Cal football.

The Wisconsin model would be ideal except I don't see the emphasis on linemen which is fundamental in Wisconsin's success. We should be over-recruiting linemen in an attempt to not only develop all-conference level linemen, but to develop the depth needed to sustain success through injuries.

I think Wilcox it solid, but short sighted. Wilcox is a 6-6,, 6-7, 7-6 type of coach. Most Cal fans seem to be content with that.

The Missouri coach got fired today after 3 years of 6-6 records in the SEC. Just saying.

---

Going down the roster, I count 16 OLs. Injuries cost us Williams and Craig all year; Saffell and Daltoso a few games. Frosh Cindric (RS) and Mettauer (True) played a lot, as did SR Bazakas. Did Curhan sytart every game? Of the others, I think Poutasi , Nisich and Mello played some but Frank, Driscoll, Beeman, Coleman and Rhome? We could be building the depth needed as virtually all of these guys should be back. Isn't Bazakas the only one exhausting his eligibility?

BearsWiin said:

---

Cal89 said:

---

Geez, wasn't our best season in recent memory 2004? I don't think we beat all that many teams with winning records then also. Looks like ASU had a winning record that season, and the much remembered Southern Miss game. Let's dump on that banner season, LOL. Only 20% of our 10 wins came against winning teams.

We beat Southern Cal in LA last year, Stanford this year, and let's make LA ours again tomorrow, and finish 7-5. If so, this team could have easily been 8-4, maybe even 9-3.

I'm thankful we have JW as our HC.

---

FWIW Oregon State finished 7-5, and UCLA finished 6-6 after going 6-5 in the regular season and then losing the Vegas Bowl to Wyoming. AFA, NMSU, and Oregon all finished 5-6, so they would have had winning records had Cal not beaten them. IIRC one of the things that screwed Cal in the computers was ASU's loss to Arizona - some of the metrics gave extra credit for beating a 9-win team.

---

BW, finally re-found this thread where you replied with the above. Got busy, then couldn't find this thread...

Just wanted to say good call and point taken. I also don't think it diminishes the point I was making all that much in that our 2004 team, which won a lot, didn't exactly beat a bunch winning programs...

We finished the 2019 regular season strong, winning 3 of our last 4. Eight years since we have done so...

Cal89 said:

---

BearsWiin said:

---

Cal89 said:

---

Geez, wasn't our best season in recent memory 2004? I don't think we beat all that many teams with winning records then also. Looks like ASU had a winning record that season, and the much remembered Southern Miss game. Let's dump on that banner season, LOL. Only 20% of our 10 wins came against winning teams.

We beat Southern Cal in LA last year, Stanford this year, and let's make LA ours again tomorrow, and finish 7-5. If so, this team could have easily been 8-4, maybe even 9-3.

I'm thankful we have JW as our HC.

---

FWIW Oregon State finished 7-5, and UCLA finished 6-6 after going 6-5 in the regular season and then losing the Vegas Bowl to Wyoming. AFA, NMSU, and Oregon all finished 5-6, so they would have had winning records had Cal not beaten them. IIRC one of the things that screwed Cal in the computers was ASU's loss to Arizona - some of the metrics gave extra credit for beating a 9-win team.

---

BW, finally re-found this thread where you replied with the above. Got busy, then couldn't find this thread...

Just wanted to say good call and point taken. I also don't think it diminishes the point I was making all that much in that our 2004 team, which won a lot, didn't exactly beat a bunch winning programs...

We finished the 2019 regular season strong, winning 3 of our last 4. Eight years since we have done so...

---

I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing, just supplying the information.

My feeling is that, without seeing a breakdown of seasonal records, a lot of teams land in the 5-7 to 7-5 range. So good teams generally beat a lot of middling teams. There aren't that many good teams, and they probably only play other good teams only a few times a season, so they don't even have much of an opportunity to play other designated good teams until either the conference championship games or the bowls.

SC game aside, I'm pleased with Cal's performance over the last month and am hopeful going forward

sycasey said:

---

Yeah, Modster is a qualified backup. The issue is not that, it's having an offensive system where the backup can't easily step in and perform well.

---

When a back up comes in and plays poorly, its invariably a result of a poor offensive system and not reflective of the player's ability? You can't be serious.

MathTeacherMike said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

59bear said:

---

PtownBear1 said:

---

NI only care in so much as it further shows the P12 north was ripe for the picking this year. No dominant teams. Wasted opportunity that may not come around again for a while.

---

Some would consider Oregon a dominant team but certainly the rest of the north was beatable. Next year, Stanford and UW are likely to return to form, Oregon won't have much, if any, drop-off leaving WSU and OSU to contend with us for the middle/bottom. In the south, USC, ASU and UCLA were very young and the first 2 pretty good when all the pieces could get on the field. It's going to be tough sledding for Cal to show improvement, especially as we'll lose several of our best defenders.

---

Well some can say Oregon was dominant but I firmly believe we would have beat them this year with a competent (not all world or anything just mediocre) OC and/or if Garbers hadn't gotten injured. Same with Oregon State and ASU. We would be 9-2 on track right now to re-play Utah in the conference championship.

Agree with your assessment for next year. It's going to be tough sledding in the Pac. What gives me hope though is the offense should be much improved with a lot of returning experience and new coaches to better develop them. Meanwhile our defense loses a few key players, but the defense playing below expectations this year could result in our defensive coaches largely remaining intact, and a resurgence on D.

---

Why stop at a conference championship - we should have been in the playoffs discussion! Heck, Garbers would have been a Heisman candidate if not for his injury.

Delusional Cal fan. 'If ...." applies to every team in the country. If you play the 'if' game from another point of view Cal could easily be 1 - 10. Easily.

I'm happy we beat Stanford and have the opportunity to play in a bowl game, but make no mistake about it, Cal is a mediocre P5 football team no matter who is playing qb.

---

Nope. Finished second (while picked for fifth) in the North. We are a team on the rise. The next two years will be the proof. We will turn close losses into wins and close the gap with the elite teams through improved recruitment due to our better results on the field.

XXXBEAR said:

---

Nope. Finished second (while picked for fifth) in the North. We are a team on the rise. The next two years will be the proof. We will turn close losses into wins and close the gap with the elite teams through improved recruitment due to our better results on the field.

---

Well, that's certainly one opinion.