As Bill Parcells once said, "You are what your record says you are." 8-5 accurately reflects Cal's performance in the recently concluded season.calbear80 said:
I am hoping Cal would be in at least some of the top 25 lists for next year considering that we were 8-5 this season and return almost our the entire O (with an upgraded OC) and our defensive coaches who have made average talent look very good for three years in a row.
OTOH, if one looks closely, our 8-5 could have easily been 10-3 (if Garber had not been injured we would have beaten both ASU and OSU) or 4-9 (if the close games we won by 8 points or less had gone the other way).
Go Bears!
TheSouseFamily said:
USA Today has us checking in at #23, third highest in the conference.
Oregon at #6. USC at #17. UW at #24.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2020/01/14/lsu-clemson-near-top-college-football-early-top-25-2020/4420836002/
Sure. Plus they just won 12 games including the Rose Bowl so of course they're going to be ranked very high next season. Definitely would like to get them early next season. By November they might be a completely different looking offense.calbear80 said:
Cave Bear, you make some excellent points, but, UO has been recruiting extremly well the last few years and they have many four and five star recruits ready to step in. Maybe tgat is why they are so highly ranked.
Go Bears!
calbear80 said:
I am hoping Cal would be in at least some of the top 25 lists for next year considering that we were 8-5 this season and return almost our the entire O (with an upgraded OC) and our defensive coaches who have made average talent look very good for three years in a row.
OTOH, if one looks closely, our 8-5 could have easily been 10-3 (if Garber had not been injured we would have beaten both ASU and OSU) or 4-9 (if the close games we won by 8 points or less had gone the other way).
Go Bears!
It is truly amazing what a difference it makes to have a real defense...wifeisafurd said:
I don't see any automatic losses, which is a change from years past.
While I'd agree a healthy Garbers probably beats Oregon State, Cal was losing to ASU when Garbers went down. The D was getting shredded and that part wouldn't change if he'd been healthy the whole game.calbear80 said:
I am hoping Cal would be in at least some of the top 25 lists for next year considering that we were 8-5 this season and return almost our the entire O (with an upgraded OC) and our defensive coaches who have made average talent look very good for three years in a row.
OTOH, if one looks closely, our 8-5 could have easily been 10-3 (if Garber had not been injured we would have beaten both ASU and OSU) or 4-9 (if the close games we won by 8 points or less had gone the other way).
Go Bears!
Uthaithani said:While I'd agree a healthy Garbers probably beats Oregon State, Cal was losing to ASU when Garbers went down. The D was getting shredded and that part wouldn't change if he'd been healthy the whole game.calbear80 said:
I am hoping Cal would be in at least some of the top 25 lists for next year considering that we were 8-5 this season and return almost our the entire O (with an upgraded OC) and our defensive coaches who have made average talent look very good for three years in a row.
OTOH, if one looks closely, our 8-5 could have easily been 10-3 (if Garber had not been injured we would have beaten both ASU and OSU) or 4-9 (if the close games we won by 8 points or less had gone the other way).
Go Bears!
More likely than not, Cal loses to ASU even with a healthy Garbers.
All this talk about "if Garbers" and there's really only one game he makes a major potential difference. (I heard announcers saying BS about how Cal with a healthy Garbers could have won 10 or more games in the regular season, that's pure idiocy. Cal almost LOST to NTU and Ole Miss, with a healthy Garbers, this was NOT a 10-win team.)
So "healthy Garbers" likely means 8 regular season wins. And who knows about the bowl - maybe Cal goes to a different bowl and loses, so the record stays the same.
Bottom line, if Cal is going to improve on that record it's going to take real improvement, not just the QB not getting hurt. Much more consistent run game, much more efficient offense, better ST, more reliable secondary and improved depth. I believe Cal will improve in those areas (well, not sure about ST).
TheSouseFamily said:
The only problem with playing the "we beat team X if player Y was healthy" game is that other teams that we beat are playing the same game with their own injured players.
sycasey said:TheSouseFamily said:
The only problem with playing the "we beat team X if player Y was healthy" game is that other teams that we beat are playing the same game with their own injured players.
That's true, but I think most football analysts would agree the quarterback is by far the most impactful player. So a QB injury means more than most.
TheSouseFamily said:sycasey said:TheSouseFamily said:
The only problem with playing the "we beat team X if player Y was healthy" game is that other teams that we beat are playing the same game with their own injured players.
That's true, but I think most football analysts would agree the quarterback is by far the most impactful player. So a QB injury means more than most.
I agree with that. QB injuries are, in most cases, the most impactful. So then, does Stanfurd play the "we beat Cal with Costello" game? Does UCLA play the "we beat Cal with a healthy DTR" game. It just goes on and on. I'm certainly not suggesting that injuries aren't relevant to wins and losses,, just that the "would we have won?" exercise is futile.
Well.sycasey said:TheSouseFamily said:sycasey said:TheSouseFamily said:
The only problem with playing the "we beat team X if player Y was healthy" game is that other teams that we beat are playing the same game with their own injured players.
That's true, but I think most football analysts would agree the quarterback is by far the most impactful player. So a QB injury means more than most.
I agree with that. QB injuries are, in most cases, the most impactful. So then, does Stanfurd play the "we beat Cal with Costello" game? Does UCLA play the "we beat Cal with a healthy DTR" game. It just goes on and on. I'm certainly not suggesting that injuries aren't relevant to wins and losses,, just that the "would we have won?" exercise is futile.
If you win with a backup QB then it's extra impressive, yeah.
But I don't think the point here is to account for all injuries for all time. The question is: What would Cal's record have been if Garbers had stayed healthy, all else being equal? The conclusion seems to be about 2 more wins, maybe 3 as a stretch.
MrGPAC said:
ASU and Oregon state are likely victories. USC and Utah are both likely losses. Oregon would have been a lot more interesting.
As for bowl game? They likely still would have finished behind Utah and Oregon. USC would have had the better in conference record...so they would have ended up as the fourth place team going to...the Redbox bowl, which they likely would have won to go 10-3.
If they had beaten any additional team in Oregon USC or Utah they would have finished the regular season with 10 wins.
.
Right now? I'd guess Utah.NYCGOBEARS said:
Does any other fan base play "woulda, coulda, shoulda" better than us?
These early polls tend to assume that the top programs will "reload" thanks to their great recruiting. And sometimes they do! But also sometimes they have a down year because the roster doesn't have much experience.Radical Bear said:
Oregon seems way to high. They are loosing 4 of their 5 starting O-linemen plus Herbert. I'm sure they will replace them with some talented guys but they are loosing a lot of experience.
sycasey said:These early polls tend to assume that the top programs will "reload" thanks to their great recruiting. And sometimes they do! But also sometimes they have a down year because the roster doesn't have much experience.Radical Bear said:
Oregon seems way to high. They are loosing 4 of their 5 starting O-linemen plus Herbert. I'm sure they will replace them with some talented guys but they are loosing a lot of experience.
