(Written by Ken Crawford)

(Sorry for the lack of posts. I may have a post or two now and then (probably a couple around signing day for instance and a few around spring practice) but it’s going to be pretty quiet for the next few months. I’ll be back in regular form when fall practice gets under way.)

I watched the Superbowl last night and reminded myself why I prefer college football. Who here thinks Beyonce’s halftime show is appropriate for 10 year old boys? I sure as heck don’t. Yeah, it was no nipple-gate, but still, that outfit and her gyrations were so hyper-sexualized that it frankly upset me watching my 10-year old (my oldest) practically drooling sitting 5 feet from our new LED-LCD HDTV (in a shock and awe kinda way… he hasn’t hit puberty yet).

I probably wouldn’t have thought much of the otherwise ho-hum performance if he wasn’t in the room, but watching him watch it, I thought to myself “uhhh… he shouldn’t be watching this… uhhh… do I make a big deal about it and get him out of the room (and thus giving it an allure) or do I just pretend it’s no big deal… uhhh… decision paralysis!?!” (I ended up pretending it was no big deal.)

And there were similar issues in some of the commercials too. (As an aside, what a weak year for the commercials… there were a couple good ones, but overall weak.)

It was so bad I’m considering writing a letter to the NFL. They pretend to try and be family friendly, and those pretenses used to have some moderating effect on the content, but I think they’ve abandoned any meaningful commitment to that in the last couple years.

And I thought to myself after watching the trophy ceremony and turned off the TV after 6 continuous hours (started watching at 2:30) of an amazingly over-hyped, over-produced affair, that I really, really, really prefer college football.

It’s far more family friendly and far more about the sport itself.

(Written by Ken Crawford)

We all got the news last night that Sonny Dykes, current head coach of Louisiana Tech, former OC of Arizona (when their offense was good), has been hired as the Cal head coach.

In a lot of ways this is not at all a surprise. He’s been high on the list for a long time and unlike the others who hadn’t telegraphed interest in Cal, Dykes had both said he was interested and was currently sitting on a not-all-that-lucrative existing contract.

My guess is that Barbour got him for “cheap”, i.e. less than $2M, with a number of performance bonuses built in. I’m also guessing she’s planning on spending the extra cash on a top-notch defensive coordinator of Dykes choosing (rumor is New Mexico State head coach DeWayne Walker) and then also to generally boost the quality/pay of the assitants.

What surprises me is how much negative commentary there is out there about this hire. It seems like a good one to me. Seems to me all he needs to get to the next level is to have a good defense, something hopefully we have the money to hire someone as a DC who will do well for us.

Plus, he has Pac-12 connections (for recruiting) from his time at Arizona.

I think this is a good hire.

(Written by Ken Crawford)

Jeff Tedford was fired today.

It was the right decision.

But that doesn’t make it any less disheartening.

Tedford was the best thing to happen to Cal football in at least 25 years, if not 50. How can one be happy when his time has passed? It’s like being joyful at a funeral because you’ll be able to go play golf tomorrow and not go to the retirement home to visit grandpa. Yeah, the retirement home can be dreary and depressing, kinda like the last 5 football games, but I can’t be happy today at Tedford’s funeral because I don’t have to sit through another difficult game with him at the helm.

This doesn’t change at all that firing him was necessary (and please don’t complete my previous metaphor about grandpa… its limited applicability ended with the sadness, NOT with Euthanasia) and frankly, I think it was that sort of determination by Barbour to do what was necessary that Tedford lacked in recent years.

The big question is, how could a coach who had done so well for so long, fall so hard? We all know that the program has been on the wrong path for at least a few years, but how many was it? Why was Longshore that last QB to have true success under Tedford? Why did a team that ALWAYS won their bowl game start losing them and then not even making it to them? Why did a team that tended to finish strong, so often finish with a whimper?

And when did it really start? Did it start when Maynard was named QB (and perhaps as a concession to Allen)? Did it start in 2010, the first losing season? Or how about 2009, where the Bears lost their final two games after upsetting both Arizona and Stanford?

I’ve thought about this a lot and for me I think it all goes back to the most iconic moment in Tedford’s career… the last second lost to Oregon State in 2007. I’ve had this thought for a long time, but I haven’t been sure or confident in it, so I’ve been hesitant to harp on such an overly analyzed moment.

But now that Tedford has been fired, I think it is time to take stock of his entire career, leaving no stone unturned, and there’s no doubt in my mind that the moment Kevin Riley was tackled and Tedford let his emotions get the better of him for just a second, was the moment everything changed.

Ryan Gorcey summed it up very well in his column today:

After heaving his headset to the turf following a rookie play by rookie quarterback Kevin Riley on Oct. 13, 2007, when the Bears were just moments from being the top team in the land, thanks to a bevy of other upsets, Tedford vowed to be more in-control on the sidelines, to be more of a CEO. What he became was even more conservative, even more guarded, even more insular.
…
Before that night, Tedford was 48-20 as Cal’s head coach, with a 27-14 record against the Pac-10. Since that night — including that gut-wrenching loss — Tedford is 33-37 overall, and 21-30 against conference opponents.

Before that night, Cal had lost just six games by 14 points or more. Since then? 17 losses by 14 points or more. Tedford has gone 2-4 against the Cardinal. He has gone to four bowl games, and lost twice, having not won a bowl game since the 2008 Emerald Bowl in San Francisco.
…
This is a man that has let his caring for his players — who has let the desire to please his charges, and to do what he thinks is best for them — get in the way of doing what needs to be done, of adjusting and changing and adapting. By his own admission, he has trusted players too much, particularly when it came to finishing their degrees — with a vast majority of players who count against the graduation success rate still having two or fewer online classes to take after promising Tedford years ago that they would get them taken care of.

Frankly, the numbers Gorcey references speak for themselves and prove that 10/13/2007 was the day when everything changed. But why? Why did that somewhat innocuous, understandable mistake (a rookie mistake by a rookie), have had such tremendous effect on the program?

And the answer is because Tedford’s heart grew 10 sizes that day and he lost the edge that made him the successful coach he was.

Many times after that year, Tedford made significant changes to the program, but they were all just a futile effort, an exercise in re-arranging the deck chairs as the ship went down, because the one thing that really needed changing, was the one thing he was unwilling to do… to return to the hard-edged Tedford that built up the program.

That hard-edged Tedford was a man that Tedford himself didn’t like. It was a hard, driven man, who was decisive and determined. Before that day, when Tedford was asked a stupid question in a post-game interview, the reporter would shrink after Tedford’s cut-throat answer and intimidating stare let the reporter know he was an idiot.

Since that day, Tedford answered questions in a far more dismissive and non-confrontational way. While there was still a gruff edge to him, it was more like a curmudgeoney old man instead of a heartless dictator. Mostly, he kept his demons bottled up inside and did his best to answer with platitudes so as not to be overly harsh or confrontational.

Looking at the transformation a different way, Tedford took stock of himself after that night and decided he didn’t like what he saw in the mirror. He vowed to change who he was and win a different way.

Sadly, he never found a way to do it.

In short, that fateful night in 2007 was the moment that Tedford contracted a disease that ended up being terminal. He let compassion get in the way of leadership. He let kindness get in the way of truth. He let generosity get in the way of righteousness.

So how can I be happy when compassion, kindness and generosity killed a beloved coach’s job; when compassion, kindness and generosity allowed him only one season in The House that Tedford Built; when compassion, kindness and generosity cause people to dance on his grave?

I just can’t be happy that these are the things that took Tedford down, no matter how true it is and how necessary it was that he be fired. I can’t imagine being anything but devastated when taking stock of what caused his fall from grace, no matter how painful a fall it was.

Tedford, if you ever read this, (and I don’t think I’m alone in feeling this way) you will always be considered a Cal great in my eyes and I will always look back on your time as the Cal football coach with fondness. I’m very sorry it had to end this way and will always look back on today with a certain sense of regret, no matter how successful Cal is in the future.

I will instead do my best to chose to remember moments like USC 2003, Oregon 2006 and 2007, Tennessee 2007, all the Big Games you won, particularly 2002 and 2009, the 2003 Insight Bowl, the 2006 Holiday Bowl and 2008 Emerald Bowl. These were great moments for Cal football and we have you to thank for them.

Thank you for your 11 years of faithful service to Cal football. California Memorial Stadium will ALWAYS be The House that Tedford Built and someday, when time has allowed for hardened hearts to soften, I hope to see a statue out front to commemorate that.

(Written by Ken Crawford)

Saw Hydro’s last post on CGB, including this tidbit:

I have not ONCE ever stopped watching a game early. No matter how bad the loss. No matter how painful it was to watch. Yes, I’ve sat through the drubbings we received from Oregon in 2008 and 2009. The USC losses where we were competitive for about half a quarter. Watched all that [redacted]. Except for this game. For the first time in 11 years I turned off the TV and went about the rest of my life like a Cal Football game wasn’t on.

The same is true for me.

I was there when the clock expired against Oregon just over a week ago, when everyone else had been frozen out. I sat through the 2009 Oregon drubbing (although we won in 2008, so he’s misremembering that one). I’ve also never left or turned it off.

But on Saturday night, watching via a crummy streaming connection and getting tired, I asked myself what the point of this was during the 3rd quarter and I turned it off and watched a movie.

When both HydroTech and KenCraw do that, it’s time for a coaching change.

While on the topic of HydroTech, it appears he’s turning in his blogging keys and moving on with his life.

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank him for his years of service to the Cal blogosphere and wish him the best of luck in his culinary endeavors. Your voice will be missed Hydro!

(Written by Ken Crawford)

Still don’t have a lot to say about the Bears, although I probably will have some larger reflections about things after this afternoon’s meeting between Barbour and Tedford, particularly if it goes the way I think it goes…

But right now I want to give some hope to Oregon fans: YOU NEED NO MIRACLE!

It’s amazing how analysts don’t look forward and do some easy calculations when they talk about things. Here’s what Oregon needs:

1. USC to beat Notre Dame on its home turf
2. UCLA to beat Stanford
3. Win their remaining games against OSU and then the Pac-12 title game against UCLA at home.

I ask anyone out there to give me a different team who would play the winner of the SEC title game for the BCS championship besides Oregon in that scenario.

Kansas State lost to a FAR inferior team than Oregon did, so they’re going to swap spots relative to each other. Notre Dame will have lost more recently than Oregon, always a bad thing in the BCS, and will return to their spot below Oregon as they have all season.

Then there’s the 3 SEC teams with one loss (Alabama, Georgia and Florida), of which either Alabama or Georgia will have a loss from the SEC title game. So the question is can Florida, who lost to Georgia, make it a 2nd consecutive year of an all-SEC title game? That’s the strongest possibility that would keep Oregon out, but my gut says no. So I guess if you wanted something to REALLY ensure it’ll be Oregon, add Florida State beating Florida this week to the list.

I guess it’s theoretically possible a one-loss Florida State, after upsetting Florida next Saturday as Oregon fans now otherwise want, could get back in the mix, but since they’re currently #10, that’s a HUGE longshot with the ACC not having much respect and their loss to North Carolina State being of a far lesser quality that Oregon’s loss to Stanford.

So I submit to you, if the above happens, all of which is VERY reasonable and not a “miracle” as Ted Miller puts it, Oregon WILL play for the national title.

(Written by Ken Crawford)

If you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say anything at all…

…and there’s nothing nice to say.

Frankly, it’s been a rough couple weeks all the way around, ever since I got home from Salt Lake City. Pretty much ever since I got off the train I’ve been in over-drive for work, trying to get on top of all the things that need to get done, many of which that are now overdue. Even worse, the near-term future doesn’t look any more hopeful. There’s not an obvious light at the end of my work tunnel, that I can see anyway.

It’s one thing to push really hard when one is motivated or even when one is filled with joy, but it’s a far more difficult slog when the things that usually lift you up are instead crumbling down around you.

Thus, while I have a fairly firm no politics or religion policy on this blog, a policy that came after years of seeing the problems with doing it, (What I’ve learned is that while my faith is the most important thing in my life and I will never shy away from sharing it, there are times to let separate spheres remain separate.) today I’m briefly going to break my rule, not to evangelize (in fact quite the contrary), but to share why I don’t feel much like blogging about our beloved Bears.

One of the key principles of Christianity is hope. A mistake lots of people make about hope is to confuse it with delusional optimism. Instead, hope is not blind… it sees all that is going wrong and honestly faces reality. However, hope still overcomes. Hope refuses to despair in the face of troubling realities. When one believes in miracles, in an afterlife and in a loving God, one need not despair in the face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles.

As a bit of an aside, it’s actually one of the great thing about sports, is that it is a place where there are so many opportunities for hope. If nothing else, there’s always next season, right?

Nevertheless, because hope is not blind, unlike the Fox News set that delusionally thought that Romney would win on Tuesday, I had no such false illusions. Actually, it goes far deeper than that. I not only thought he would lose, I also had no illusion that Romney was a candidate worthy of being disappointed in his losing. Frankly, he’s the worst of the Republican party and a sign that the party is completely untethered from reality and also from the key principles that should motivate them.

Sadly, the alternatives are far worse. I’m sure there are plenty of Obama fans amongst my readers, so I’ll refrain from giving a long litany of why, despite how horrible Romney is, I could never throw my support behind Obama. Thus, I’ve got nowhere to turn. For those who’ve never been in this place, let me tell you, it’s quite depressing when everything you see on the ballot is the wrong choice. Frankly, it’s hard to see any reason to be hopeful, politically speaking.

When that’s the case, it’s nice when some other aspect of one’s life can give one reason to hope. And so I went to last Friday’s game against Washington hoping for a reason to hope. What I instead witnessed was a similarly disgusting display of incompetence from both teams.

Frankly, the parallel was too much to bear. Two teams, both too incompetent to watch and the team I root for (at this point the analogy becomes weak, as I don’t really “root” for Republicans, but for truth), is the loser, the more incompetent between two bumbling, pathetic teams. Man… this sure sounds a lot like the current political climate to me.

All of this is a long way of saying that between being extremely busy at work (and without much hope of that changing), having very little free time for my mind to find something to be positive about, and my favorite pass-time being so utterly depressing and hopeless, the Bears have very purposely been the furthest thing from my mind.

Because the truth of the matter is that football is just a game, politics is generally just a different game that has less impact than the pundits tell us (at least in a free country), and there is much to be both thankful for and hopeful about.

This life we have is a beautiful and hopeful one, and I refuse to let a game rob me of that hope and joy.

I’m sure the day where I can have hope in our beloved Bears is not too far away. Theoretically it could come as soon as Saturday night, even if the Bears lose. Anything from a strong performance by Bridgeford, or a repeat of 2010 where the Bear defense does what no other team has been able to pull off (did you know that Kelly’s Ducks have only been held below 19 twice? The 2010 game against the Bears, and Kelly’s first game in 2009 against Boise State.).

But even if it doesn’t come Saturday, hope will return to Cal football, likely sooner rather than later. Unfortunately, until either that happens or I get a strong injection of hope from some other aspect of my life that makes it easier to stare into the current Cal abyss, you probably won’t see a lot of posts out of me.

…at least until Saturday night.

(Written by Ken Crawford)

Random thoughts before a fit-full/futile restless night of sleep:

1. Utah fans are a nice bunch and very talkative. Not at all like the arrogant reputation they have online on some sites. I only ran into two very mild trash talkers all day while wearing my Cal gear and they were quickly rebutted by others with sympathy.
2. Is there anything else I can say to put off my rant?
3. When I gave my game plan it was under the assumption that we would manage to make it a LOW risk affair. How the team managed to turn the game plan into such a mistake and bad-bounce riddled affair is beyond me.
4. Similarly, I didn’t expect the team to be SO committed to the plan that they would make no attempt to make Utah’s defense pay for their massive focus on the run game.
5. Tedford is starting to lose the team. The players held in remarkably long, but particularly on the defense you could tell there were series when their heart wasn’t in it.
6. Despite that only 28 points were given up by the defense and the numerous short fields they had to defend.
7. How many mistakes is Maynard allowed to make while still getting every snap of every game? Two of the three turnovers were his fault. He made countless other bad choices… Shouldn’t some other guys get some playing time at some point?
8. WHY THE HECK ARE THEY HIDING BIGELOW UNDER A ROCK!?! Just when you think the coaching staff is learning from their mistakes, they pull this one… Bigelow made them look like fools… AGAIN!?!

Too many caps, time to step away from the keyboard. I’ll post more from the train ride home tomorrow evening and the podcast after I get home.

(Written by Ken Crawford)

It may be a bit small to see in the picture, but that is $137 with my Cal hat and the ticket to the Utah game. It is what I brought on the trip for incidentals. It looks like I’ll have at least $120 left when I return home. However much is left I am donating to the Fire Tedford fund. Maybe the big donors are tapped out, but we can do this $100 at a time if we need to.

(Written by Ken Crawford)

This was one of my favorite lines from My Cousin Vinny long before Utah joined the conference…

(sorry for the poor quality video… Best I could find quickly)

(Written by Ken Crawford)

It’s been pretty surprising to me to see how quickly both the fan and pundit impression of the Bears have changed, and multiple times at that.

The Bears were done for after the first two games.  Then they played a close one against tOSU and all of a sudden they just might be able to beat USC (despite the fact that USC was probably better than tOSU).  Then the Bears lose to USC, as was to be expected even if an upset was possible, and the Bears were terrible again.  They were even more terrible after the loss to ASU (I’ve got no excuses for that one).

Then there was the VERY pleasant surprising dominant win over UCLA and the bandwagon was officially open for business again.  It gained even more steam after an all too easy win over WSU.

Then came the Big Game beat down and all of a sudden the question is just how terrible the Bears are.  Utah is all of a sudden a better team.

Look… maybe, just maybe, the Bears are just mediocre.  Nothing more complicated than that.  Mediocre teams can on occasion play a good game, some times even getting the upset, but most of the time they lose to the best teams.  (tOSU, USC, Stanford)  Sometimes it is ugly.

When mediocre teams play other mediocre teams, sometimes they win, sometimes they lose.  Sometimes all the breaks go their way and they win pretty big and sometimes it is exactly the opposite (ASU, UCLA, Nevada)

But when mediocre teams play crummy teams they win almost all the time and they make it look like they are better than they are.  Ocassionally they play a bad game and lose to a crummy team, but it is the exception, not the rule.

So I ask you, is 2-5 Utah a crummy team or a mediocre team?

I say crummy. They have been man handled by every team in the conference they have played, including the same UCLA team Cal handled easily.  They also lost far worse to ASU than Cal did.  The fact that their low score loss to OSU is considered progress further underlines how they are on the wrong side of mediocre.

People will bring up that they went 0-4 in conference last year before going on a run… but that was AFTER Cal made easy work of them to put them at 0-4 in conference.  Cal showed last year who has the better players and not much has changed since last year.

To the game itself…

The gameplan for this one is the same as it was for WSU and it will work again:  win this one at the line of scrimmage with superior athletes.  (The fact that we has the same gameplan against Stanford… well that is why Tedford’s job is at stake.)

But make no mistake, Cal is the better team and as long as they show up to play with a reasonable amount of heart (which I expect), the Bears should win.

Final score: Bears 27, Utes (what is a Ute?) 13

(Written by Ken Crawford)

Mostly just testing the blog app I just downloaded… having fun on the train… we’ll see how they are doing after midnight.

(Written by Ken Crawford)

The train from Roseville to SLC leaves in less than a half hour, so I’m off with my two eldest boys. It’s a scenic 14 hour train ride (particularly with the first snows falling earlier this week)… however, it arrives at 3:30 in the morning. We’ll have most of Saturday to recover with the game starting at 7:45 PM local time and with temperatures expected to drop to near 40 by the end, we’ve brought warm clothes to bundle up.

Sunday we’ll do a little bit of touring, including going to see the Golden Spike and stop by the Great Salt Lake before getting on the train at 11:30 PM for the overnight trip back home.

More to come about the trip…

(Written by Ken Crawford)

Late again… I guess that’s my theme for this year. I’ve been REALLY busy at work. Up at 4 AM, working hard all day sorta busy. When one adds the evening commitments for the Church and the kids, and there just isn’t much time.

Here it is:

Standard Podcast [ 21:11 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

(Written by Ken Crawford)

Well that stunk. REALLY stunk.

I’ll start with giving Stanford’s defense credit. That front seven is even better than I thought. Either that or the Cal offensive line had the worst effort by a college football team in college football history. I would have trouble sprinting as fast as they got through the line. They were causing havoc everywhere. Every play that started with the ball in the backfield was in trouble. The sweep plays couldn’t even get to the outside to see if perhaps they could turn the corner. It was UG-LY.

To make matters worse, it appears Stanford took a page from Oregon State’s playbook that has been so successful in thwarting Cal. They KNEW they were going to get home to Maynard or the back quickly, so they didn’t need to worry about the long developing plays that could cause them lots of trouble. All they needed was to cover the receivers for the first couple seconds and if somehow the WR’s got behind them or wide open, the play was going to be a sack before that was a problem.

So the linebackers and the secondary very much focused on getting in the throwing lanes that develop in the first couple seconds and they had won. Lot’s of press coverage and other things that defend the quick developing stuff. It was a very good game plan.

But that’s where I end my praise for Stanford and start in on my criticism of the coaching staff, particularly since as I mentioned, we’ve seen this from Oregon State for years.

TEDFORD, THERE ARE WAYS TO BEAT THIS SORT OF GAME PLAN… ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION!?!

Here’s my four-point plan on how to beat the defensive strategy we’re going to see for the rest of the season:

1. Change the routes so that they are much quicker developing. Focusing on things like quick slants to the inside, 5-7 yard outs, TE routes right up the gut and sit in a zone hole, etc.
2. Pick routes that can be analyzed pre-snap by Maynard, so he knows where he’s going before he’s got 7 guys in his face. He’s just not able to read the field when he’s being harassed all day.
3. De-emphasize Isi. I’ve been a big supporter of him for a long time, but what we need right now is not him and frankly, he hasn’t been playing up to the same level he was this time last year.
4. Throw/toss to the running backs behind WR screening. This will work particularly well with press coverage because it will be easy for the WR’s to engage the DBs.

I’m not a football genius and I can figure this stuff out. But here’s what ticks me off…

THIS SHOULDN’T HAVE BEEN A SURPRISE.

Why is it that a couple times a year Tedford seems completely caught off guard by the adjustments teams are making to him? All of us saw what Stanford’s front seven was going to do to us a MILE away. And Tedford seemingly had no inclination or at best, and if that’s the best it’s terrifying, he had no answer to it.

The routes our WR’s were running were horrible. Lot’s of complex stuff that was slow developing. There must have been 10 different times I looked at the coverage and said “Oh, if WR X is running a quick slant, we’re golden.” But he NEVER was. Not when we were in the redzone when it should be the go-to play call.

I think Tedford out-thinks himself. “Everyone knows the right play here is a quick slant to Keenan, so I’d better not do that.” Take a lesson from Oregon coach… sometimes the reason everyone knows is because IT WORKS, and IT WORKS even when EVERYONE KNOWS. Oregon has something like 4 plays, but they run them with precision. The defense knows what it is up against and they still can’t stop it because it’s fundamentally sound.

I think part of why it ticks me off is because I really want Tedford to succeed. I like the guy and I want him to be successful in Berkeley. I think this game sealed his fate. Yes, if we come back and get bowl eligible, he’ll have saved his job, but I just don’t see it happening. Beating UW and OSU is not like beating UCLA. It won’t be that easy.

Heck, if he doesn’t change things, Utah may be good enough to follow Stanford’s lead and make WSU the last win of the season.

And I’m pretty sure Tedford needs AT LEAST 5 wins to save his job… and that assumes some intangibles that point in Tedford’s favor in the losses that remain.

So disappointing.

(Written by Ken Crawford)

Sorry for the lack of posts this week. I know it’s Big Game week, but it doesn’t FEEL like Big Game week, does it?

There’s a lot to discuss in this week’s preview, so let’s get right to it.

The first thing I want to bring to everyone’s attention is the obvious… although plenty of people seem to be ignoring it. Last year’s score was Stanford 31, Cal 28. Last year the Bears proved that when the brought their best effort, they were very close to Stanford in their ability to execute.

Thus the question one has to ask is how the teams have changed since last year. Stanford lost Andrew Luck and has tightened things up a bit on defense. Their offensive line is still strong, but has taken a little bit of a step back. But they don’t have Andrew Luck.

The Bears on the other hand have improved their wide receiver play, have replaced their losses on defense for the most part, but due to injury have struggled a bit on the offensive line. In other words, the team is about where it was last year.

So we’ve got one team that has lost a critical player and has taken a step back and one team that is basically in the same shape it was last year. And who is favored here?

OK, I get it. Stanford wasn’t all about Andrew Luck. But their ability to put up points both at home and on the road was a lot more dependent on Andrew Luck than people are giving them credit for. Last year’s lowest score: 28 points (at home vs. Notre Dame). This year they’ve only reached 28 in two of their six games (Duke and Arizona). They have yet to score an offensive touchdown on the road. Andrew Luck’s Stanford would NEVER have let that happen.

Then there’s the little matter of the quality of their wins: San Jose State, Duke, USC and Arizona. Other than USC, there’s no team on the list that Cal wouldn’t be favored against.

Which brings us to our one common opponent, USC. Of course it is easy to look at their 21-14 victory and our 9-27 loss and say that Stanford is a better team, and it’s not entirely dismissable, but there are a lot of caveats.

First of all, that was one sloppy game between USC and Stanford. 3 interceptions in 3 plays? (2 by Barkley) Ridiculous. (and a 4th 5 plays later.) USC played a horrible game and I’m not sure if you play it again that Stanford wins. Secondly, one was in the comfy confines of Stanford stadium, while Cal had to go to the Coliseum. Finally, Stanford clearly has some voodoo curse on USC the same way Oregon State does on Cal ever since 2006. It’s a mistake to judge either USC or Stanford based on their matchup. Stanford’s struggles since then and USC’s victories (including over the common opponent that Stanford lost to, Washington) are proof of that.

Before I oversell Cal’s chances in this game, let’s get to where this game will be won… In the trenches. And I think both defenses will have the advantage.

Cal’s defensive line has improved steadily this season and there’s good reason to think they’ll hold their own against Stanford’s offensive line. I think this is particularly true because Cal doesn’t need a ‘win’ but more a stalemate in this battle. Stanford’s one-dimensional team is not going to be all that successful throwing the ball. Nunez has struggled on the road so far and I think he’ll throw a bunch of picks to Cal if Shaw takes the handcuffs off of him. I expect to see a heavy does of Taylor up the middle tomorrow. Thus Cal doesn’t have to win… just plug everything up and limit the inside run game.

Things don’t fare as well on the other side of the ball. Stanford’s front seven has the talent to cause MASSIVE trouble for the Bears. Our offensive line is getting better, but is still a work in progress. One has to believe that Stanford will win that battle handily.

The way I see it, the keys to victory is for Cal to mimic what it did against UCLA on offense. The ball needs to come out quick and they need to get REALLY diverse with their play calling. ‘Running Stanford’s front seven ragged’ should be the constant goal.

Can Cal do it? Yes, they CAN… but whether they will is a far more difficult question to answer. I’m expecting either a low scoring affair that could go either way or a low Stanford score and Cal wins going away, a-la UCLA.

Let’s be optimistic again and assume Stanford scores what they have in the last two road games and Cal scores the lower of their two scores in the last two weeks: Cal 31, Stanford 13

(Written by Ken Crawford)

Ridiculously late OTRH podcast. Although the Bears seem to be winning the games I’m late on posting. So let’s hope that I’m as busy next week as I have been, and I’m late again, yes?

Here you go:

Standard Podcast [ 17:22 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

(Written by Ken Crawford)

I am not one who feels questioning the refs is out of bounds, as I frequently comment on their performance. However, I think the outrage over the no-touchdown call at Notre Dame is pretty ridiculous.

First, was it reasonable that the on-the-field ref didn’t call it a touchdown? Of course it was. Taylor was stopped, rolled to the side and didn’t really look like he had reached as far as he had. Most of us thought he didn’t get in on first watch. It wasn’t until we saw a replay we thought he might have got in.

So the fact that it went to the booth called a non-touchdown shouldn’t outrage anyone.

Now, when it goes to the booth, there must be UNDISPUTED evidence to overturn the call. With that in mind, I ask you to watch the following youtube clip, starting at the 14 second mark and watch the LEFT ELBOW of Taylor:

As Taylor extends his body forward at the 18 second mark, the front of his body falls toward the turf. Between the 20 and 21 second mark, his fall is halted, his upper.right elbow jerks downward and his body bounces. At this point, the ball is clearly not over the goal line. He then reaches forward and places the ball over the goal line.

I submit to you that his left elbow hits the ground at that moment, when his fall was halted.

Now, you can’t see the elbow either in this angle or the higher on from the same size, because it is obscured by a Notre Dame player’s calf. Is it possible the bounce is from something else and his elbow didn’t touch?

Yes, it is.

But the burden of proof is on the other side, and it’s very reasonable to say his elbow hit right there, and that without proof to the contrary, then he’s down before the reach forward with the ball. And I’d go even further than the burden of proof to say it is more likely than not. There’s no other explanation I can see of why he bounced like that. He bounced because the elbow touched.

This was no egregious call. Ted Miller, the guys on the Pac-12 network including Neuheisel, and others have been ranting and raving about this call as if the video evidence is conclusive. It’s not. It was a marginal call that could have gone either way and is very defensible being called down.

But, by all means, since we’re playing Stanford on Saturday, keep this going. I’d like Stanford to be consumed by this call for the next 6 days until they have something new to complain about Saturday evening.

(Written by Ken Crawford)

Jeff Faraudo says: “O-line delivers most encouraging performance yet”

The Bears offensive line ALWAYS looks good against WSU. I wouldn’t get too excited about that performance.

(Written by Ken Crawford)

The game went about like I expected. If WSU had converted on one of those drives that died when they got close, my pre-game prediction (31-24) could have been exactly right.

Things I liked:

• The workman like quality of the win… the Bears knew what they needed to do and got it done.
• Keenan Allen… great game for him. That long touchdown was a thing of beauty.
• Secondary getting their hands on a lot of balls… FINALLY Steve Williams is back to his old self and the rest of the secondary is joining him in making far more plays on the ball than in the first few games of the season.
• Running backs… they all played pretty well and came in for each other as they got banged up. Bigelow is FAST. CJ is tough and has more speed than in the past. Isi might be the weakest of the 3 but is doing fine.
• Offensive line dominated like they should.

Things I didn’t like:

• Secondary penalties… I’ll definitely take the bad with the good here, I’d rather have them batting a lot of balls and getting a few penalties, but this could be improved.
• Bad calls by the refs… A few of those secondary penalties were pretty bogus. Also, the instant replay booth looks to be replaced by a monkey with a coin to flip. It sometimes went in our favor (and other times it didn’t), but there was no consistency in the booth.
• Maynard locking on Allen… 14 completions total, 11 of them to Keenan Allen? That will work against a weak team, but it will not work against the better teams.
• The last drive of the first half… were we running out the clock or were we going for the score? Because what we did was injure a couple of players doing neither.
• 7:30 game… they stink and need to be run faster.

Will post both the very late tOSU and WSU podcasts later today as well as more detailed thoughts in addition to starting to look forward to Stanford (and some thoughts on their game against ND.)

(Written by Ken Crawford)

There’s a lot of different ways to look at the WSU game.

The first is our recent history with them. There’s no team in the Pac-12 that the Bears have more dominated than WSU. Tedford lost to them in his first year (when WSU was just coming off a Rose Bowl appearance), but after a two year hiatus in 2003 and 2004 (remember when we only played 8 conference games and 11 games over all, and had to skip one team every year?), the Bears haven’t lost since.

And the reason is simple… Tedford’s run-first, expose our personnel advantages strategy always worked against a less talented WSU team. There’s been no one team except WSU that Cal has held a significant talent advantage each of the last 7 years. Add to that, that WSU wasn’t doing anything truly creative or unique to overcome that talent gap, and the Bears were perfectly positioned for their current run.

As proof of this, when one looks back at the scores, there are a lot that are closer looking than they felt at the time. 2008 at home: 20-17. 2010 on the road: 20-13. 2005 at home: 42-38. The reason? Tedford played it conservative and got just what he needed against an inferior team.

A very different way to look at this game is to look at the last time we faced their new head coach, Mike Leach… the 2004 Holiday bowl. Texas Tech’s air-raid offense gave the #5 ranked Bears fits and they won 45-31.

There are of course a number of mitigating factors as to why that game is not alone the best indicator of what is going to happen this evening. For one, our defense is an entirely different style. Gone is Bob Gregory’s ‘Bend But Don’t Break’ and in is Pendergast’s much more aggressive scheme. Another is that Leach’s 2004 team was one of his best, with players perfectly tuned to his offensive strategy. It will be years before Leach can recruit and develop the players needed to get his scheme back to the level it was in 2004.

Yet another way to look at this game is team trajectories and the motivation factor. Cal finally rebounded from a soul-crushing 3 game losing streak by laying the wood to UCLA. WSU started 2-1 but has themselves just had a soul-crushing 3 game losing streak, complete with a couple of close-but-no-cigar loses.

So, does Cal make it a 4-loss streak for the Wougs? Or said a different way, does Cal make it a 8-season winning streak? On the other side, does WSU seize the opportunity to do what Cal did to UCLA and right the ship? Does Cal have a let-up game after the strong effort against UCLA? Or was the UCLA game a season-turning game and the Bears play with the sort of precision and intensity that marked the UCLA game?

My gut says that it is somewhere in between all of that. The Bears won’t have everything go quite as well as it did against UCLA, but it will be a much stronger effort than ASU. WSU will play with heart, seeing this as a winnable game, to get them back on track. Their new offense will deliver a couple blows that past WSU teams wouldn’t have, but Tedford will work the talent advantage like he always does and the Bears will come out on top with a score a bit closer than the game would have had you think.

Bears win: 31-24