CGB Supreme Court 2004 v. 2006 II
via maxdunbar.files.wordpress.com
Order In The Court! The California Golden Blogs Supreme Court Justices shall now hear evidence from team 2006 in the hot button topic, Which Team Was More Successful 2004 or 2006?
They heard from 2004 here. Now, it's 2006's chance. Lotsa of heated rhetoric on both sides of the aisle here. MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News can't stop talking about this land-mark case. How will it end? Take the next step with us, after the fold!
No, we live in a world of experiences and successes and accomplishments. To determine what is the better team, you can't just look at the stark utilitarianism of numbers. Success in the real world is a broad palette of varying colors, not just black and white.
You'll hear a lot from the other side about how many numbers their team put up and this and that, but what did those numbers accomplish? Ultimately, little more than the never-ending Cal ballet of hope and endless disappointment.
But with 2006, there is a team that is more than just numbers. More than just disappointment. This is a team that achieved more than not just the 2004 team. This is a team with historic achievements. As our team of attorneys will show, 2006 was the most successful team in one of the most, if not THE most, successful era of Cal football. If we are truly living in the Golden Era, then 2006 is truly the Golden Year.
You'll hear from our team about how the 2006 team won at least a share of the Pac10 title for the first time in over 3 decades!
You'll hear from our team about how the 2006 team won the most prestigious bowl game a Cal team has won in about 15 years.
via sportsroids.com
Unlike 2004, the story of the 2006 team is one of happiness, joy, and success. Now, if we may call our first witness.
Let's look at the bowl history to see just how rare it is for Cal to make and even win a Bowl game.
Cal is currently 10-8-1 in Bowl Games. And our Rose Bowl record is 2-5-1 with a rough 4 game losing streak in the late 40s and 50s.
Now, to be fair, all this is ancient history. Who amongst us remembers the 1949 Rose Bowl? We have to jump forward to a more modern time. The most recent modern bowl game was in 1979. We lost it. But after that, we had some more luck. If we could make it to a bowl. In 20 years, we went to only 5 bowl games, going 3-2. Now, that does include a victory in the Citrus Bowl in 1992.
But to even make a Bowl Game is a huge achievement for a Cal team. And to make the #2 best bowl game in the conference, thats very impressive, too. I know people dump on the H-Bowl, but its what we got for right now.
But, of course, the 2004 team made the exact same bowl. Credit to them for making a bowl game. But winning it? That's a whole nother story. When Cal won the 2006 H-Bowl, it hadn't won a bowl game on that magnitude in 15 years! It still remains to this day, the biggest bowl victory of the Tedford era. And, one of the biggest victories of not only the Tedford era, but Cal history. Succeeding where the 2004 team failed. Succeeding in one of the most important games in Cal history. Here are the numbers:
"Cal hasn't been *this* successful since *I* was around!!" via upload.wikimedia.org
Conference Championships:Category: 2004, 2006
PPG (Offense): 36.8, 32.8
PPG (Defense): 16, 19.3
Passing YPG: 235.7, 253.2
Opponent Passing YPG: 238.4, 240.8
Rushing YPG: 256.8, 162.8
Opponent Rushing YPG: 82.5, 125.38
Turnover Margin: 2, 6
Look at these numbers. Look at how impressive the 2004 team was. 4 more points a game. 3 fewer points a game! Almost 100 more rushing yards a game.
With numbers like that, you'd think they could win at least a share of the Pac10 Title. Yet, they couldn't.
You'd think they would have at least won their bowl game, the exact same bowl game the 2006 team was in. Yet, they didn't.
When I look at these numbers, I'm reminded of the lost promise of the 2004 team. A team that could rack up huge numbers. A team that could really stifle the opponents. But they couldn't achieve the same level of success as the 2006 team, even with the better numbers. Thats what is so disappointing frustrating with the 2004 team.
You'd think with all their chest-puffing over points per game this and rushing per game that, that they'd at least be able to win a bowl game. So, when they didn't, in brain-meltingly crying fashion, it only illustrates, in stark detail, why the 2006 team was the more successful team. With potentially less, they were able to achieve more.
And make Cal fans happier. And isn't that what is most important? Making US happy!!!
"ALL ABOARD THE FAILBOAT!" via www.sfgate.com
Ragnarok: Your honors, there's the old saying about 'Lies, damn lies, and statistics.' Team 2004 can use its statistics to try to prove its own points.
Team 2006 won the biggest prize Cal has won in over 50 years and that, your honors, certainly has to count for something.
TwistNHook: Your honors, may it please the Court, perhaps the most important definition of success is to please the fans and leave them with many memories to tell their grand-children.
Certainly, the 2004 season had some highlights, but 2006 had some of the most historic Cal highlights to date.
Who could forget Coach Tedford hoisting that giant whale trophy over his head after the Holiday Bowl victory? I know I can't!
And c'mon, that's the year that Marshawn blew us all away. We had the Chunging!
And then there is the UDub game, which was a cavalcade of awesomeness, inevitably finishing up with Ghostriding The Injury Cart:
When I think of 2004, the first thing that pops into my mind is Aaron Rodgers's pass being off on 4th and goal. Then, I think of JJ's TD run being called back. Then, I think of the monstrous visage of Mack Brown and my yet to be born children become sterile. Then, I think of Robert Jordan setting a perfect spike to that Texas Tech defensive player.
For whatever reason, perhaps due to the fact that most of our victories were blowouts in 2004, I don't have a lot of positive memories. They were the sort of ho-hum "just another day at the football factory" kind of games, which is AMAZING at the time, but sort of fades from memory. I do remember jumping out to that huge lead against OSU where Chase Lyman was on pace for 12 TDs. I do remember that Oregon TE dropping the ball on 4th down. Those are great memories, but 2006 has so many more great memories. So many more amazing Marshawn moments. And perhaps the greatest moment of Cal history (besides the Play) in the last 50 years: Holiday Bowl Victory!
30 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This is a good argument
It doesn’t convince me – 2004 was the better team and really put Cal on the map, but these are good solid arguments.
Well, thank you for having an open mind in all this. More than we can say for BEASTMODE! ;)
We have the ruling in from the justices and will reveal their opinions next week. So, keep discussing your thoughts hear and stay tuned for more information soon! GO BEARS!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
asdf
Nobody is talking about which team was better – the question is Which Team Was More Successful?
I wouldn’t say “nobody” is talking about which team was better. See my objection below. I don’t know how this became a “Which Team Was More Successful” question because that wasn’t the issue the 2004 legal team was given to brief.
Praise be to Tedford!
Frankly speaking, as a member of the 2006 team, I wasn’t aware that we were given a question more in-depth than “2004 vs. 2006”.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
The Justices will make up our own questions, and perhaps even our own answers. Do not try to distract us with facts, history, or any other specifics. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Driver of the Cal Um Bus
by CALumbus Bear on Jul 15, 2009 9:04 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Well, I am often distracted by the DBD. Which, on occasion, contains inanities. Motion Sustained.
Driver of the Cal Um Bus
by CALumbus Bear on Jul 16, 2009 6:28 AM PDT up reply actions
I renew my objection
The California Golden Blogs Supreme Court Justices shall now hear evidence from team 2006 in the hot button topic, Which Team Was More Successful 2004 or 2006?
The question that counsel were ordered to brief was, “Which team was better, 2004 or 2006?” I therefore restate my objection for the record. Examining the “Which Team Was More Successful?” question is a means of analyzing the true issue before the Court, but it is not actually the question to be decided.
Praise be to Tedford!
The Self Appointed Chief Justice and his Associate Justices (including one regular Chief Justice) have taken the briefs into advisement and have retired to consider and render a decision. Please respect our need for decorum and silence as we weigh these weighty matters.
And we will decide what question is before us, as we are deciders and, like all other judges, infallible and incapable of being told what to do.
Driver of the Cal Um Bus
by CALumbus Bear on Jul 14, 2009 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions
So, in other words, objection overruled?
You’re a little long winded, your Honor.
Praise be to Tedford!
Fine, we decide now. OBJECTION OVERRULED. It is so ordered. Fees to be assessed.
Driver of the Cal Um Bus
by CALumbus Bear on Jul 14, 2009 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions
You are just upset, because I might actually win a trial for once in my life. A trial to which I organized both teams of lawyers and personally selected the Justices. BUT IT STILL COUNTS!
Were I to win. Which you will all find out next week, so hold your breath starting……..NOW!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
This case has nothing to do with evicting old ladies. Are you even allowed to take these?
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Jul 14, 2009 8:49 PM PDT up reply actions
The Justices are free to hold a party’s [foolish] selection of counsel against such party. ORDERED, IT IS SO.
Driver of the Cal Um Bus
by CALumbus Bear on Jul 15, 2009 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions
A lurker's amicus curiae brief
I don’t comment a lot here but I feel that it needs to be stated that the 2006 team’s share of the Pac-10 title is not a far comparison to the 2004 team 2nd place Pac-10 finish.
This was touched on a little bit in the comments of the 2004 case. The 2004 team’s only regular season loss was against USC which went undefeated in 2004 and claimed the Pac-10 (and national) title. While the 2006 team lost games to Tennessee, Arizona and USC. The only reason why the 2006 team got a share of the Pac-10 title was because USC had losses against both Oregon State and UCLA, allowing Cal to sneak in and claim a share of the title. In 2006 it was not the successfulness of Cal that got it a piece of the Pac-10 title but rather the failure of USC that year to win games it should have.
Thanks for giving this information. And thanks for the 2004 team not hearing this until after they presented their evidence. Motion In Limine to keep all this information away from the Justices. The bell cannot be rung!!!!!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Motion denied. SO ORDERED IT IS. Considering sanctions.
Driver of the Cal Um Bus
by CALumbus Bear on Jul 15, 2009 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Don’t make me take away one of your suit jacket’s breasts, in which case you shall be in a state of single-breasted jacketness. Which shall render you more legally impotent than usual. I’ll do it if I have to. Justices don’t play.
Driver of the Cal Um Bus
by CALumbus Bear on Jul 15, 2009 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions
But I couldnt be any more legally impotent.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Hmmm… motion SUSTAINED.
Driver of the Cal Um Bus
by CALumbus Bear on Jul 15, 2009 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions
fyi I read this and found it interesting but have no redeeming comment to add
CGB: Optimism is dead to us.

by 


























































