California Golden Blogs: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
New Blog: The Nova Blog for Villanova Fans!

Emerald Bowl Review: Part X: Wasting Timeouts

In this tenth part of a twelve part analysis, we're going to look at how a wide receiver misalignment caused a timeout to be wasted.  In case you missed the previous installments, here is Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V, Part VI, Part VII, Part VIII, and Part IX.

When you're through with the season and into your bowl game, there are some things that should never go wrong.   You've done them so many times, they should be second nature.  You should get these things right 99.9% of the time.  One of those things is wide receiver alignment.  Wide receiver alignment is something the wide receivers should have down pat by game 13.  This is stuff they do in practice all day long and during games.  Even though things can get a bit confusing since they do the most motion and are the ones in odd formations across the field, they should get it right all the time by now.  Cal has already had its share of wide receiver misalignment problems in 2008.  Most noticeably in the Cal vs. USC game.  In that game Cal had a beautiful touchdown pass called back for an "ineligible receiver down-field" penalty due to a WR being covered up and going down the field.  You'd think that the team, especially the wide receivers would have learned from that very costly mistake and never made such a mistake again.  Unfortunately, that's not the case. 

Here's the pre-snap look below.

10a_medium

Cal is facing a critical 4th and 1.   Cal has 21 personnel on the field (2 backs, 2 WRs, 1 TE).   Cal is lined up in its I-Formation with the tight end to the left side of the formation meaning the strength of the formation is to the left.  Unfortunately, there's a problem with this formation.  The top wide receiver, Tucker, is on the line of scrimmage covering up the tight end (note: I am going to avoid using the terms flanker and split-end right now to avoid confusion since Tucker is normally a split end but looked like he was supposed to be a flanker on this play).  Tucker should be off the line of scrimmage, as to not cover up the tight end.  By covering up the tight end, the wide receiver is making the tight end an ineligible receiver downfield.  It's the bottom wide receiver, Ross, who should be on the line of scrimmage. 

Star-divide

I suppose I should have covered this earlier, but what exactly is being on the line of scrimmage?  I don't have my rulebook handy but I believe that if the player covers up the center's body as seen from the sidelines from the line of scrimmage, then that player at the end of the line is considered covered up.  In other words, if a player covers up the center so you can't see the center at all, then that player is on the line of scrimmage (LOS).  Or additionally, if a player is covering the center's mid-section only with their helmet, that player can still be considered on the LOS. 

As you can see from the picture above, the line of scrimmage is the blue line.  Tucker is very close to the blue line of scrimmage, clearly on the line of scrimmage and covering up the tight end to the left of the offense line.

Longshore sees the problem and attempts to correct the problem.  He motions towards Tucker to get off the line of scrimmage.

 

10b_medium

While Tucker is resetting, Longshore takes a look at the playclock.  The playclock is down to 3 seconds and probably isn't enough time to get the play off.

 


10c_medium

So Longshore decides to take a timeout. 

 

10d_medium

Tedford is furious.  Cal's right guard, Malele, and backup QB Riley, were also visibly upset on the play.  The target of their frustration and anger isn't really ascertainable from the television broadcast.  Who could have the coaches been upset at? Either the wide receiver, or Longshore. 

Why should the coaches be upset at Tucker?  Because this is the bowl game and simple alignment errors are not tolerable this late in the season.

Why should the coaches be upset at Longshore instead?  Or perhaps in addition?  Because it's the quarterback's responsibility to get players to the line of scrimmage quickly, and to get the play off. 

However, the coaches could also take some blame for the failure of this play.  Prior to this play Miami took at a timeout.  During the timeout, while the offense is conversing with the coaches on the sidelines, it's also the coaches' responsibility to watch the refs and clocks to make sure that the offense gets back out on to the field on time.  On this play, the offense didn't actually take the field until there were around 10 seconds left.  That is FAR too late to take the field. 

Now, let's try and figure out why there was confusion on the formation or how this confusion could have occurred.  The only ways that I think this confusion would occur is if :

(1) Tucker mis-heard the direction of the strength.  If he misheard the direction of the strength (which side the TE lines up on, thus determining which side Tucker lines up on), he would have thought that the tight end was on the other side of the offensive line, thus making him the split end wide receiver who is on the line of scrimmage.  Thus, that is why he thought he was on the line of scrimmage.  This possibility is the most likely reason for the error.

(2) The tight end mis-heard the direction of the strength and lined up on the wrong side of the offensive line.  If this happened, that would explain why Tucker thought he was on the line of scrimmage (as a split end) and not off the line of scrimmage.  This is a less likely possibility because the way Cal's playcall terminology is phrased, the tight end KNOWS he HAS TO LISTEN to the direction of the strength because that is the ONLY indicator as to which side of the offense he lines up on.  In other words, the strength is only mentioned ONCE, and not TWICE or THRICE in the playcall, meaning if you're a TE and you're only going to only to listen to one thing during the playcall, it's the direction of the strength. 

The second possibility is also less likely to be the problem because Cal almost always places the majority of its receivers towards the open end of the field (a tendency).  The open side of the field is the side with more space.  On this play, the open side of the field is to the offense's left, thus, Cal would normally (like 95% of the time) will put the direction of the strength to the left thereby causing the TE and the flanker WR (2 players) to be on the open side of the field, as opposed to the closed side of the field with only the split end (1 player).

What is interesting about this play is this: Tucker always is the split end with base personnel on the field (on this play there is base personnel on the field ( aka 21 personnel - 2 WRs, 2 Backs, 1 TE)), and Ross is always the flanker with base personnel on the field, however, if we assume the TE aligned on the correct side of the field (the offense's left), then that would make Tucker the flanker  and Ross the split end. This is contrary to what the two have been playing all game. Perhaps on this play, there was some special reason for Ross to be the split end, and Tucker to be the flanker, and because Tucker is used to being the split end, he got up on the LOS instead of being off the LOS.

There is one final thing to note about this play.  This play was a 4th and 1.  Most coaches would probably run the ball to get the one yard.  If we assume Cal was going to run the ball, then Longshore, presuming he had enough time to get the play off, could have snapped the ball with Tucker still on the LOS.  In other words, both Tucker and Ross would have been on the LOS for a total of 8 Cal players on the LOS.  The rules do not allow less than 7 players to be on the LOS, however, the offense can have 7 or more players on the LOS.  If Longshore decided to snap the ball and this play was a run play, there probably wouldn't have been a penalty for the mis-alignment.  On the other hand, if this was a pass play, and if Longshore snapped the ball with Tucker on the LOS covering up the TE, Smith, and Smith released on a route, then there would be an "ineligible receiver downfield" penalty.

I don't know if this play was a run or pass.  Perhaps the play had motion and thus that is why Longshore decided to call the timeout, because three seconds on the playclock isn't enough time to do the pre-snap motion.

 

Here's a video of the whole ordeal.  Special thanks to Ken Crawford from Excuse Me For My Voice for creating this video.

 

Conclusion:

Who is to blame for this screwup?  I'm blaming the coaches first and foremost for not getting the offense out on the field on time.  Second, I would think either Tucker and/or Smith are at fault for messing up the alignment.  Third, if this was a run play without pre-snap motion, then perhaps Longshore can get a sliver of blame for not just getting the play off despite there being only 3 seconds on the playclock. 

Anyways, many fans were furious at Longshore after this play and I think their anger was vastly misplaced due to their complete ignorance of the situation.  The coaches, Tucker and/or Smith were at fault on this play moreso than Longshore. 

This play represents another execution error even though the play never happened.  The coaches failed at their individual battle (to maintain control on the sidelines and get the offense out on the field on time) despite not being an actual player on the field.  The players failed at their individual battle by not aligning properly. 

All these errors add up to a lost timeout.  This lost timeout could have been critical.  Towards the end of the game, after Cal's kicker, Tavecchio, missed the go-ahead field goal to break a 17-17 tie to take the lead, Miami had the ball with about three and a half minutes left in the game.  If Miami scored a touchdown in that time (instead of Follett causing a forced fumble and defensive recovery) then Cal would have needed all three timeouts to preserve as much time on the clock for a desperation touchdown to tie the game.  While Cal never encountered this situation thanks to Zack Follett, it could have happened and that one lost timeout could have been a game-changer and game-killer.

Bottom line: EXECUTE!

3 recs  |  Comment 42 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

More from California Golden Blogs

East-West Shrine Open Thread

Jan 2010 by Avinash - 8 comments

Golden Nuggets: Pac-2?

Jan 2010 by Berkelium97 - 9 comments

Golden Nuggets: Offseason Work

Dec 2009 by Berkelium97 - 21 comments

Comments

Display:

The whole second half of this game seemed to be a clinic on how not to manage the game well or use timeouts effectively. Miami’s Randy Shannon had already used up two before the third quarter was even over. Look at how upset his players are in the first five seconds of the video when he had to use the timeout. Then as Miami was trying to drive down the field in the minute of the game he let 30+ seconds go off the clock even though he still had one timeout remaining. I would have been very upset with his management of the game in the second half if I were a Miami fan.

Whose domicile? OUR DOMICILE!

by Berkelium97 on Aug 17, 2009 12:34 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

From what I remember, Miami boards were calling for everyone affiliated with the team and their moms to be fired after this game.

Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.

by Spazzy Mcgee on Aug 17, 2009 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Reverse to Ross

who throws the ball!

jh

by Jake88 on Aug 17, 2009 1:38 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Do you think the fact that both teams were on the same sideline played a factor in getting the team to the line of scrimmage in a timely manner. I think Cal’s section of the sideline was on the opposite side of the 50 from the LOS.

by CalBandGreat on Aug 17, 2009 2:25 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

It definitely affected both teams throughout the game. Because there was the 10-yard no man’s land between the 45 yard lines, plays in the red zone would force one team to run about half the field to get players in and out. I think each team had to burn a timeout in the first half to get players properly lined up. Miami also had a personnel violation with 12 players on the field at one point in the game. It was a challenge for both teams.

It shouldn’t have mattered on this play because there was a timeout just prior to the play. Like Hydro said, this one looks to be the fault of the coaches for not getting them out on time.

Whose domicile? OUR DOMICILE!

by Berkelium97 on Aug 17, 2009 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Rec’d for making me think.

Faux-flagged for challenging Hydro!

ALL HAIL SUPREME LEADER AVINASH!

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Aug 17, 2009 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Faux flagged for faux flagging me: I think Hydro should be challenged MORE before he up and goes and starts his own blog…

Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.

by Spazzy Mcgee on Aug 17, 2009 4:19 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Sure, I see the point that using the timeout might have saved the play, but my point was just that the timeout probably shouldn’t have happened. It was clear that Cal was going to run the play and Longshore probably wasn’t going to change anything. So there isn’t any need to get to the LOS way early. The offense just needs to get to the LOS in time to run the play they were going to run – which they didn’t, and thus had to use a timeout that they shouldn’t have needed to use regardless of the outcome of the next play (which was like a 20 yard run).

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by HydroTech on Aug 17, 2009 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

“It would be kind of like me saving all my money now in preparation for heart surgery at age 65 when I could have spent $150 on preventive care”

The problem is preventative care doesn’t usually work like that. It may be a very effective way to increase people’s health, but it isn’t a very efficient way of doing so….

Which somehow gets me to my point that it’s all about opportunity cost. Would that timeout have been better used later? If so, then it’s a “wasted” timeout to the degree that the team should not have been in a position to have to take a timeout and missed out on using it for better purposes at another point. Your reasons for taking the timeout are obviously valid, but it’s still a situation that shouldn’t have occurred in the first place, ESPECIALLY since this sequence was following a timeout.

by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2009 7:19 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I guess it’s “wasted” in the sense that an annual checkup at a doctor’s office that doesn’t find any disease is a “waste.” I’ll take it.

Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.

by Spazzy Mcgee on Aug 18, 2009 4:55 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, I’m trying to avoid making an actual judgment on the issue, just pointing out that the costs of preventative care are higher than people expect because they don’t factor in that you have to prevent everything, whereas you only have to cure stuff that actually happens to you.

by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2009 8:54 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

What makes a flanker vs. a split end?

Hydro, I appreciate your ever-present wisdom on this blog. You wrote that certain players are typically lined up as flanker or split end. Is that due to a particular skill set of that receiver, or is it arbitrary? And if it’s the former, what makes him more suited to one or the other? Furthermore, is there anything similar with regard to the CB’s, or is it just that the best CB is going to cover the best opposing WR?

On that note, I’m also in the dark about how players get chosen to be a SDE or WDE, as well as the different LB spots. As I understand it, OLB’s are more suited to pass rushers and the inner LB’s are more coverage/run defense guys, but I don’t get it when people on the Rivals boards talk about how some prospect is suited to be on the weak or strongside.

Am I bugging you yet with these questions?

by CGK on Aug 17, 2009 4:12 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Am I bugging you yet with these questions?

We welcome all your questions, CGK. Keep em coming!

ALL HAIL SUPREME LEADER AVINASH!

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Aug 17, 2009 4:16 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Haha, right on.

by CGK on Aug 17, 2009 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

“split end” lines up on the line of scrimmage. Usually a taller and stronger WR that doesn’t need a buffer zone to get off the line of scrimmage. Perhaps more of a speed guy too to stretch the field on the QB’s weak side.

“flankers” lines up off the line of scrimmage. Usually a WR who isn’t as strong and needs a buffer zone to get off the line of scrimmage. This WR is probably more of a precision route runner than a split end.

WDEs are usually more athletic than SDEs. SDEs are usually thicker and stouter and have better run stopping skills. WDEs are usually thinner, faster guys with superior pass rushing skills to take on the offense’s LT (who is usually their most skilled and athletic offensive lineman).

MLBs are usually better in run recognition and run stopping and gap control.

SLBs have to be a bit faster than MLBs since they play on the edge. Somewhat smaller than MLBs but have to have good run stopping skills. Will often face off against the offense’s TEs.

WLBs have to be the fastest and best pass rusher of the bunch. Will drop into coverage on the weakside, will watch the QB, and will pass rush the QB. Perhaps the most athletic of all the LBs.

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by HydroTech on Aug 17, 2009 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Hydro is the shiznittle bim bam snip-snap-sack.

Thanks for explaining that.

by CGK on Aug 17, 2009 11:17 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’m not sure if ILB/MLB is more of a coverage guy. Most are suited to run-stopping and gap control.

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by HydroTech on Aug 17, 2009 4:32 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

A few thoughts...

1) Oh man I feel bad for blaming Longshore. And I was Longshore-ite.

2) Your possible explanation as to why this could’ve happened pointed to Tucker and/or Morrah (I assume he was the TE). Correct me if I’m wrong, but why the hell couldn’t they look to the right (for tucker) or left (for Morrah) and see that they were on wrong side (strong v. weak) and adjust accordingly?

3) I don’t understand this rule at all. So what if Tucker was on the LOS. I can see how something like holding can benefit the offense, but how does this benefit the offense?

In other words, Go Bears!

by royrules22 on Aug 17, 2009 6:25 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

2) Tucker could have looked at Morrah, but if Tucker was in the wrong he thought he was still right. In which case he might have thought that Morrah was on the wrong side of the offense. As for looking around and working things out, Longshore figured things out and tried to correct the problem. It didn’t look like Tucker figured things out until Longshore told him. Tucker could have possibly realized he was wrong, but then again, like I said, he probably thought he was right so even if he did look around he may not have changed his stance.

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by HydroTech on Aug 17, 2009 9:35 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

3) I think Sunday Morning QB did a nice historical piece on why the rules require 7 men on the line of scrimmage, but I think the history behind it is to prevent injury. In the old days, the offense would put tons of people in the backfield and thus after the snap those players would get a huge running start at the defense and could cut block and destroy the defense. So by making a requirement that a certain amount of players must be on the LOS, this prevents the offense from getting too much of a blocking advantage against the defense while preventing injury.

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by HydroTech on Aug 17, 2009 9:37 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I didn’t know there was a Sunday Morning QB! I have definitely read Tuesday Morning Quarterback though.

Thanks, yet another site to dramatically impact my work productivity. Here’s the link by the way for you, royrules.

http://www.sundaymorningqb.com/2008/2/14/22223/3405

by CGK on Aug 17, 2009 11:25 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

ooh nice!

Thanks!

In other words, Go Bears!

by royrules22 on Aug 18, 2009 8:31 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

SMQ

Was briefly an SBNation blog, but he (Matt Hinton) is now the primary contributor to the Dr. Saturday blog.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday

Well worth reading.

by Boy Howdy on Aug 18, 2009 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Is there a specific requirement that the TE not be “covered-up?” (that’s my impression)…

i.e. could Ross have come off the LOS instead of tucker?

Good read….

by avsrock90 on Aug 18, 2009 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

It only matters if the TE is going to be a receiver. You can cover the TE up, but it takes away the threat of him being a receiver so that’s why you don’t see it done.

by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2009 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Missing Barry is correct. There is no requirement that the TE not be covered-up, but if the TE is going to go downfield for a pass he must not be covered-up. If this play was a run play, Ross could have come off the LOS, instead of Tucker.

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by HydroTech on Aug 18, 2009 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Failed Execution by Committee

Sometimes, just a single breakdown by a single player can destroy the entire play. This is one of those mistakes, however, where multiple parties played a role. Rather than multiple- choice who’s to blame, I think the answer is all of the above.

The coaching staff clearly took too long to decide to go for it and then to choose a play. The strange sideline configuration probably cost the Bears a good 5 seconds. The receivers weren’t lined up properly. And assuming the hand-off to Best was indeed the original play call—they lined up in the same formation on the re-start, although the receivers switched sides—Longshore should have just run the play b/c the extra man on the line of scrimmage was moot.

All that said, Spazzy makes a great point above: the play worked! Maybe they have the same success w/out the time-out, but maybe having things so rushed leads to a missed block and a first down Hurricanes. Perhaps Longshore was managing the game situation well after all.

Go Bears!

by California Pete on Aug 17, 2009 9:22 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Read Tedford's Lips

“What is Nate doing? Come here!”

It really does seem the staff didn’t pay attention to the play clock at all. Nate looks right and sees Ross on the line, looks left and sees Tucker also on the line (if the following play is any indication, then Tucker should be off the line so he could pre-snap motion), and by the time he made his first communication-motion to Tucker, there was only 4 seconds left on the clock. By the time Tucker was set, there was only 2 seconds left on the clock. Nate called the timeout with 1 second remaining.

Check out the replay at 1:52. As Nate calls the time out, Tedford looks immediately to his left at Coach Daft and Daft, in frustration, looks skyward (he knew).

by ttgiang15 on Aug 18, 2009 11:30 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Eh

I don’t think he’s saying “What is Nate doing?”

It seems fairly clear he’s saying “What is _ ?” But I’m not sure it’s “Nate.” It could be “they.”

“Come here” seems pretty obvious from the hand motion.

I don’t think you can accurately say that Tedford was saying “What is Nate doing?”

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by HydroTech on Aug 18, 2009 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

“What is they doing?” C’mon, don’t you respect Coach Tedford more than that? =)

by ttgiang15 on Aug 18, 2009 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I thought he said “What is they done gone did?!” so…I think Hydro’s giving him plenty of respect.

Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.

by Spazzy Mcgee on Aug 18, 2009 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I really think it’s “they,” considering the WRs were at fault here – for their switching of flanker and split-end and/or their mis-alignment.

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by HydroTech on Aug 18, 2009 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think this is what some are having trouble digesting. “Do the coaches see everything on the field as we see from the stands or television coverage, and do they know exactly what failed on a play immediately?” I would say yes and no. The position coaches probably did (which is why I noted Daft’s reaction), but it’s impossible even for a Coach Tedford.

If we assume that the same play was to be run in the same formation after the time out, then yes, no doubt the receivers (or just one— Verran Tucker) was at fault. I don’t believe, however, that it was simple mis-aligment or switching assignments, because both players ran to their spot immediately (look at how early Verran came to the line, and the next time this play was run that receiver on that side of the field was motioned). Either Tucker mis-remembered the play, or did not hear the call over the 2,000 or so Miami fans’ non-existent crowd noise. I say TUCKER FAIL

by ttgiang15 on Aug 18, 2009 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Either Tucker or Morrah epic phail

In other words, Go Bears!

by royrules22 on Aug 18, 2009 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Tad Smith lined up in exactly the same position the first and second times, and because the Z receiver lined up in different positions coming out of the huddle (where Nate backed Tucker up, which was precisely where Ross would later line up), I am inclined to believe the tight end was not the problem and the latter is to blame.

And to clarify, I believe this play is 100% the fault of the coaches for keeping the team on the sideline for so long, although it is a bit frustrating that under the pressure of the playclock and situation, Tucker could not even line up correctly.

by ttgiang15 on Aug 18, 2009 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Simple mistakes like this after a timeout are inexcuseable.

by Missing Barry on Aug 18, 2009 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

That one sideline thing was a really weird deal. Not sure the coaches totally adjusted to it the entire game.

Contact me: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash on Aug 19, 2009 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I remember watching this

and thought, “WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING LONGSHORE??”…I could have been a bit harsh, but then he fell over coming out of the center on a 3rd and goal…

by DavidsonBear on Aug 18, 2009 4:08 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

It’s not Longshore’s fault that his foot was stepped on during that 3rd and goal play. Again… not his fault. Sigh……………………

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by HydroTech on Aug 18, 2009 8:40 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Isn’t a quarterback partly responsible for getting his feet away from his tackles? Or is the blame solely falling on the O-linemen for that gaffe?

Contact me: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash on Aug 19, 2009 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, a QB is responsible for getting out of center quickly. Longshore did that. But I think the LG stepped on his foot. That’s the LG’s fault.

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by HydroTech on Aug 19, 2009 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

The California Sports Website that's .....different from all the rest.

GoldenBlogs' FAQ
Start posting about the Golden Bears »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Connect_with_facebook

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Cms_small
Cal Pro Day
Jones_1_squared_small
Spring Practice Preview
Calflag_small
Golden Recruiting Thread: March 2010
Logo_gony_400pix_small
The Kidd from Cal

Recent FanPosts

P1_marshawn_small
DBD 3.12.10 The Newest Fantasy Sports Craze!
Boosmall_small
Cal Baseball Takes a Second Game From #9 Rice , 6-4
N1222878_43736576_541_small
DBD 3.11.10: BOW DOWN TO THE FACE OF MEDIOCRITY!!!
Jeff_mug_h2_small
SB Nation's Pac-10 Tournament preview
Calflag_small
DBD 3.10.10 Worst College Experience
Small
Rugby Nationals Shaping Up
Small
Everybody's Chasing Cal
Script_cal_small
DBD 03.09.10 - FLAGS

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SPONSORS


Marshawnthusiasts!

Bear_small ragnarok

Script_cal_small HydroTech

Cal_football_2005_09_16_roll_07_012_small CBKWit

P1_marshawn_small TwistNHook

1262541127_small yellow fever

Jahvidtician

Giorgiorope_small Berkelium97

Calflag_small Avinash

Member Of The Follettariat

Bear__small norcalnick

Official Partner of CBS Sports