Cal vs. the Pac-10 in the Tedford Era

by HolmoePhobe on Sep 2, 2009 1:04 PM PDT

I love football statistics (yes, I am a huge nerd). Having spent a fair amount of time looking at Cal's Tedford-era numbers, and having seen much wailing and gnashing of teeth regarding certain game situations (playing UCLA in LA, playing OSU at home, etc.), I thought it would be interesting to break down our performance at home and away against each of the other Pac-10 schools.

For obvious reasons, I'm using 2002-2008 data. Big shoutout to Royrules for sharing his data with me.

Team-by-Team Statistics 2002-2008

To give this some context, here are conference records, PPG/rushing/passing numbers for each Pac-10 team by year. The top 3 in each category are bolded (top 1 would just be a lot of USC).

Pac-10 Record

Arizona	19	40	32.20%
Arizona State	32	28	53.33%
California	36	23	61.02%
Oregon	36	24	60.00%
Oregon State	35	24	59.32%
Stanford	17	42	28.81%
UCLA	31	28	52.54%
USC	52	7	88.14%
Washington	14	45	23.73%
Washington State	25	34	42.37%

Offensive PPG

PPG (Offense)	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	Average
Arizona	18.92	15.1	14.9	22.9	16.6	28	36.6	21.86
Arizona State	32.29	24.8	29.8	36.8	26.8	32.3	22.8	29.37
California	35.58	32.6	36.8	32.9	32.8	29.3	32.6	33.23
Oregon	32.08	27.4	25.6	34.5	29.5	38.2	41.9	32.74
Oregon State	31.85	33.3	26.7	26.6	27.8	27.8	30.5	29.22
Stanford	20.45	16.9	22	24.5	10.6	19.6	26.3	20.05
UCLA	29.77	19.1	30.1	39.1	23	22.4	17.7	25.88
USC	35.77	41.1	38.2	49.1	30.5	32.6	37.5	37.82
Washington	30.62	26	14	21.5	21.8	29.2	13.3	22.35
Washington State	33.15	30.3	25	33.5	24.6	25.7	12.7	26.42

Points of Interest:

The 2005 Trojans were pretty ridiculous.
Cal's PPG is pretty consistent, more so than that of Oregon (although Oregon's PPG the last two years is scary good).

Opponent PPG

PPG (Defense)	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	Average
Arizona	25.83	35.75	25	26.4	19.6	26.8	21.3	25.81
Arizona State	29.07	27.33	24.5	29.9	25.1	22.5	22.7	25.87
California	26.5	24.36	16	21.2	19.3	26.8	19.9	22.01
Oregon	27.85	26.77	25.6	23.2	26.5	23.6	28.2	25.96
Oregon State	20.54	23.15	24.5	33.2	22.2	22.6	23.1	24.18
Stanford	34.27	29.45	21.2	30.6	31.4	28.3	27.4	28.95
UCLA	25.08	23.46	25.8	34.2	19.9	22.3	29	25.68
USC	18.46	18.38	13	22.8	15.2	16	9	16.12
Washington	26.31	26.33	30.4	30.6	25.9	31.6	38.6	29.96
Washington State	22.77	19.77	27.9	31.5	23.1	32.4	43.8	28.75

Points of Interest:

The 2004 Trojans were also ridiculous. The 2008 Trojans...um...yeah.
Cal's average opponent PPG during the Tedford era is quite a bit lower than anyone else's (apart from USC, of course). 2 points less than OSU may not look like much, but given how closely bunched together all the others are, I think it's at least somewhat significant. If you looked at 2004-2008 this would be even more true.

Passing YPG

Passing Offense	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	Average
Arizona	289.75	183.67	170.5	229.3	168.7	308.5	244	227.77
Arizona State	303.86	274.25	317.3	373.4	197.6	262.6	220.3	278.47
California	247.58	264.64	235.7	192.7	253.2	241.8	189.8	232.20
Oregon	227.62	252.92	238.3	304.5	241	215.8	204.8	240.71
Oregon State	262.62	328.08	308.8	296.5	242.4	196.7	249	269.16
Stanford	178.18	187.18	247.3	223.9	166.8	211.3	152.2	195.27
UCLA	229.62	203	225.1	270.3	200.3	182.6	200.5	215.92
USC	306.77	291.62	271.7	319.8	263.8	237.7	259.8	278.74
Washington	346.23	269.67	190.8	222.8	193.8	191.2	163.8	225.47
Washington State	292.69	271.23	240.6	277.3	259.8	319.7	146	258.19

Cal seems to be in the middle of the pack here. There doesn't seem to be a particularly strong correlation between passing offense and overall success.

Opponent Passing YPG

Passing Defense	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	Average
Arizona	224.33	279.25	255.5	225.1	206.6	234.2	181.9	229.55
Arizona State	244.29	253.92	236	289	210.3	227.8	208.7	238.57
California	278.83	251.14	238.4	240.4	240.8	214.4	193	236.71
Oregon	291.15	259.92	216.8	223.8	170.6	249.2	270.2	240.24
Oregon State	199.31	204.31	196	298.7	223.7	235.5	180.9	219.77
Stanford	252	296.27	248.9	285.9	177	265.5	226.7	250.32
UCLA	228.23	200.69	222.8	235.3	223.4	234.1	167.7	216.03
USC	201.77	276.23	199.9	230.4	204.8	189	134.4	205.21
Washington	259.46	233.42	185.8	275.7	240.2	261.4	211.2	238.17
Washington State	255.23	227.69	233.2	289.1	243.1	257.7	195.8	243.12

Cal clearly improving here.
2008 seems particularly pass-unfriendly across the board.

Rushing YPG

Rushing Offense	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	Average
Arizona	43.83	123.83	118.4	122	84.2	76.8	158.4	103.92
Arizona State	89	117.33	118.1	145.7	169.7	137.3	89.1	123.75
California	108	168.29	256.8	235.3	162.8	165.7	186.2	183.30
Oregon	145.62	131.92	158.7	134.3	181.8	251.7	280.1	183.45
Oregon State	148.69	134.92	70.7	122.5	118.2	174.9	158.1	132.57
Stanford	133.18	95.82	81.2	92.3	65.1	111.2	199.6	111.20
UCLA	127.54	91.92	184.9	160.7	129.8	151	82.8	132.67
USC	142.46	155.92	177.4	260	128	197.2	194.8	179.40
Washington	74.46	119.5	120.2	135.2	127.9	203.1	99.3	125.67
Washington State	129.23	115	128	212	128.3	115.9	95.1	131.93

Cal in 04-05 and Oregon in 07-08 put up way more yards than anyone else over this period.
Overall Cal, Oregon and USC are bunched very closely together - and almost 50 yards/game more than anyone else.

Opponent Rushing YPG

Rushing Defense	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	Average
Arizona	161.83	180.75	123.91	183.73	119.67	138	131.08	148.42
Arizona State	119.36	150.83	122.92	179.75	117.62	117.31	126.33	133.45
California	114	133.71	82.5	119.17	125.38	164.46	122.23	123.06
Oregon	118.15	107.08	122.09	133.92	151.46	132.77	119.38	126.41
Oregon State	94.23	84.38	117.33	108	110.14	70.69	131.23	102.29
Stanford	132.73	137.55	143.36	156	210.5	169.92	152.92	157.57
UCLA	129.54	116.92	210.08	232.75	91.08	109.15	169.75	151.32
USC	83.15	60.15	79.38	130.54	91.08	84.15	87.38	87.98
Washington	97.69	151.58	183.64	143.36	139.17	185	240.58	163.00
Washington State	87.23	90.85	133.45	153.55	114.08	163.42	247.62	141.46

2007 notwithstanding, Cal has clearly been consistently successful against the run.
Pretty impressive numbers from OSU, particularly in 2007.

Turnover Margin (by season)

Turnover Margin	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008
Arizona	-7	-5	3	-9	7	0	6	-0.71
Arizona State	4	-4	5	7	-1	3	5	2.71
California	18	3	2	-6	6	-3	15	5.00
Oregon	5	-5	-2	13	-10	9	5	2.14
Oregon State	8	-8	3	-14	8	0	1	-0.29
Stanford	-5	1	8	4	-11	2	-4	-0.71
UCLA	2	-1	-7	6	4	-4	-10	-1.43
USC	18	20	19	21	4	2	7	13.00
Washington	1	-4	-19	-3	-8	-1	-17	-7.29
Washington State	-4	8	-1	-5	6	-2	-25	-3.29

Despite Joe and Nate's excellent adventure(s), Cal has done a great job keeping the turnover margin positive.

Cal's record against each Pac-10 opponent 2002-2008

Arizona (4-3)

#	Pts	Opp Pts	Pass Yds	Opp PYds	Rush Yds	Opp RYds	Total Yds	Opp Yds	TO
Average	34.43	22.71	231.29	251.00	167.57	82.71	398.86	333.71	0.14
Home (3-1)	39.00	23.25	196.75	292.75	191.25	63.50	388.00	356.25	1.00
Away (1-2)	28.33	22.00	277.33	195.33	136.00	108.33	413.33	303.67	-1.00

Arizona State (5-1)

#	Pts	Opp Pts	Pass Yds	Opp PYds	Rush Yds	Opp RYds	Total Yds	Opp Yds	TO
Average	37.67	21.17	238.00	254.83	156.00	112.17	394.00	367.00	2.33
Home (3-0)	33.33	11.67	211.00	193.33	150.67	144.33	361.67	337.67	3.33
Away (2-1)	42.00	30.67	265.00	316.33	161.33	80.00	426.33	396.33	1.33

Oregon (4-2)

#	Pts	Opp Pts	Pass Yds	Opp PYds	Rush Yds	Opp RYds	Total Yds	Opp Yds	TO
Average	27.83	23.17	206.83	225.33	170.00	140.83	376.83	366.17	-0.17
Home (3-0)	33.00	22.33	226.67	196.67	195.33	139.00	422.00	335.67	-0.33
Away (1-2)	22.67	24.00	187.00	254.00	144.67	142.67	331.67	396.67	0.00

Oregon State (2-5)

#	Pts	Opp Pts	Pass Yds	Opp PYds	Rush Yds	Opp RYds	Total Yds	Opp Yds	TO
Average	27.57	23.86	233.57	183.71	120.43	177.86	354.00	361.57	-0.71
Home (0-3)	23.00	29.67	195.33	202.00	148.00	201.00	343.33	403.00	-1.33
Away (2-2)	31.00	19.50	262.25	170.00	99.75	160.50	362.00	330.50	-0.25

Stanford (6-1)

#	Pts	Opp Pts	Pass Yds	Opp PYds	Rush Yds	Opp RYds	Total Yds	Opp Yds	TO
Average	28.86	12.14	203.29	210.00	206.86	74.14	410.14	284.14	0.43
Home (4-0)	33.50	11.50	168.25	209.75	235.00	76.50	403.25	286.25	1.75
Away (2-1)	22.67	13.00	250.00	210.33	169.33	71.00	419.33	281.33	-1.33

UCLA (4-3)

#	Pts	Opp Pts	Pass Yds	Opp PYds	Rush Yds	Opp RYds	Total Yds	Opp Yds	TO
Average	31.71	26.29	225.86	235.71	171.57	102.71	397.43	338.43	1.00
Home (4-0)	35.25	21.00	203.00	265.50	182.25	77.75	385.25	343.25	2.00
Away (0-3)	27.00	33.33	256.33	196.00	157.33	136.00	413.67	332.00	-0.33

USC (1-6)

#	Pts	Opp Pts	Pass Yds	Opp PYds	Rush Yds	Opp RYds	Total Yds	Opp Yds	TO
Average	16.43	25.14	208.43	225.86	126.14	147.86	334.57	373.71	-1.57
Home (1-2)	19.33	27.67	219.00	217.33	170.00	175.33	389.00	392.67	-2.00
Away (0-4)	14.25	23.25	200.50	232.25	93.25	127.25	293.75	359.50	-1.25

Washington (6-1)

#	Pts	Opp Pts	Pass Yds	Opp PYds	Rush Yds	Opp RYds	Total Yds	Opp Yds	TO
Average	41.14	18.71	243.57	253.57	267.00	118.29	510.57	371.86	1.86
Home (3-0)	44.33	12.67	252.33	213.00	335.67	100.00	588.00	313.00	4.00
Away (3-1)	38.75	23.25	237.00	284.00	215.50	132.00	452.50	416.00	0.25

Washington State (4-1)

#	Pts	Opp Pts	Pass Yds	Opp PYds	Rush Yds	Opp RYds	Total Yds	Opp Yds	TO
Average	37.40	21.80	230.20	314.80	221.80	95.80	452.00	410.60	-0.20
Home (2-1)	33.33	34.33	287.00	400.67	180.33	111.33	467.33	512.00	-1.00
Away (2-0)	43.50	3.00	145.00	186.00	284.00	72.50	429.00	258.50	1.00

There are some interesting pieces of information in here. For example, despite our losing record against UCLA on the road, it seems that yardage-wise location doesn't have a huge impact on how we do. The turnover margin, on the other hand, is definitely better at home.

That illustrates a couple of issues to keep in mind when looking at these numbers:

1. Sample sizes are tiny

2. It's difficult to determine causality.

Having said that, I think there is some interesting data in here. A couple of things that jump out at me:

There seems to be little correlation between offensive PPG and Cal's conference record
The opposite is true for defensive PPG
Rushing offense/defense seems somewhat more closely correlated than passing
Our passing defense seems to be trending better; our rushing defense does not - but it's pretty good to begin with

Despite the 4-3 record against Arizona, we have done well against them on paper. Some of this might be skewed by the high scoring games in (if I recall correctly) 2002 and 2003.
While our yardage numbers are similar to those of ASU, the scoring and turnover numbers are not.
We're very evenly matched with Oregon.
Somewhat bizarrely, when we play OSU the away team seems to do better. This is probably a function of low sample size.
Stanford sucks, even when we spot them a couple of turnovers.
The UCLA numbers are weird. I don't really know what to make of them.

The opinions expressed in a FanPost are, in every way, reflective of the opinions of every California Golden Blogs Marshawnthusiast. Moreover, they are reflective of every employee of SBNation, including Tyler "Blez" Bleszinski.

Tweet Comment 40 comments | 10 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

4-3 against Arizona during this period is a maddening head scratcher. None of Zona’s teams has been particularly good during this stretch. I can sort of give us a pass on the 2002 loss, but we had no business losing the 2006 and 2008 games.

Praise be to Tedford!

by Ohio Bear on Sep 2, 2009 1:16 PM PDT reply actions

Arizona was favored to win the 2008 game though

And considering our relative difference in record, I’d say they won that one pretty well.

Contact if you want to chat: bearsnecessities@gmail.com

by Avinash Kunnath on Sep 2, 2009 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions

There’s no one who can convince me that 2008 Arizona was a better team than 2008 Cal. We shouldn’t have lost the game. Period.

Praise be to Tedford!

by Ohio Bear on Sep 2, 2009 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs

Sadly, they were better that day, that game. I think we would have won a rematch, but the Pac doesn’t allow.

by Cugel on Sep 2, 2009 7:00 PM PDT up reply actions

Great post. Rec’d!

ALL HAIL SUPREME LEADER AVINASH!

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 2, 2009 1:21 PM PDT reply actions

Rec'd!

Great post.

It’s kind of hard to make overarching statements due to the small sample size and the fact that correlation does not imply causation.

But it’s still interesting to see that Cal’s TO margin on the road is wildly different compared to the home margin (Oregon notwithstanding).

In other words, Go Bears!

by royrules22 on Sep 2, 2009 1:27 PM PDT reply actions

I should have put this in the fanpost:
Cal’s net home turnover margin 2002-2008: 27
Cal’s net away turnover margin 2002-2008: -6

by HolmoePhobe on Sep 2, 2009 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions

Damning evidence

In other words, Go Bears!

by royrules22 on Sep 2, 2009 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions

Overarching statements needed

I think 7 seasons is plenty big enough to draw some conclusions so I reject the small sample size argument. I did wonder why we only have 5 games against WSU and 6 agains ASU and Oregone during that time. Haven’t we been doing round robin play for that whole time?

PS. Correlation DOES actually imply causation. (It just doesn’t demonstrate causation directly)

by YleeXOtee on Sep 4, 2009 12:51 AM PDT up reply actions

I do not believe we started the round robin until 2005. Maybe 2006?

ALL HAIL SUPREME LEADER AVINASH!

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 4, 2009 8:29 AM PDT up reply actions

Round robin started in 2006

with the addition of the 12th game.

In prior years, some teams played 12+ regular season games, but only 8 conference opponents.

by Nashville on Sep 4, 2009 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions

Um, correlation does not imply causation. Statistics 101…

by Missing Barry on Sep 4, 2009 8:29 AM PDT up reply actions

Stat 102

correlation implies causation, thats why we do those studies first before the more expensive, complicated experiments (if possible) to demonstrate actual causation. For some things, we even accept correlation as proof enough (i.e. smoking causes cancer in humans). But this is all semantics.

Your point was – the numbers don’t “prove” anything directly. On that we agree. I just think they are stronger evidence than you.

by YleeXOtee on Sep 4, 2009 8:49 AM PDT up reply actions

Oh I wasn’t weighing in on the numbers themselves (I wasn’t involved in this conversation earlier), just pointing out that all correlation means is two variables move in a correlated fashion. That does not imply any sort of causation on its own. If you have a sound theory for why you think they might be correlated, run a test on them, and find they are, you can start making some conclusions with some evidence (and follow up with further testing), but again, it doesn’t necessarily imply causation. Even with correlation, there are a number of possibilities that exist why there may not be causation, including reverse causation and extraneous variables.

To use a wikipedia example, you can look to see how the number of fireman at the scene affects a fire (you would think it would cause the fire to be smaller with more firemen to stop it), but you find there’s a positive correlation there. However, this is reverse causation as the size of the fire causes the number of firefighters at the scene. It’s a simple example and may not seem relevant, but this type of thing can happen pretty often in the real world depending on what field you’re in, and it’s often much harder to figure out which variable is the cause. (I get the impression you know all this and I’m lecturing unnecessarily, but oh well, maybe someone else out there can learn a thing or two)

Basically, correlation does not mean causation, and while it can imply causation, it does not have to and you need more information to draw any real conclusion.

by Missing Barry on Sep 4, 2009 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions

Also…

both variables we’re looking at could be influenced by a third, independent variable. That’s why I’m reluctant to make any claims about causality here.

dboneisloose

by HolmoePhobe on Sep 4, 2009 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions

“Extraneous variables are variables other than the independent variable that may bear any effect on the behavior of the subject being studied.”

by Missing Barry on Sep 4, 2009 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions

It's actually Stats 2 at Cal, smartasses.

Remember, the enemy's end zone is DOWN!

by GoldBlooded on Sep 5, 2009 1:27 AM PDT up reply actions

On 2008 USC PPG allowed...

If that defense hadn’t decided to take the 4th quarter off against Penn St., that figure would be around 7 ppg.

Also, I wonder how much lower it would sink if you discounted every point scored by the other team’s defense, by special teams, and by short fields (e.g. on the Trojans side of the half) as those aren’t really points allowed by the defense.

I bet it’d drop below a TD a game if you did that.

by Nashville on Sep 2, 2009 2:44 PM PDT reply actions

For that matter

I bet Cal’s defensive ppg would really improve based on that standard. I can think of three TDs in the first three games that were much more the fault of the offense than the defense.

by Nashville on Sep 2, 2009 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions

Working from memory only

I can think of these points that can be deemed not the “fault” of the defense:

14 points vs. Michigan State (INT return for TD and TD set up by blocked punt deep in Cal territory)
7 points vs. Maryland (TD set up by INT return inside Cal’s 20)
7 points vs. Arizona (INT return for TD)
7 points vs. Fucla (blocked punt for TD)
21 points vs. OSU (KO return for TD; punt return to 1 yard line; INT return for TD)

Total = 56 points
Reduces the defensive ppg average to 15.6.

Praise be to Tedford!

by Ohio Bear on Sep 3, 2009 3:52 AM PDT up reply actions

Indeed

That’s a pretty damn good defense. And two of the three units on it will be better this year.

Is it Saturday yet?

by Nashville on Sep 3, 2009 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions

Yeah, that is the main problem with the data above – the PPG/OPPG doesn’t necessarily correlate to yardage because of D/ST scoring. I don’t think there’s a way to resolve that outside of adding a column and individually inputting data for each game.

by HolmoePhobe on Sep 3, 2009 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions

Epic post. Thanks Holmoephobe!

www.californiagoldenblogs.com

by HydroTech on Sep 2, 2009 4:38 PM PDT reply actions

Post has a scary lack of superlatives and happiness.

Otherwise, rec’d!

All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!

by rollonubears on Sep 2, 2009 5:15 PM PDT reply actions

I love huge collections of data like this. Rec’d!

Whose domicile? OUR DOMICILE!

by Berkelium97 on Sep 2, 2009 5:57 PM PDT reply actions

I’d say Tedford & Co. are long overdue in beating UCLA on the road and OSU at home. Alongside the SC and Oregon games, those are the two I’m most eyeing.

Go Bears!

by California Pete on Sep 2, 2009 7:45 PM PDT reply actions

The UCLA numbers are weird. I don’t really know what to make of them.

special teams have been huge in the UCLA games. We missed 3 FG in an overtime loss in 2003. Maurice Jones killed us on returns in 2005. Desean destroys UCLA on returns in 2006. None of that data would be reflected in what you’ve gathered here – in each of these games the winning team gained less yards than the loser!

The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS

by norcalnick on Sep 2, 2009 8:42 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs

The records against Oregon State and Arizona are head scratching, only because I can’t think of many years when either school was favored against Cal. Only this past year can I remember thinking “Oregon State should win this game.” Arizona hasn’t had a winning season (until this year) since 1998.

I haven’t looked through Cal’s schedule, but my guess is a couple of these loses happened during the same year. What would have happened with 1-2 more wins each year. Just something to think about that.

I support Takimoto in his effort to support Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.

by The VD Special on Sep 3, 2009 12:13 AM PDT reply actions

We lost to Arizona and Oregon State in the same season in 2002 and 2008.

Praise be to Tedford!

by Ohio Bear on Sep 3, 2009 3:55 AM PDT up reply actions

GRAPHS!

Honk if you think Rags is great!

by AndBears on Sep 6, 2009 10:36 AM PDT reply actions

Interesting to note that:

a)2008 had a worse passing O than Ayoob.
b)our passing D has only gotten much better over time. Love it!

ALL HAIL SUPREME LEADER AVINASH!

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 8, 2009 7:50 AM PDT up reply actions

Honk if you think Rags is great!

by AndBears on Sep 6, 2009 10:36 AM PDT reply actions

This is my fav graph.

ALL HAIL SUPREME LEADER AVINASH!

www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com

by TwistNHook on Sep 6, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions

You spelled Stanfurd wrong.

by CaliforniaCMB on Sep 6, 2009 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions

all data was taken from the above post, including labels. That being said, I should have used a find/replace to correct the spelling. I apologize :)

Honk if you think Rags is great!

by AndBears on Sep 6, 2009 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions

Just jokes...

:o)

by CaliforniaCMB on Sep 8, 2009 2:57 AM PDT up reply actions

Honk if you think Rags is great!

by AndBears on Sep 6, 2009 10:38 AM PDT reply actions

What I got out of this graph was ‘ARGGH USC’ and ‘Bwahahaha WSU!’

The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS

by norcalnick on Sep 6, 2009 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions

Honk if you think Rags is great!

by AndBears on Sep 6, 2009 10:39 AM PDT reply actions

jesus Oregon!

What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. What happens in California makes the world go round.

by Spazzy Mcgee on Sep 6, 2009 9:35 PM PDT up reply actions

Comments For This Post Are Closed

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Recent FanPosts

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Golden Bears Football Schedule

Fresno St.	Sat 09/03	W 36 - 21
@ Colorado The Ralphie Report	Sat 09/10	W 36 - 33
Presbyterian	Sat 09/17	W 63 - 12
@ Washington UW Dawg Pound	Sat 09/24	L 23 - 31
@ Oregon Addicted To Quack	Thu 10/06	L 15 - 43
USC Conquest Chronicles	Thu 10/13	L 9 - 30
Utah Block U	Sat 10/22	W 34 - 10
@ UCLA Bruins Nation	Sat 10/29	L 14 - 31
Washington St. CougCenter	Sat 11/05	W 30 - 7
Oregon St. Building The Dam	Sat 11/12	W 23 - 6
@ Stanford Rule Of Tree	Sat 11/19	L 28 - 31
@ Arizona St. House Of Sparky	Fri 11/25	W 47 - 38
@ Texas Burnt Orange Nation	Wed 12/28	L 10 - 21