Is Coach Tedford's Playbook Too Complex? (Part One)
by Kodiak on Jul 18, 2011 3:00 AM PDT
in California Golden Bears Football
Email
Print
It's no secret that the once-potent Cal offense hasn't been the same the past few years. Although we used to be known for a diverse attack, clever game plans, and methodical execution, more recently we've seen inconsistent play across the board.
Among whispers of recruiting misses, position coaching, and an over-reliance on the big play, there has also been mention that Coach Tedford's playbook is too complex. It's an interesting thought - previously touted for being "pro-style," "balanced," and "multiple," now it's apparently too complicated to teach to college players. So what exactly defines complexity? Is it the number of pages? The intricacy of the plays themselves? Or the amount of responsibilities/reads required of the individual players? Let's take a closer look:
Question #1: Are there too many pages of plays in Coach Tedford's playbook?
Scanning a collection of college and pro playbooks:
97 Cal Playbook = 101 pages (Holmoe)
04 Cal Playbook = 224 pages (Tedford)
02 WSU Playbook = 232 pages (Price)
02 Tenn Playbook = 186 pages (Fulmer)
95 Auburn Playbook = 137 pages (Bowden)
02 ucla Playbook = 432 pages (Toledo)
02 WV Playbook = 232 pages (Rodriquez)
02 Ohio St. Playbook = 146 pages (Tressel)
85 SF 49ers Playbook = 356 pages(Walsh)
04 Denver Broncos Playbook = 124 pages(Shanahan)
05 NO Saints Playbook = 146 pages(Haslett)
05 Carolina Panthers Playbook = 196 pages(Fox)
01 St. Louis Rams Playbook = 414 pages(Martz)
***I cannot verify the legitimacy or completeness of these playbooks. These were all found online.***
Taking a closer look at Tedford's '04 Playbook:(offense only)
26 pages of pass protection schemes: This includes 13 different schemes, 6-8 different ways to block for each scheme based on the most common defensive fronts.
3 pages of pass protection calls
21 pages of screen plays: 16 different plays, some of them with 6-8 blocking schemes based on the most common defensive fronts.
21 pages of play-action passes: 11 plays, all of them with 6-8 blocking schemes based on the most common defensive fronts.
8 pages of goal-line/short yardage: 8 different plays, all of them with 6-8 blocking schemes based on the most common defensive fronts.
6 pages of different run calls and types of pull blocks.
79 pages of run plays: 35 plays, many of them with 6-8 blocking schemes based on the most common defensive fronts.
*Per Hydro, this is probably not all of the playbook because it does not include any of the standard passing plays, or receiver route trees/adjustments.
So are there too many plays in Coach Tedford's playbook?
Answer: Does the total number of pages really correlate to overall complexity? For all we know, Auburn's playbook is: Play #1: Run fast! Play #2: Throw far! And the rest of it is full of centerfolds.
It would make sense that Bill Walsh's offense and Mike Martz's offense are more complex and this is supported by the number of pages in their respective playbooks. It also makes sense that Tom Holmoe's playbook resembled a reader scrapped together from Hare Krishna airport pamphlets.
So, our final answer is...perhaps. Relative to the other college playbooks, Tedford's would definitely rank near the top in breadth, especially if you add the missing pass plays and route trees. (+30-50 pages?) When you consider that since '04, we've also incorporated wrinkles and schemes from three different coordinators (spread concepts, zone-read, wildcat), you can certainly make the argument that we're trying to do too many things.
Question #2: Are Tedford's plays too intricate or too complicated?
Let's take a look at a staple play of any playbook, the play-action pass. It is arguably more complicated than a pure run or pass play because it requires the entire offense to execute a believable feint and than execute a different play.
***I have deliberately omitted some details, terms, and names. Although Cal's playbook is probably out of date, I didn't want to take the chance that anything detailed could be used to help scout our Golden Bears***
Play-Action Pass (Cal '04)
Play Summary: Fake an inside zone run, complete downfield pass
- QB: Make correct front call. Point out Defender X. Fake inside zone-run, then set up deep behind call-side guard. Read per coverage and route.
- Playside/Backside WR: Run pattern called
- RB: Fake zone run, block Defender X, or release to run route
- FB: One blocking assignment or release to run route
- Playside TE: Route, One blocking assignment(hot read vs. blitz), two possible protection calls.
- Playside T: One blocking assignment, 6 possible protection calls
- Playside G: Two different blocking assignments, 8 possible protection calls
- C: Two different blocking assignments, 11 possible protection calls
- Backside G: Two different blocking assignments, 8 possible protection calls
- Backside T: One blocking assignments, 6 possible protection calls
- Backside TE: Check release off of Defender X or one blocking assignment, 4 possible protection calls
Play-Action Pass (UCLA '02, Toledo's Pro-Style)
Play Summary: Fake an inside zone run, hit the playside receiver
- QB: Fake 9/1-2 run, dropback pass. No audibles. No hot routes.
Sight: X. Read Z -> FB -> X.
- X, Y, Z: Run routes.
- RB: Fake run. Check #4. Route.
- FB: One blocking assignment.
- Playside TE: One blocking assignment.
- Playside T: Drop step and run in direction of call. Block 1st thing to show.
- Playside G: Drop step and run in direction of call. Block 1st thing to show.
- C: Drop step and run in direction of call. Block 1st thing to show.
- Backside G: Drop step and run in direction of call. Block 1st thing to show.
- Backside T: Drop step and run in direction of call. Block 1st thing to show.
-Backside TE: Route
*There are 8 different line/coverage calls which indicate how the defense is lined up, but the blocking scheme is exactly the same in each case.
Play-Action Pass (Utah '03, Meyer's Spread)
Play Summary: Fake an inside zone run, complete downfield pass
QB: Read defense, call routes for receivers.(*Might be pre-set by play design) Fake inside zone run, dropback pass. Read X(cross) -> Z(go) -> Y(curl) -> H(flat).
X, Y, Z, H: Run Routes
RB: Fake inside zone run, block WDE.
LT: Boot Protection - Pull, and block WDT.
LG: Boot Protection - Pull. Zone block any backside rushers
C: Boot Protection - Block WDT.
RG: Boot Protection - Pull, block SDE.
RT: Boot Protection - Block SDT.
Assessment: Both pro-style plays are designed to be used with multiple personnel groupings; 12, 21, 22. (1 RB, 2TE), (2RB, 1 TE), (2 RB, 2 TE). That means that a larger pool of players need to understand this play.
The spread play uses a default personnel group. (4 WR, 1 RB)
The play designs are similar with a fake inside zone run followed by a dropback and a downfield pass to the playside wide receiver. The receivers and running backs all run patterns or block as determined by the play call.
The Cal O-line has several different options for who they're supposed to block. UCLA goes the other way. "Block the 1st thing to show" is definitely keeping it simple. Utah also has a simple default blocking scheme for play-action passes with pre-determined blocking assignments.
Looking at the signal-callers, the pro-style Cal QB has to read the defense, make the right protection/route calls, then execute the play, and go through his progressions. The spread Utah QB has the same responsibilities where he has to read the defense, make the right route calls, then execute the play and go through his progressions. The pro-style UCLA QB has to execute the play and go through his progressions. Although he doesn't have any audible or hot reads for this play, other plays do have those options. So, presumably he has similar responsibilities, but perhaps to a lesser extent.
Summary: Similar play design and goals. However, Cal's blocking scheme can be considered more complex because there is more responsibility for the players to make the proper reads and decisions.
But, is a more "simple" approach better? In 1998, Bob Toledo coached UCLA to the Rose Bowl with a team featuring future NFLers Cade McNown, DeShaun Foster, Freddie Mitchell, Kenyon Coleman, and Larry Atkins. The next several seasons? 4-7, 6-6, 7-4, and then a 7-5 campaign in 2002 that resulted in Toledo getting fired. Did Toledo suddenly forget how to coach? Did other teams figure out how to stop an overly simplistic offense? Or was Toledo unable to overcome the fact that his quarterbacks were Drew Bennett and Cory Paus?
With regards to Cal's "overly" complex blocking schemes, they certainly didn't seem to hinder JJ Arrington on his way to a record 2000+ yard season. It does make sense that Cal's best lines and best offenses have featured veteran, heady linemen. (Alex Mack, anyone?) A sample size of one is too small to draw any definitive conclusions, to be sure, but a scan of the various playbooks suggests that the plays are too analogous for this to be the smoking gun.
42 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think there was also that Jahvid Best comment via Brock Mansion who said NFL playbooks are a lot simpler than Cal’s…of course, Best plays for the Lions…
I think this is a great post, but I think we’ve seen that Cal’s got talented players and some talented coaches. Coult it be:
If the offense looks in sync and is effective = playbook’s not too complex and good coaching of playbook.
If the offense looks out of sync and is ineffective = playbook’s too complex and/or bad coaching of playbook
?
where out of sync = QB/WR not on same page, OL not being able to block when they should, and penalties.
So many times we saw the Cal team in 2nd and 3rd & forever this last year. No offense is going to look good when you’re going backwards.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
There is way more to this than just a big complex playbook...
Don’t all teams use/prepare only part of their playbook for that week’s opponent? The playbook is supposed to offer the team options against various defensive sets and styles that they may see over the entire year. I would assume that if you are playing UCLA that the coaches would only use the part of the offensive playbook that matches UCLA’s defensive scheme that week.
Also, wasn’t there a team recently (Tennessee or Oregon?) that claimed they knew exactly what play CAL was running before the ball was snapped? If play calling is such a chess match (as suggested in other posts on this blog) how can you be successful if your opponent knows you move before you make it? This seems like more of an issue with play calling ( or sign stealing) than the complexity of the playbook. Maybe the revolving door of newbie offensive coordinators are the ones with the problem of mastering the playbook – they regress to only running a few favorites week after week exposing tendencies that other teams pick up on. When Tedford was running the offense, the CAL offense seemed to have the ability to keep the opponent guessing, which more recent offensive coordinators appear to lack.
Also, wasn’t there a team recently (Tennessee or Oregon?) that claimed they knew exactly what play CAL was running before the ball was snapped?
That was Tennessee receivers coach Trooper Taylor after the 2006 game.
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store
Also one of the Oregon d-backs (Ward? Thurmond?) after the ‘09 game. I think they were pretty much both full of shit, outside of the fact that being way behind skews a team’s run/pass play selection in obvious and predictable ways.
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
After one of these instances, Tedford downplayed it, saying we could say the same thing. We know exactly what the other team is running a lot, too. That’s what you learn in film study, studying tendencies, etc. It’s just a question of executing and being able to stop it. Just because you know it’s coming doesn’t mean you can stop it.
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store
97 Cal Playbook = 101 pages (Holmoe)
04 Cal Playbook = 224 pages (Tedford)
Sure, that looks like a big jump, but few people realize that, due to budget cutbacks, playbooks in the Holmoe era were double-sided.
Holmoe also insisted that at least one out of every ten plays be either a paint-by-numbers or a connect-the-dots puzzle, leaving it to the attentive players to figure out which.
"I wish him nothing but pain in his silly travels especially if they wind up in my octagon. Clearly I have defeated this earthworm with my words — imagine what I would have done with my fire breathing fists."
by slims on Jul 18, 2011 8:13 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
I have always thought this was the most absurd charge you could lay at Tedford, that somehow his offensive playbook was just too complicated. It doesn’t explain why with the complicated attack we sometimes win 10 games in a season, sometimes less with the same scheme. It fits into some narrative that Tedford is brainy (but with a robot-like dispassionate nature that does not motivate the hearts of young men), but maybe too brainy for his team’s own good. It’s a silly argument, that argues from the results, not from any evidence on the field.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
It’s not silly at all. The results say Cal’s offense sucks and has for some time.
Cal last won 10 games (including the Holiday Bowl brought to you by Pacific Life) in 2006. A LOT has changed since then, including the playcaller(s) and other offensive coaching staff.
Perhaps Tedford’s offense is one that requires so many special players year in/out in order to run right? Look at Oregon’s offense. You don’t have to be an NFL-caliber o-linemen to be a successful linemen in Oregon’s system. Look at what Harbaugh did at Stanford. Things looked so basic…often times only having 1 WR on the field in a non-short yardage situation. He’d use a 6th O-lineman as a TE. While I’m not saying “switch to these offenses because they work,” I am appreciating the root of their successes.
Instead of having an offense resembling a well-oiled machine we have one that’s completely god-awful way too frequently. Anger would be punting more than 7 times a game.
Perhaps Tedford’s offense requires NFL-caliber talent and execution at most, if not all of, the offensive positions. Maybe that’s too much to ask for a year in/year out basis at Cal?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
I agree that our offense has been less than stellar, I just don’t know why anyone would first pick “too complicated scheme” as the reason why we have not consistently played at a high level. I don’t want to sound like a know-it-all, because I make no pretensions to that status but there so many things that I would point to first.
- As you mention that have been a number of coaching changes, I think I’d look there first.
- Riley was never that great, or more fairly, wildly inconsistent. Yes I agree in one aspect, for Tedford’s offense to work, we need good, reliable, pro-style QB play – we didn’t get it, and we haven’t gotten it since Longshore was injured.
We don’t need NFL caliber O-linemen to win, but we do need a line that plays and is coached well; we haven’t had that for the past two years, but I feel that’s down to coaching of the line, not a overly complicated scheme.
But logically it makes no sense to say we can only win if we use a simple plan, when we have attained success in the past with a complicated plan, and I don’t agree that everyone on the offenses of 2003-06 was NFL worthy, and the last few years we been working with MAC- level talent. There has to be a better, if more nuanced, explanation for our offensive struggles.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
by Cugel on Jul 18, 2011 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
And remember Longshore was good when
he got time in the pocket; his O-line was very good. He was a statue, but all his highlight films show him stepping up with a world of room and rifling strikes down the field.
Not only rifling strikes... rifling them perfectly on target...
First thing I noticed about Riley was his inconsistencies… all the way to his first game at the helm where he blew the game by trying to run at it against OSU, and we lost our #1 ranking… there were several times in that game where you had to think to yourself ‘oh well… rookie mistake’….. turns out, many of those didnt go away, and infact, worsened over the seasons.
Drew: 'Oh no.. That is certainly the meaty part alright, but it's not the thigh..."
Randy: "No... that bone is NOT connected to the thigh bone..."
www.fearthefin.com - Where masochism is defined.
I rushed the Furd's farm in 2009
www.californiagoldenblogs.com - Where Cal grads prove they learned something.
by SeanCrosby87 on Jul 25, 2011 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions
I don’t think this criticism is silly at all either. I don’t think its really the # of pages that makes the offense too complex. Its the number of reads, progressions, decisions that the QB must make.
Its such a fallacy to cite how successful we were offensively in the first few years. Oh sure, we win 10 games a season with the same scheme, but we also win those games with an NFL QB at the helm. So sure our offense looked good during the first few years of Tedford’s tenure, but we also had two NFL QB’s running the offense. I also think that Longshore had an extremely high QB IQ and probably would have been an NFL QB as well if he did not get hurt.
So the question is whether an average college QB can run a Tedford offense. So far, evidence has shown that you need to be an NFL type QB to be able to successfully run Tedford’s offense. Which is fine if we recruit another Superbowl MVP…I suppose.
You’re setting the bar too high, Longshore was just fine, as was Kyle Boller, I don’t think either one is a “Superbowl MVP”. There are hits and misses, that the way the cookie crumbles.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
that's what ryan said
nfl caliber, not superbowl mvp caliber.
boller played numerous years in the league, and longshore very likely would have been a high draft pic, but for injuries.
Go Bears Go
by Rocksanddirt on Jul 18, 2011 3:32 PM PDT up reply actions
He did say that:
Which is fine if we recruit another Superbowl MVP…I suppose.
But I’d agree if he said NFL draft material, which shouldn’t be too difficult for us.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
Lot of good info here and a provoking question
I think the # of plays and the complexity of those plays/schemes/assignments falls behind the talent/skill/IQ of his offensive line, and of course, his QB. It also fall behind offensive game planning (Ludwig the last 2 years) and PLAY CALLING. Game planning and especially play calling is extremely important. It’s like a catcher calling a change-up over a fastball in baseball. The difference can be a home run or a strikeout. It’s that important and cannot be understated. If Cal’s players aren’t that smart, then the offensive coaching staff should tone it down; I just don’t think that is the issue. A coach’s job is to use a style/scheme that fits with it’s players skill set. The problem has been poor execution (which perhaps stems from poor game planning and preparation).
And I’m surprised under Holmoe Cal’s offense had an 100 page playbook (it wasn’t his; he was a defensive guy who knew nothing about offense) because I was always under the impression that Tom Holmoe never realized the objective while having the ball was to score.
by salary_cap on Jul 18, 2011 9:44 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
I was always under the impression that Tom Holmoe never realized the objective while having the ball was to score.
In that case, he was one of the most successful coaches on the planet. Deltha O’Neil kept screwing that up, however. Even when he was moved to defense, he kept scoring. You just can’t get some players to listen, I guess.
Nick Harris never listened either
All American punter and a cornerback was Cal’s best offensive weapon under Holmoe. Makes me dry heave.
The Holmoe playbook
I wonder if it was longer when Steve Hagen was our offensive coordinator, in 1999-2000. For all the illegal substitution penalties we had on his watch, I’m guessing probably.
Keeping January 2 open. You know, just in case.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs/Twitter/Facebook/Clothing Store
Too many variables
…to say…seems to me that every Pac-10 champ, and every Natl champ, has had at least two kick-ass NFL quality players, one of them being the QB. I think we simply had that in 2004 and 2006, and so did USC. And they beat us by…not much. The other years were not the same in terms of the magical make-up needed to go all the way.
Do players need to be coached not to give away a play? Or maybe somehting fishy was going on that caused Tedford to close practices.
our playbook was probably too complex for our crappier qbs, probably just right for our qbs that are versed enough in the system, (rodgers, longshore-preinjury, riley-prehead case), is it the playbooks fault riley could play well at home but not on the road? or that longshore became scared and would not step into any throw after his injury. id say the problems of late have been more about psychology and confidence than the playbook as far as our qbs are concerned. mansion just didnt belong on the field in a D1 game, if you cant throw a 5 yard slant without throwing it 100 mph then you just dont belong on the field.
A lot of comments I’ve been reading are pertaining to the QB’s talent/ability to run Cal’s offense. While the QB’s a huge part, we’re not placing enough emphasis on our offensive line, a FB that can block exceptionally well and catch some passes, a TE that can be a threat in both the passing and running games, and WR who can get open and actually catch a pass that hits them in the hands.
In short, you’re asking for 14 good football players (starting 11, + a good 2nd TE, 2nd TB, and 3 WR) year in and year out that a lot of other big programs covet. If this offense is successful, the QB will probably be a high draft pick.
I think the teams with exceptionally run quirky offenses can have terrific seasons year in/out but could likely lose their bowl game or season opener as the opposing team would have MONTHS to scout the offense and install the defensive gameplan.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Not enough arguing in the comments to this post.
Cal Football: I loved them once and they broke my heart. Let that be a lesson to you. Never love anything.
by CalBandGreat on Jul 18, 2011 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions
it's the downfall of cgb.
to darn much logic and respect for each others opinions.
Go Bears Go
by Rocksanddirt on Jul 18, 2011 3:35 PM PDT up reply actions
If it makes you feel any better, I dont respect any of your opinions! Afterall, if you were smart, you wouldn’t post here at all!
The internet's most successful troll!
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Exactly. If you were smart, you would have gone to Stanford.
by Missing Barry on Jul 18, 2011 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions
flagged
California Golden Bears: 2nd place is nothing to sneeze at!
by atomsareenough on Jul 18, 2011 5:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Disappointing lack of replies to my comment.
by Missing Barry on Jul 19, 2011 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Screens?
There does seem to be one point where the ‘04 playbook is excessive: the screen game. Without seeing the playbook I can’t be sure what the number 16 exactly represents, but if it really represents separate blocking schemes it seems that it could be cut down significantly. How many times per year can you run each of these? It seems that a team with spotty line and QB play would do better to cut down on rare plays that require significant practice time to focus on the core of the offense or on improving the remaining screens.
Forget the playbook question...
Can someone show me the chronological progression of the growth of Tedford’s gut from the moment he arrived at Cal to now?
I think we are all asking the wrong question here. Lets take for instance three distinctly different offenses (Cal, Oregon, Arizona). However you want to define the word “complex,” its hard to objectively say that one of these offenses is necessarily more “complex” than the other. All types of offenses are probably “complex” in their own way. I also think that with the correct personnel, each one of these types of offenses can be equally effective….another way of saying that one type of offense isn’t necessarily better than the other.
So I think the real question is what type of offense is “easiest” to recruit for. We switched to a 3-4 defense presumably because Tedford found that it was easier to recruit LB’s rather than DL’s. Ok, so is it easier to recruit a QB who can run a pro-style, spread or spread option? How about O-lineman? Or WR’s? Or RB’s?
I may be wrong, and I’m sure others have a different opinion, (and I’m just talking QB’s here, since that’s the position that’s plagued Cal) but I believe that the TTech style spread is probably the easiest to recruit for since it seems like this type of offense is easiest for an avg. college QB to grasp. That is not to say that a spread is less “complex” than other offenses, but I think it does provide an offense where the QB is “less emphasized” and it relies more on having a lot of quick, competent WR’s.
dont worry about it. i never heard anyone complain about not being able to learn the plays.
by neodarksaver on Jul 19, 2011 11:15 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
The coaching staff evaluates and identify which high school players best fit their scheme. Some colleges do better than others. The next question comes from the high school players. Where do they want to play at? There are some colleges that need no selling. Notre Dame, Southern Cal, Alabama, Ohio State, Texas, Oklahoma, and the other traditional football programs. Others maybe intrigued by the gimmick scheme currently played. Remember the wishbone, the run and shoot, and the current spread offense? High school players will try to enroll at the college that best leads to college success and perhaps to the professional football / basketball leagues. Each college / path represents a unique answer. This is the random element. There is many discussions between the player and family, Some choices well thought out, others not, some due to a changing environment. Coaching longevity and success improves the chances of a program’s overall success and quality players. Every coach / college program goes thru a cycle. The current situation is a temporary situation for Tedford. I’m sure the delay in building the sports center and Cal stadium upgrade had an influence. Starting season QB’s Kyle Boller, Reggie Robertson, Aaron Rodgers, Joe Ayoob, Nate Longshore, Kevin Riley. Percentages should indicate Cal should have a quality QB soon.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
GoldenBlogs' FAQ and Community Guidelines
Related FanPosts on California Golden Blogs
Related FanShots on California Golden Blogs
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
I recorded the entire last out as Cal clinches the first ever PAC12 Softball Title! It was also a...
Pac-12 On SBN
Pacific Takes (Pac-12) NORTH AddictedToQuack: (Oregon)
UW Dawg Pound: (Washington)
CougCenter: (Washington State)
BuildingTheDam: (Oregon State)
Rule Of Tree: (Stanford)
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: (Cal)
SOUTH
BruinsNation: (UCLA)
ConquestChronicles: (USC)
HouseOfSparky: (ASU)
Arizona Desert Swarm: (Arizona)
TheRalphieReport: (Colorado)
Block U: (Utah)
Golden Bears Football Schedule
| Fresno St. | Sat 09/03 | W 36 - 21 |
@
Colorado
|
Sat 09/10 | W 36 - 33 |
| Presbyterian | Sat 09/17 | W 63 - 12 |
|
@
Washington
|
Sat 09/24 | L 23 - 31 |
|
@
Oregon
|
Thu 10/06 | L 15 - 43 |
|
USC
|
Thu 10/13 | L 9 - 30 |
|
Utah
|
Sat 10/22 | W 34 - 10 |
|
@
UCLA
|
Sat 10/29 | L 14 - 31 |
|
Washington St.
|
Sat 11/05 | W 30 - 7 |
|
Oregon St.
|
Sat 11/12 | W 23 - 6 |
|
@
Stanford
|
Sat 11/19 | L 28 - 31 |
|
@
Arizona St.
|
Fri 11/25 | W 47 - 38 |
|
@
Texas
|
Wed 12/28 | L 10 - 21 |
