Apparently I missed this bit of Cal history from CalBear81's post previously. Last week's question was:
A tennis superstar, I was hailed as the first female American-born superstar athlete. I was a member of Phi Beta Kappa, I won 19 of the 24 Grand Slam tournaments that I entered, although I'm going to guess most of you (well, maybe CalBear81) weren't around to see any of them take place. Once given the nickname "Little Miss Poker Face", who am I?
Yeah, that's my bad. In my defense, that went up during my annual sabbatical from all things CGB, as I was studying for level 2 of the CFA exam last year around that time. And I passed, thank God, so there's that. More roundabout question this week:
I inspired the nickname of the kicker who won this game.
It's a good thing Rutgers got over that short-lived burst of competence.
To the first question, from oskidunker:
With 100 numbers, why do guys need to wear the same number?
I noticed Jones wore his #1 returning kicks so they must have changed the other guys number.
Because some guys really want to wear a specific number? College football is fairly flexible when it comes to numerology (I don't believe there are restrictions on what positions are relegated to which numbers, in contrast with the NFL - except for maybe linemen), but the only rule that I'm 100% sure of is that there can't be more than one player wearing the same number on the field at the same time. That's why Desmond Bishop and Marshawn Lynch got away with both wearing 10 - you weren't about to see them both on defense or both on offense at the same time.
Though that might have been pretty interesting...
If 16 is so important why doesn't the Big 10 care?
I find it interesting that with all the talk of the importance of having 16 teams in the PAC and other conferences why is it nobody is taking about the Big 10 (actually 12) going in the same direction? Yes they have a very profitable network but using the examples often talked about on this board would it not be more valuable with greater coverage such as Oak and Texas which seem more like the midwest than west to me? Why is there so little talk about any schools wanting to make a move to this conference if 16 is the end game? Unless the PAC 12 goes to 16 with 2 8-team divisions I think this is going to be a train wreck for Cal football. How are we going to compete against a group of teams we seldom rise above and then add on three of the top football programs in the country? As Jim Boeheim, Syracuse's great basketball coach said today football is driving everything in college sports end of report. He seemed thrilled to be heading to the ACC where he will get to play DUKE and North Carolina every year. But he knows he can beat those guys! I don't hear the current Pac 12 football coaches singing the same tune about Texas, Oak and Oak St. Granted they are a little busy at the moment and have been undoubtedly silence by the conference on the topic.
Well, Larry Scott just put the kibosh on the whole going to 16 thing, so who knows how that's going to turn out? I'm guessing everyone took a step back and realized that this expansion may not be in the best interests of those putting together the schedules, and they would be more than a bit unwieldy. I mean, that's where there is no one superconference with all of the teams in one big pot together anyway, right? Maybe 12 is just the right number.
UW's defense, is it that bad and can Cal exploit it?
UW team defense ranks 108 out of 120 while Cal's team D ranks 21 nationally, according to USA Today stats. This to me is a big disparity.
UW is near the very bottom against the pass and around 3/4s against the run.
UW has played Eastern Washington, Hawaii and Nebraska. Cal of course has played Fresno, Colo and Presby. There's stat padding in E Wash and Presby but the other games seem a fair measure. UW took a bigger hit against Neb.
So the question is, can Cal exploit UW's defense? Are the stats a misrepresentation and too early? What would you call for Cal's attack against UWs defense, lots of pistol/spread?
It is a big disparity, but yeah, I'd say UW's defense isn't exactly lighting the world on fire. Can Cal exploit the UW defense? I'd leave that up to guys like Kodiak, Hydro, and the like to tell you, but no, I don't think the stats are that much of a misrepresentation. It's always nice to have more data to take a look and see if a particular game is an aberration, but there's definitely no indication that UW's defense is, you know. Good.
And I don't think Tedford's going to be putting in the pistol/spread on one week's preparation. Just like I don't think Pendergast is going to be switching to the 46 for a week.
Wait, what? tc3590 confuses us all.
Cal to play Michigan?
I have no link or anything but According to Avery Sebastian's facebook he says he gets to play Ohio State Michigan and Texas in his Career as a Bear.
Am I Completly Oblivious to whats going on here? is Avery Misinformed? or is this something new?
If it's on the Internet, it must be true. Unless you're seeing it off a player's Facebook page. Secondhand. Anyway, maybe he just thinks we're making the Rose Bowl this year opposite Denard Robinson. That would be nice.
Oh, that wascally wabbit. dupdadee brings us up to speed on the continuing travails of Chris Martin.
Chris Martin transferring AGAIN???
ND -> Cal -> Florida -> Navarro Juco -> ????
Apparently he's no longer playing football at Navarro JC.
Is it too early to call him the new Willie Williams? Too late? I mean, I really enjoyed his recruiting diaries:
Survivorof1and10fkaLEA is a filthy degenerate gambler. With a confusing-as-hell handle.
Anyone else following the Cal-Wash line?
Noticed this line movement on Vegas Insider:
09/20 10:50am WASH-150 CAL+130 WASH-3 -110 CAL+3 -110 57.5 -110 57.5 -110
09/20 11:30am WASH-125 CAL+105 WASH-1.5 -110 CAL+1.5 -110 57.5 -110 57.5 -110
That's a huge jump within a matter of 40 minutes. The public money is pretty heavily on Washington. Some smart must have dumped a huge wad of cash on Cal to not only cover but to win straight up.
This is pretty similar to what happened against Tenn in 2006. Cal was ranked #9 in the country going into Neyland and the public was betting Cal, but the line stayed -3 pretty much the whole week. The line moved to a pickem by the end due to a lot of smart money being bet on Tenn. At least that is what I recall.
It's happening much earlier with Wash, but I'm starting to feel pretty good about the game.
You know, I don't know why public money would be heavily on Washington in this case anyway. Are people really that into Keith Price? Or maybe it's Chris Polk? Then again, Price might miss the game...that probably accounts for the entire movement.
I would think. You know, if I were inclined to bet on Cal on the road at all.
What the HELL is wrong with this site?
Hey, I'm no sunshine pumper. I can be as critical as the next guy, but....
We are winning this freakin' game by 30 at halftime while playing fairly poorly. I get that we need to raise our game, but some folks here are acting like spoiled USC fans. This team is about to go 3-0. This team has undergone fairly HUGE changes over last year's team. Almost everything that can go well for us since last year has gone well for us, but it seems some people are INCAPABLE of enjoying any of it.
Judging by some folks here, we SHOULD be up 72-0 right now, and should neither have allowed the opponent a first down, nor a defensive stop at any point in the first half.
Suffice it to say, I'm guessing that these YOUNG men are realizing that they can coast in this game, and it is Tedford's role to be the parent here and get them to focus for the second half.
We will certainly know more with the Washington game next week, but TRY to have some perspective please.
In the interest of avoiding another flamewar with the denizens of that fine website, I'm just going to point out how proud I am that sunshine pumper officially entered the Cal internet fanbase lexicon.
And I was the one who named the site, by the way. Just wanted to throw that out there.