Ask CGB: You Mean It WASN'T All Alamar's Fault?

Let's get right into it by getting into the first trivia question of the year.

The all-time leading scorer in Green Bay Packers history, I also had a notable game in my second game with the Minnesota Vikings after moving by accounting for all 16 Vikings points in a win over the Panthers. Currently the fifth most accurate kicker in NFL history, FOA 2011 said that I made more headlines last year as a Favre Retrieval Unit. Please don't hold that against me. Who am I?

All questions culled from around the Internet. So post your question somewhere on the Internet (but preferably in the comments below) if you want it to be considered for next week's edition. Or you can email it to us and we'll get it to it. Maybe.

Phantomfan kicks us off (and pisses one of us off):

WHen does Tedford take ST seriously - 09-04-2011, 10:30 AM

How many years before Tedford starts taking ST seriously?

How many years until fans start putting the blame on Tedford and not some poor assistant coach?

It is like they had not practiced until Friday.

I'm getting out of Hydro's way on this one.

HydroTech: Right. Tedford doesn't take ST seriously. That's why Cal has two scholarship kickers on roster with one punter. That's why Tedford flew all the way to Australia to meet David Lonie's dad FOR LESS THAN AN HOUR, before coming right back home. Some college football teams don't even have scholarship kickers on roster.  Yeah, Tedford doesn't take special teams seriously. 

Why were our punts crappy? Rugby style punts which our ST Coach Genyk thought was better to get the punts off. Yup, it's not Tedford making the call there. 

If any Cal fan seriously believes Tedford doesn't take special teams seriously then they are out of their mind. Tedford cares and Genyk obviously has some kinks to work out

After the Fresno game, are you more, or less optimistic about the season? - 09-03-2011, 08:51 PM

Looks like we might have a semblance of a passing attack this year, but our run game looks anemic. Special teams was obviously a disaster, but defense looked great. Bottom line, my outlook for this season is as hazy as before the game. 

Anybody willing to revise their season prediction based on this game, up or down?

I'm not willing to say that Cal's going to suddenly become a ten win team now or anything, but I see eight or nine wins as being a lot more realistic than it was before last Saturday's game. Then again, as an inveterate optimist and Sunshine Pumper, that's where I had them pegged before the season to begin with. Only back then, I didn't have any good reason to think that they would pull it off other than blind faith.

LeonPowe's got something to add here.

I'm more optimistic - but I still think we're a 6 win team. But maybe a 6.5 win team, or we stay in games we lose longer or something. 

We only get paid what Twist lets us keep in tips though.

What's that you say, mdcspe69?

Pac 16 Beginning of Playoff System? - Yesterday, 10:00 AM

Assuming the Pac 12 goes to Pac 16, is that the beginning of the playoffs for the national championship. It is then just one or two small steps to a superconference which in essence is the national championship. Assume that the future Pac 16 forms an alliance with a future SEC 16. That puts 32 of the Division one teams in a playoff system. Then assume one step further. The Big 10 plus joins the alliance and either the ACC or the Big East. You then have a playoff system in place for the 64 of the Division One teams. I would bet that the national champion comes from one of those 64 teams 95% or more of the time. You have a national championship playoff system.

Is it a playoff system if those four conference champions don't play each other in a four team tournament? The national champion has already come from an AQ team 100% of the time during the BCS era, but no one's calling that a playoff system.

I'm not sure you understand what playoff system means there, buddy.

sosheezy comes at us with a question that's been bugging us for days:

Furd has its own blog on ESPN.com college football page? - 09-04-2011, 07:38 PM

Sorry if a booth, but you've got to be kidding me. The Espn.com college football main page currently shows Furd and Notre Dame have their own blogs, in the same spot as the conference blogs (see the College Football Blog Network box). 

http://espn.go.com/college-football/

I know they are good this year, but come on. I hardly think the demand is there. Have folks noticed this before? When did this happen? Could Cal or any school provide content and 'get' their own Espn.com blog?

LeonPowe?  You want to jump in again?

Doesn't RedOscar have something else to do with his time?

But I think the answer to why ESPN.com now has a Stanford (sp) blog is simple - cronyism. How else can one explain turfing out Bruce Feldman, and losing Rob Neyer and Chris Sheridan (though I won't exactly miss Sheridan after he decided it would be swell to describe the IZOD Center as infested with rats), while pretending like Ryan McGee is a suitable replacement as their only college football blog? Hey, I guess they need their content somewhere, so they let Ivan Maisel run with the first thing that came to mind the morning they were brainstorming ideas.

That's right, a live crocodile hunt.  Smell the ratings!

No, actually, the aforementioned Stanford blog. I bet the tens of Stanford fans out there are ecstatic.

Stanford Stadium packed to its usual gameday attendance.

SacCityBear asks a question that might be better answered by Avi.

Pac-16 Expansion: What if someone balks? - Yesterday, 04:26 PM

Lost in the discussion of a possible Pac-12 expansion to 16 is the fact that the fan bases of the 4 schools who gave up absolutely nothing in regards to Pac-12 expansion/divisional alignment (Arizona, ASU, Utah*, and Colorado) are largely opposed to expansion if it puts them into an eastern division with the Texas and Oklahoma schools. As the solutions to that ("zipper" or "pod" divisions) are either against NCAA rules or were nixed by Larry Scott last time around as being too hard to market, there is the distinct possibility that those schools could balk and prevent further conference expansion because they consider the increase in revenue to be not worth being separated from the state of California.

The question is: what does the conference do if Oklahoma/Texas want in but Arizona, ASU, Utah, and Colorado don't want them?

*Note: Yes, Utah agreed to a staggered revenue sharing, but even without television revenue this year, they are making more than last year and every successive year is a huge financial windfall.

Personally:
I'm not sure what the rules are regarding conference expulsion are and I know it goes against the idea that the conference is an equal partnership, but I'd follow a vote against expansion with a vote towards expelling the schools that voted against expansion. (If that isn't viable for whatever reason, have the Pac-8 schools leave and dissolve the conference)

Colorado and Utah were brought in solely for the money (Colorado originally as part of a Pac-16), so it is not like this is a completely new idea being sprung upon them. The money was more than expected, but not enough to push everyone so far into the black that they can just give up additional revenue. Balking now would show that they are unwilling to make the sacrifices for the greater good that every other school made and as such are schools with which I would have no desire for Cal to be associated.

I'm not sure what the rules regarding conference expulsion are either, but that's an awfully drastic step to take.  And what exactly would be the point of expelling the teams that you're trying to invite, which is exactly what would happen if you were to have the Pac-8 schools leave and dissolve the conference?

And as much as people rag on us at CGB for sounding elitist, is there anything more elitist than saying that a school that balks are further expansion is unwilling to make sacrifices for the greater good, and that Cal should no longer be associated with them? Come on, man, get over yourself.

You know, I think we might have discussed this in a roundtable already, tim94501.

KA and MJ best WR duo in the Pac? - Yesterday, 12:23 PM

While I am a big time homer there is no question in my mind that Robert Woods is the best WR in the Pac and possibly the country. After watching the FSU game I do however think that there is a good chance that Keenan and Marvin are the best duo in the conference. Still had a few mistakes but point blank they are both big athletic WRs that can get big YAC. I think there is a good chance for both to eclipse 1000 yards this year.

LeonPowe is downright chatty today.

Unless you count Robert Woods and a cardboard cut-out of Keyshawn Johnson.

Let's kick this to Kodiak from that roundtable linked above.

Kodiak:  I may be biased, but I think we have the best starting wideout tandem in the Pac-12.  Although neither are burners, per say, both KA and Marv have the footwork and moves to get open all over the field, including going deep.  When you watch video of their practices, it really strikes you how much separation there is between Marvin Jones, KA, and the rest of the wideouts.  They are so much more precise and explosive in their footwork, even while working simple patterns like a 10-yard out.  

So yeah, let's roll with that for now. But honestly, who else can you come up with that would be a reasonable challenge to them? Arizona has a deep crew of receivers, no doubt, especially since Criner appears to be healthy, but I'm not sure their number two receiver, David Douglas, strikes a whole lot of fear into anyone. Jermaine Kearse is almost a one man show up in Washington, and things are even more extreme for Robert Woods. So with the caveat that the neither KA21 or Marvin Jones are the best wide receiver in the conference, they do appear to be the best duo.

I think.

Time for a question from a fellow Sunshine Pumper, NoQuestionRox. No, really, check the pic in his signature.

Is Stanford passing Cal for the casual football fan?

Reply

 

---

It appears Cal and Stanford are about even with each other for season ticket sales right now, both having sold about 26,000. Stanford has three projected sell-outs (Cal, Oregon, Notre Dame), and it stands to reason UCLA and Washington will draw big crowds as well. San Jose State and Colorado might not create as much interest as those other five.

The question is, is Stanford overtaking Cal in terms of program interest, or is this year an anomaly with Cal playing at AT&T Park with an awful home schedule and less than compelling team compared to Stanford's superior schedule, Top 10 team and Heisman candidate?

I'm going to bet the majority of Cal fans say it is an anomaly. 

I guess the bigger and more interesting question might be is Stanford creating new college football fan attendance or taking away from Cal's?

I see a hand in the crowd. Yes? You there, your turn.

Berkelium97

Even if Stanford does sell out against Cal, Oregon, and Notre Dame, is there any reason to believe people will show up for the other home games?  Let's take a brief trip down memory lane.  Last November a 7-1, top-15 Arizona team came to play a top-10 Stanford team.  Surely this would be a big matchup, right?  Attendance was sub-par.  Ted Miller lamented the empty sections of stadium and the Stanford Daily had an article called "Where did all the fans go?" (to be fair, they cannot go anywhere if they don't exist in the first place).

Things look up for the Cardinal, as they moved from 17k season tickets to 26k this season.  Of course, a Heisman candidate and a top-ten preseason ranking will do that.  Meanwhile Cal, coming off a supremely disappointing 5-7 season, playing in a temporary home whose season tickets require substantial donations, also sold 26k.  Cal has five home games (4.5 if you count Presbyterian) and Stanford has seven.

Stanford Stadium holds 50k and AT&T holds...41k for football games?  Cal has filled about 60% of its seats with season ticket holders and Stanford has filled about 50%.  Except for four sections Stanford's tickets range from $199-499 while Cal's range from $250-1500.

Let me recap: a team who disappointed last season is venturing to a new, much smaller home and requiring large donations for a majority of its seats, while only providing tickets for five home games.  This team has sold the same number of tickets as a returning BCS-bowler with an assured Heisman finalist at a larger, much cheaper venue with seven home games.

Is Stanford taking fans away/drawing greater interest than Cal? Nope, I don't buy it.

And LeonPowe (again!):

No. I know lots of Stanfurd alums and out of the 10 or 15 of them, only 2 have ever cared about football. And those are the only two who care that their team is ranked #6.

Let's end this with a bit of a conundrum, courtesy of hanky1:

Would you root for Furd to go to the National Championship game... - Yesterday, 12:57 PM

...if it meant Cal went to the Rose Bowl?

Variety of opinions here. I'm inclined to say no...though it's a tough call. What say the rest of you?

Berkelium97

I would get infinitely more satisfaction from Cal going to the Rose Bowl than I would have dissatisfaction that the Lobsterbacks went to the NCG.  

I'd happily lose a Big Game to go to the Rose Bowl.

Kodiak

I would never under any circumstances root for the Furd.