In reply to DoubtfulBear I think 40% recognition is actually pretty good for the average NFL fan.

I did notice nobody said Berkeley.

In reply to WalterSobchak

WalterSobchak said:

---

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

calumnus said:

---

We beat UCLA with Chip Kelly quiet quitting before he actually quit.

---

Kelly coached Ucla to a dominating win over USC the week before we beat them and a sizeable win over Boise in the LA Bowl in their next game after they lost big to us. Cal was simply better than Ucla last year and definitely wanted it more that night in Pasadena.

---

It's also worth noting that UCLA beat USC & Boise State with Ethan Garbers at QB and he got injured early against us which led to Dante Moore coming in and getting absolutely overwhelmed. Moore, I believe, absolutely basically gave up mid-way through the game as is evidenced by the crushing sack/fumble that Reese caused. https://www.tiktok.com/@espn/video/7305635636927614250

Have NEVER seen a QB stay so still before getting sacked.

---

No, it's not. Injuries are part of the game. It's not like Chip benched Garbers for our game. Carlton simply abused their RT and did his job. Again, a Cal player being better than a Ucla player. By this logic I guess Cal won in Arizona in 2021 because we didn't have our starting QB and our backup was clearly overwhelmed. BTW, Moore was 23-38 (60%) for 266 yds and a TD against us. He threw 2 picks because that's his thing, not because he was checked out. There is zero evidence Moore gave up. It's pathetic Cal fan fiction.

---

I wouldn't have a problem if you said "Cal was simply better than UCLA that night". That's undeniable and injuries are a reality of that night. But I think it becomes more of a stretch to say that Cal was better than UCLA on the balance of the year simply by the results of the one game. That's where something like Ethan Garbers' availability comes into play. Injuries are affected by ability/skill, sure, but there is a component of luck to it as well. It's not as if (or at least hope) our players are being coached to intentionally injure players.

Also, am I supposed to think that 23-38 for 266 and a TD is good statline for Moore? They only scored because of a Cal INT that put them in prime field position. The missed FG was also because of better field position of a turnover as well. Otherwise he racked up a lot of empty yardage and good chunk of which could be described as garbage time stats (92 yards in the 4Q when it was 30-7, 51 of which were with 3 minutes left trailing 33-7). I don't have hard proof that Moore was checked out in this game, but to my eyes this was not someone who was bought in and was playing their hardest. Especially once they got into a hole. And I don't think it's crazy to point to his decision to transfer out of UCLA as more evidence of this.

In reply to StillNoStanfurdium Yeah you're supposed to support our guys not point out how their accomplishments deserve an asterisk. Fan is short for fanatic, not sober analyst of subjective factors that militate against drawing a favorable conclusion. You're aware that Ucla didn't play Oregon OR Washington last year, correct? You're aware Oregon only lost to Washington, and Washington only lost to Michigan? You're also aware that Ucla lost to ASU at home with the Sun Devils using a RB at QB for much of the game, and that Cal beat ASU at home? Other than that both lost @ Utah and against OSU. Cal choked against USC, no argument there, but Ucla beat a USC team that lost 5 of its last 6 games and was coming off back to back demoralizing losses to Washington and Oregon right before they played Ucla in their final game of the regular season. If anyone had quit, it was USC.

You believe what you want to believe, but it's a problem that we have a fan base that diminishes our team. Leave that for fans of our opponents. Don't be afraid to blindly support our team. If I run into a Texas fan and we start talking, I'd congratulate them on a good year last year but if they take shots at Cal I'm not shrinking away. I'd say well we've got a 2 game winning streak going on you. It's just like how every single one of those people in the Lions video says they're a "die hard" fan even though most don't know much about their star QB. All that matters is attitude and perception. When you can back it with facts, all the better.

In reply to WalterSobchak

WalterSobchak said:

---

Yeah you're supposed to support our guys not point out how their accomplishments deserve an asterisk. Fan is short for fanatic, not sober analyst of subjective factors that militate against drawing a favorable conclusion. You're aware that Ucla didn't play Oregon OR Washington last year, correct? You're aware Oregon only lost to Washington, and Washington only lost to Michigan? You're also aware that Ucla lost to ASU at home with the Sun Devils using a RB at QB for much of the game, and that Cal beat ASU at home? Other than that both lost @ Utah and against OSU. Cal choked against USC, no argument there, but Ucla beat a USC team that lost 5 of its last 6 games and was coming off back to back demoralizing losses to Washington and Oregon right before they played Ucla in their final game of the regular season. If anyone had quit, it was USC.

You believe what you want to believe, but it's a problem that we have a fan base that diminishes our team. Leave that for fans of our opponents. Don't be afraid to blindly support our team. If I run into a Texas fan and we start talking, I'd congratulate them on a good year last year but if they take shots at Cal I'm not shrinking away. I'd say well we've got a 2 game winning streak going on you. It's just like how every single one of those people in the Lions video says they're a "die hard" fan even though most don't know much about their star QB. All that matters is attitude and perception. When you can back it with facts, all the better.

---

Do you think I'm trash talking Cal to an opposing fan now? Are you a UCLA fan? No, we're on a Cal message board discussing Cal. This is literally the time you would think would be ideal to have a frank discussion of the team.

Also I'm baffled that somehow what sparked this visceral response from you was me saying that we can't discount that Ethan Garbers could've made a difference because I think Moore is worse and probably gave up. Because you can't simultaneously build up the value of the USC/Boise State wins for UCLA to make our win mean more without also acknowledging that UCLA's QB in those games was indeed different.

Just a super weird hill for you to die on to imply that my comments are somehow indicative of being negative on the team. You realize I'm not the OP who said we beat a UCLA team where Chip Kelly quit on the team right? I disagree with that sentiment but wanted to point out what I think did make the difference was Ethan Garbers getting knocked out of the game.

In reply to StillNoStanfurdium You think it's a super weird hill for me to die on to say Cal was better than Ucla last year and that's the reason we demolished them? Are you a Ucla fan?

UCLA went 8-5 (4-5) last year.
Cal went 6-7 (4-5) last year.

UCLA was #24 in Sagarin's Predictor and #33 in Recent which weights later games more heavily.

Cal was #46 in Predictor and #61 in Recent.

Cal was better than UCLA that night, but most people viewed it as an upset, a UCLA choke along with the losses in prior weeks to ASU and Arizona (punctuated by the UCLA win over USC the week before our game).

In reply to calumnus Cal had a much tougher schedule than Ucla last season, both in conference and overall. It really wasn't close.

Ucla was 4-0 vs G5 teams last season, including their bowl game. As I said they didn't play Oregon or Washington.

Cal was 2-0 vs G5 teams last season. As we know they played (and lost to) both Oregon and Washington.

Boise was 8-5 entering the LA Bowl with 3 G5 losses and 2 P5 losses. Yes they played 13 games + the LA Bowl for 14 total, I'm not sure how (they didn't play Hawaii). Notably they lost to 5-7 Colorado State and also Washington.

Texas Tech was only 6-6 entering our bowl game, but that included losses to Oregon and Texas.

Honestly I'm a lot more interested in discussing correcting the things that led to actual losses in winnable games against Auburn, USC, and Tech than nitpicking a big win where the team absolutely dominated when it was needed most.

In reply to WalterSobchak

WalterSobchak said:

---

Cal had a much tougher schedule than Ucla last season, both in conference and overall. It really wasn't close.

Ucla was 4-0 vs G5 teams last season, including their bowl game. As I said they didn't play Oregon or Washington.

Cal was 2-0 vs G5 teams last season. As we know they played (and lost to) both Oregon and Washington.

Boise was 8-5 entering the LA Bowl with 3 G5 losses and 2 P5 losses. Yes they played 13 games + the LA Bowl for 14 total, I'm not sure how (they didn't play Hawaii). Notably they lost to 5-7 Colorado State and also Washington.

Texas Tech was only 6-6 entering our bowl game, but that included losses to Oregon and Texas.

Honestly I'm a lot more interested in discussing correcting the things that led to actual losses in winnable games against Auburn, USC, and Tech than nitpicking a big win where the team absolutely dominated when it was needed most.

---

Sagarin takes strength of schedule and opponent into consideration. It is the whole schedule. For example: we beat UCLA, UCLA beat USC, USC beat us. End of the day, UCLA was rated higher and our win was seen as an upset. Like when Colorado beat us last year for their only win and Arizona beat us the year before for their only win. We were the better team but not that day.

It is true that UCLA almost certainly would have lost to Oregon and UW. It is not a given that we would have beat Arizona (unlikely) and Colorado.

In any case, it was a bad enough season for UCLA that their fans were outraged and Chip Kelly quit. Yet 8-5, 4-5 in conference, matches 2019, Wilcox's best year ever in his entire career. They have a new coach and we are no longer in the same conference. Glad we got that last win.

Going back to the OP. Even though we played some great offensive teams last year, we did worse against them defensively than anyone else. I really do think Cal's defense was pretty bad last year and needs significant improvement for Cal to win. I am in "show me" mode for the offense as well.

In reply to calumnus Yeah and Arizona fans rushed the field after they beat us. They didn't stand around telling each other not to get too excited because Cal wasn't at full strength.

I've got no problem understanding it was considered an upset. I don't particularly put much stock in any rating that can look at these schedules and reach such an incorrect conclusion, but it is what it is. But that's not what I responded to. I responded to comments that our win was the result of their coach and QB not trying.

In reply to WalterSobchak

WalterSobchak said:

---

Yeah and Arizona fans rushed the field after they beat us. They didn't stand around telling each other not to get too excited because Cal wasn't at full strength.

I've got no problem understanding it was considered an upset. I don't particularly put much stock in any rating that can look at these schedules and reach such an incorrect conclusion, but it is what it is. But that's not what I responded to. I responded to comments that our win was the result of their coach and QB not trying.

---

You clearly were not reading Arizona and Colorado message boards after they beat us.

However, I will concede the point: It was a good win, our best win of the season, getting us to 6-6. If it was at Memorial we would have rushed the field. It definitely lead me to hope we would show better in the bowl game against a decidedly mediocre Big-12 team.