SB Nation - Andrew Luck

Inside The Numbers: Utah Edition

TwistNHook — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:08:57 -0000

More photos » by Colin E. Braley - AP

about 1 month ago: Utah defensive back Lamar Chapman (21) scrambles after the ball fumbled by San Diego State wide receiver Roberto Wallace (18) during the third quarter of an NCAA college football game at Rice-Eccles Stadium, Saturday, Nov. 21, 2009, in Salt Lake City. San Diego State recovered the fumble. (AP Photo/Colin E. Braley)

Browse more photos »

(Slight delay with Hydro's posts. They'll be coming either this afternoon or tomorrow, hang tight.)

Whew! One last day of Cal football. It's upcoming and it might not excite some of you, but remember this:

This is the last Cal football game we'll see for the next 9 months.

Yes. Kinda puts things into perspective, don't it. So, time to get up Bears! Time to get pumped and ready to go! To that end, Avinash and I decided to take a tour through the magical mystery that is Utah football stats. After the jump, follow us as we weave our way through their numbers and see what it portends for the Poinsettia Bowl, the most important Southern California Flower-Related Bowl you'll see all year! GO BEARS!

TwistNHook: Ok, first lets take a look at the Passing Stats thanks to cfbstats.com:

Situation	G	Att	Comp	Pct.	Yards	Int	TD	Rating	Long	1st	15+	25+
All Plays	12	368	219	59.5	2642	8	16	129.81	90	105	54	22
1st Half	12	202	122	60.4	1559	5	8	133.35	69	62	36	15
2nd Half/OT	12	166	97	58.4	1083	3	8	125.52	90	43	18	7
1st Quarter	12	86	63	73.3	873	2	5	173.07	69	34	19	9
2nd Quarter	12	116	59	50.9	686	3	3	103.90	50	28	17	6
3rd Quarter	12	87	51	58.6	553	1	4	124.88	90	22	9	3
4th Quarter	12	73	43	58.9	510	2	4	130.18	51	20	9	4
Overtime	2	6	3	50.0	20	0	0	78.00	8	1	0	0

Oy, these look pretty good. Nearly 60% completion rate. We'd kill for that. Twice as many TD than Interceptions. Rating of about 130 is not great, but not particularly bad either. And they start off with a 173 rating, so that is very good. Oddly enough, though, they have their largest attempts in the 2nd quarter. Not sure why. 116 attempts compared to not more than 87 in the other quarters. Why would that be?

In that quarter, their numbers are the worst, too. 51ish% completion rate with 3 int to 3 TD and a 104 QB rating. Hopefully, Cal can get Utah to play at that level as compared to their overall level!

Avinash:

Date	Opponent	Surface	Result	Att	Comp	Pct.	Yards	Yards/Att	Int	TD	Rating
09/03/09	Utah St.	Turf	W 35-17	30	20	66.7	286	9.5	1	2	162.08
09/12/09	@ San Jose St.	Grass	W 24-14	32	18	56.3	248	7.8	0	1	131.66
09/19/09	@ 7 Oregon	Turf	L 24-31	42	20	47.6	178	4.2	2	1	81.56
09/26/09	Louisville	Turf	W 30-14	22	17	77.3	202	9.2	1	2	175.31
10/10/09	@ Colorado St.	Turf	W 24-17	32	24	75.0	248	7.8	1	2	154.48
10/17/09	@ UNLV	Turf	W 35-15	24	17	70.8	174	7.3	0	2	159.23
10/24/09	Air Force	Turf	W 23-16	21	11	52.4	167	8.0	0	1	134.89
10/31/09	Wyoming	Turf	W 22-10	28	20	71.4	211	7.5	0	1	146.51
11/07/09	New Mexico	Turf	W 45-14	31	19	61.3	306	9.9	1	2	159.05
11/14/09	@ 3 TCU	Grass	L 28-55	32	16	50.0	219	6.8	1	1	111.55
11/21/09	San Diego St.	Turf	W 38-7	29	15	51.7	202	7.0	0	1	121.61
11/28/09	@ 15 Brigham Young	Grass	L 23-26	45	22	48.9	201	4.5	1	0	81.97

Simple to figure out: Bad against good teams...good against bad teams. I remember watching the Oregon-Utah game and wondering, "Wow, these guys can't throw the ball." Against most of the MWC bottom-dwellers though they romped it up. However, Terrence Cain went down around Halloween, forcing true freshman Jordan Wynn into the starting spot against TCU and BYU. Tough spot for the young one to be in.

That being said, Cal's pass defense has yet to play real well this season (they've had moments, but good games? It's been awhile), so I doubt Wynn will have trouble getting his looks. A lot will depend on how well the Utes can run the ball and get that going.

TwistNHook: Ok, now lets take a look at the rushing stats.

- Show quoted text -

Situation	G	Att	Yards	Avg.	TD	Long	1st	10+	20+
All Plays	12	450	2033	4.52	23	46	109	68	17
1st Half	12	211	799	3.79	11	44	46	28	4
2nd Half/OT	12	239	1234	5.16	12	46	63	40	13
1st Quarter	12	103	450	4.37	7	44	20	13	4
2nd Quarter	12	108	349	3.23	4	16	26	15	0
3rd Quarter	12	110	605	5.50	4	35	33	20	6
4th Quarter	12	121	611	5.05	7	46	28	20	7
Overtime	2	8	18	2.25	1	9	2	0	0

What do we have here? 23 TDs, pretty good. 4.52 yards a carry. Not all that bad, but if you look at the first half numbers, it is quite a bit different from the second half numbers. 3.79 compared to 5.16. 2nd half doesn't have *that* many more carries than first half (especially when divided over 12 games) than first. So, what is the reason for the increased success as the game continues? Do they have a lot of OLine depth? Do they cheat? Or are they generally dominant and rushing a lot in blowouts?

Let's look at their sked;

2009 Schedule/Results

DATE	OPPONENT	W-L (CONF)	RESULT
9/03	Utah State	1-0 (0-0)	W 35-17
9/12	@ San Jose State	2-0 (0-0)	W 24-14
9/19	@ Oregon	2-1 (0-0)	L 31-24
9/26	Louisville	3-1 (0-0)	W 30-14
10/10	@ Colorado State	4-1 (1-0)	W 24-17
10/17	@ UNLV	5-1 (2-0)	W 35-15
10/24	Air Force	6-1 (3-0)	W 23-16 OT
10/31	Wyoming	7-1 (4-0)	W 22-10
11/07	New Mexico	8-1 (5-0)	W 45-14
11/14	@ No. 4 TCU	8-2 (5-1)	L 55-28
11/21	San Diego State	9-2 (6-1)	W 38-7
11/28	@ No. 19 Brigham Young	9-3 (6-2)	L 26-23 OT
12/23	vs. California		8:00 PM

Well, they went 9-3. 9 wins. Of those 9 wins, 7 were by 10 points or more and 6 were by 14 points or more. So, they might have been running a decent amount in the second half where the opposing team didn't really have a chance. Hopefully, that means that the increased second half numbers are not necessarily indicative of great OL depth, but just a contextual situation that HOPEFULLY won't occur on the 23rd!!!!! Hopefully.

Avinash: 17 sacks allowed, 33rd in the country.

51 tackles for loss allowed, 12th in the country

At first glance the offensive line looks really good. Again it looks like it'll come down to how well we stick down on the run...we can't have Utah clicking on both cylinders. If the running game is stopped that'll force their true frosh to throw more...and given how we've done against Nick Foles and Andrew Luck (redshirts, but whatever), and he doesn't seem as capable as those two, we might have some success.

Eddie Wide is their primary ball-carrier, and he's been tearing it up as of late...

Date Opponent Surface Result Att Yards Avg. TD

09/03/09 Utah St. Turf W 35-17 6 30 5.00 0

09/12/09 @ San Jose St. Grass W 24-14 8 40 5.00 1

09/19/09 @ 7 Oregon Turf L 24-31 2 -3 -1.50 0

09/26/09 Louisville Turf W 30-14 19 129 6.79 0

10/10/09 @ Colorado St. Turf W 24-17 17 102 6.00 1

10/17/09 @ UNLV Turf W 35-15 17 111 6.53 1

10/24/09 Air Force Turf W 23-16 17 121 7.12 2

10/31/09 Wyoming Turf W 22-10 24 135 5.63 1

11/07/09 New Mexico Turf W 45-14 20 145 7.25 2

11/14/09 @ 3 TCU Grass L 28-55 14 25 1.79 1

11/21/09 San Diego St. Turf W 38-7 16 84 5.25 2

11/28/09 @ 15 Brigham Young Grass L 23-26 21 114 5.43 1

Except for the customary stuffing at TCU, he's performed really well: seven 100+ yard games out of 9, with a YPA of at least 5+ in each one. I'm not going to say he's beaten up on the stiffest of competition, but I'd expect we'd want to hold him to 60 or 70 yards. Anything over that and Cal could be in huge trouble defensively.

TwistNHook: Let's take a look at the Passing D.

Situation	G	Att	Comp	Pct.	Yards	Int	TD	Rating	Long	1st	15+	25+
All Plays	12	361	181	50.1	2074	15	11	100.15	59	91	51	17
1st Half	12	187	92	49.2	1202	6	3	102.07	59	51	27	12
2nd Half/OT	12	174	89	51.1	872	9	8	98.07	36	40	24	5
1st Quarter	11	83	42	50.6	648	1	2	121.72	59	27	15	6
2nd Quarter	12	104	50	48.1	554	5	1	86.38	42	24	12	6
3rd Quarter	12	82	38	46.3	386	2	3	93.07	36	18	12	3
4th Quarter	12	89	49	55.1	457	7	4	97.29	28	20	11	1
Overtime	2	3	2	66.7	29	0	1	257.87	25	2	1	1

Oy! 50% against. 100 rating against. More Ints than TDs. Those are gooooooooooooooood numbers. Unless we get them to overtime, where they are giving up a QB rating of 257! 257! Now, *that's* a number I can work with. The numbers also seem fairly steady across the board. The highest QB rating against is 121, which is very solid.

This is a very solid passing Defense and Cal is going to need to bring solid blocking to give Riley a chance to make the good throws. Hopefully, we see the Kevin Riley that played in the Big Game, making great throws at the perfect times.

Avinash:

Date	Opponent	Surface	Result	Att	Comp	Pct.	Yards	Yards/Att	Int	TD	Rating
09/03/09	Utah St.	Turf	W 35-17	26	10	38.5	121	4.7	1	0	69.86
09/12/09	@ San Jose St.	Grass	W 24-14	34	21	61.8	242	7.1	1	1	125.39
09/19/09	@ 7 Oregon	Turf	L 24-31	16	4	25.0	95	5.9	1	0	62.38
09/26/09	Louisville	Turf	W 30-14	33	15	45.5	181	5.5	1	1	95.47
10/10/09	@ Colorado St.	Turf	W 24-17	24	12	50.0	184	7.7	3	1	103.15
10/17/09	@ UNLV	Turf	W 35-15	47	25	53.2	236	5.0	2	1	93.88
10/24/09	Air Force	Turf	W 23-16	10	7	70.0	64	6.4	0	0	123.76
10/31/09	Wyoming	Turf	W 22-10	31	20	64.5	151	4.9	1	1	109.64
11/07/09	New Mexico	Turf	W 45-14	42	21	50.0	252	6.0	2	2	106.59
11/14/09	@ 3 TCU	Grass	L 28-55	29	17	58.6	207	7.1	1	1	123.06
11/21/09	San Diego St.	Turf	W 38-7	37	17	45.9	207	5.6	2	1	91.06
11/28/09	@ 15 Brigham Young	Grass	L 23-26	32	12	37.5	134	4.2	0	2	93.31

Shut down Oregon, very impressive. Shut down Max Hall (37% completion rate???), VERY impressive. TCU had a modest game against them, but for giving up 55 points, the pass D seemed to hold up their end. The only team that's threw on them well was Air Force (on 10 throws?) and Wyoming (WYOMING?)?

Not sure what to make of these guys. I'm guessing we don't want to end up throwing on them that much and rely a lot on Vereen to take us home. Sad that this is what our offense has come down to--staying as far away from the pass game as possible.

TwistNHook: Well, we better hope that their run D kinda sucks, then.

Situation	G	Att	Yards	Avg.	TD	Long	1st	10+	20+
All Plays	12	451	1696	3.76	15	96	91	43	13
1st Half	12	228	849	3.72	10	96	44	20	4
2nd Half/OT	12	223	847	3.80	5	64	47	23	9
1st Quarter	12	120	530	4.42	4	96	23	13	3
2nd Quarter	12	108	319	2.95	6	22	21	7	1
3rd Quarter	12	115	419	3.64	3	45	25	11	3
4th Quarter	12	101	409	4.05	2	64	22	12	6
Overtime	2	7	19	2.71	0	6	0	0	0

GODDAMN IT! 3.76 yard per rush against. Ai! And the 1st half 2nd half splits don't seem to be particularily different. This ain't good.

To compare, ASU's run D, which was known for being rather good (unless they were facing a T Gerhart) gives up 3.39 yards per rush

Cal's rush D, which was fairly stout all year long, is actually at 3.51. So, while we do have a better rush D on a per carry basis, it is not much better.

So, they have a rush D on the same level as ours and a pass D that is much, much better. Their offense doesn't seem to be amazing, so this could be a defensive struggle. I feel as if that could benefit Cal, given our recent offensive woes. Recent as in the last game, where Matt Summers-Gavin did not play. Ai!

Avinash: Eh. This doesn't concern me as much.

09/03/09	Utah St.	Turf	W 35-17	34	221	6.50	2
09/12/09	@ San Jose St.	Grass	W 24-14	22	22	1.00	1
09/19/09	@ 7 Oregon	Turf	L 24-31	51	217	4.25	3
09/26/09	Louisville	Turf	W 30-14	35	80	2.29	1
10/10/09	@ Colorado St.	Turf	W 24-17	31	150	4.84	1
10/17/09	@ UNLV	Turf	W 35-15	33	91	2.76	0
10/24/09	Air Force	Turf	W 23-16	75	254	3.39	1
10/31/09	Wyoming	Turf	W 22-10	25	51	2.04	0
11/07/09	New Mexico	Turf	W 45-14	29	82	2.83	0
11/14/09	@ 3 TCU	Grass	L 28-55	51	342	6.71	5
11/21/09	San Diego St.	Turf	W 38-7	29	55	1.90	0
11/28/09	@ 15 Brigham Young	Grass	L 23-26	36	131	3.64	1
	Totals			451	1696	3.76	15

Short story: They shut down crappy running games (Wyoming 86th, UNLV 87th, Louisville 90th New Mexico 110th, San Diego State 116th, San Jose State 117th) and got torched by good ones (TCU 5th, Oregon 6th, Utah State 22nd). While we're not as potent as TCU or Oregon in the run game, I feel Vereen, and some Debo and Isi can get us around our 175+ average.

The key will be how good Riley and the receivers can keep up their end of the bargain. The O-line might struggle in both areas, but Utah's defense is heavily dependent on how good the opponent they're facing.

Short story: If Good Cal shows up we win, if Bad Cal shows up we lose. How's that for trite?

TwistNHook: What's trite mean?

Avinash: Use the googles.

TwistNHook: THE GOOGLES, THEY DO NOTHING!

Poll

Give it to us good.

Big Cal victory

25 votes

Close Cal victory

81 votes

Close Cal loss

25 votes

Big Cal loss

30 votes

161 votes | Poll has closed

Arizona vs. Nebraska: How They Got Here

joenewby4040 — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 06:45:08 -0000

More photos » by Jae C. Hong - AP

19 days ago: Arizona quarterback Nick Foles (8) looks to pass against Southern California defensive end Armond Armstead (94) during the first half of their NCAA college football game in Los Angeles, Saturday, Dec. 5, 2009. AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)

Browse more photos »

Arizona will take on Nebraska in the Pacific Life Holiday Bowl on December 29, 2009 at 8:00 ET. The Arizona Wildcats finished 8-4 and 6-3 in the Pac-10. Arizona finished 2nd in the Pac-10 in 2009. Nebraska finished 9-4 and was 1 second away from playing in a BCS bowl game. Other than the BCS games, the Nebraska/Arizona matchup will be one of the most anticipated games of the bowl season. Mike Stoops has been with Arizona since 2004 when he started his Arizona career with a 3-8 record. He has turned the program around and created a winning atmosphere that has led him to an 8 win season in 2008 which included a Las Vegas Bowl victory over BUY 21-10. Stoops added another 8 win season in 2009. The Las Vegas Bowl was Arizona's first bowl game since 1998 where Arizona defeated Nebraska 23-20.

Bo Pelini has been at Nebraska as the head coach since 2008. He won 9 games in 2008 and another 9 this year. Nebraska beat Clemson last year in the Gator Bowl 26-21. Pelini rescued Nebraska who was 5-7 in 2007. Nebraska had a great year winning the Big XII North and going to the Big XII Championship game to face Texas. It seemed as if Nebraska had it sewn up when Colt McCoy threw the ball out of bounds with :00 left on the clock. It was all for not as the replay booth gave the Horns 1 second and that was all they needed to kick the game winning FG. Nebraska will be a tough opponent who has a guy named Ndamakuh Suh. Yeah, you know him.

ARIZONA WILDCATS: HOW THEY GOT HERE

Arizona Wildcats
Record	8-4
AP Final Rank	22
Offensive Rank	40
Defensive Rank	21
Rushing Yards Allowed Per Game	112
Passing Yards Allowed Per Game	204
Rushing Yards Per Game	168
Passing Yards Per Game	240

Arizona started off the season with a different quarterback and a healthy running back in Nic Grigsby. After two and a half games, Nic Foles was at the helm and Nic Grigsby was already fading in the health department. After the mid-game switch to Foles, the Cats took on a new identity and began to rack up offense.

September 5, 2009: The Cats opened up the season starting Matt Scott and took care of Central Michigan at home holding Lefevour to his 3rd fewest passing yards in 40 starts. Grigsby had 118 yards on 23 carries. Starting out stong. Arizona 19 vs. Central Michigan 6

September 12, 2009: Arizona plays a gimme at home. Grigsby ran for 207 yards, including a 94 yard run in the 4th quarter. Matt Scott was 14-20 with 150 yards and a TD and an INT. Foles enters the mix going 6-8 with a TD and 44 yards passing. Arizona 34 vs. Northern Arizona University 17

September 19, 2009: Times are a changing. With Matt Scott struggling most of the game, Stoops looks to Foles to inspire the offense. Foles tried to salvage the Cats going 6-11 with 55 yards and a TD. This was most definitely the turning point of the season. Arizona 17 vs. Iowa 27

September 26, 2009: Coming out party? Definitely. Foles was 25-34 for 254 yards and threw for 3 TD and 0 interceptions. The defense was exploited in the secondary. The Cats start gaining momentum at this point. Arizona 37 vs. Oregon State 32

October 10, 2009: The first of many disappointments to come. Did you see it? Check it out below. That ball definitely hit the turf. One of many offensive play calls that was questionable all season with the Cats up and on offense, we are throwing. Another great performance by the offense. Locker had an incredible game and the ball just didn't bounce our way, literally. Arizona 33 vs. Washington 36

October 17, 2009: Arizona puts on offensive show and goes toe to toe with Andrew Luck. Nick Foles is 40-51 for 415 yards and 3 touchdowns. Defense gets torched for 583 yards. Arizona wins, momentum builds. Arizona is now 4-2. Arizona 43 vs. Stanford 38

October 24, 2009: Domination. Arizona gains 456 yards. Foles gets 247 but has 3 INT's. Rushing game gets 209 from an array of different backs. Still missing Grigs at this point. Arizona 27 vs. UCLA 13

November 7, 2009: Gimme. Arizona puts in a full performance. 294 rushing. Foles 12-19 for 136 and a TD. Defense only gives up 185 total. Arizona 48 vs. Washington State 7

November 14, 2009: Are you kidding me? A double pass? The Cats were poised to win the game by setting up a field goal for Zendejas only to have it disappear in an instant. Sad, sad day for the Cats. The offensive line looked terrible on this day. Arizona 16 vs. California 24

November 21, 2009: Oh no! Not again? The Cats look like they are in control heading into the 4th quarter. There was a 3rd and long that I questioned here where I thought the offense should have run it and then punted the ball, milking precious time off the clock. Instead, Foles throws an INT and gives Oregon the ball on their 20 with no timeouts used. We all know the rest, right? Arizona 41 vs. Oregon 44

November 28, 2009: Agghh. The Cats get a win (that they should not have). Who cares, we beat ASU. On to USC! Arizona 20 vs. Arizona State 17

December 5, 2009: Arizona breaks a 7 game losing streak to USC by winning in the final 3:00 of the game with a 36 yard pass from Nick Foles to Juron Criner. The Cats pulled off an incredible win that brings them to San Diego! Arizona 21 vs. USC 17

And that's how it happened. Arizona had a great, but disappointing season. There were a few games that a more experienced, less injured team should have won this year. The Cats lost to Washington, Oregon, and Cal all within the last 2:00 of the game. Nick Foles solidified himself as the leader of the team and the defense came together as a unit to finish in the top 25 overall.

Next up: Arizona vs. Nebraska: How They Got Here Part II

Fortune Teller: 2009 Bowl Predictions (Part 1)

Brian @ BCI — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:16:14 -0000

For the third straight year, we preview the upcoming college football postseason. Here are our picks for bowls 1-17, which takes you from the New Mexico Bowl in Albuquerque to El Paso, Texas for the Sun Bowl.

Leave your thoughts on any of the first 17 matchups below.

New Mexico (December 19)

Matchup: Fresno State (8-4) vs. Wyoming (6-6)
The Line: Fresno State -11.5

The Lead: Wyoming makes only its second trip to a bowl this decade while Fresno State makes its 9th bowl appearance in the last 10 years. Fresno State returns to New Mexico for the second straight year (losing to Colorado State 40-35 last year).

Brian Pick: Fresno State -11.5
Jeff Pick: Wyoming +11.5

St. Petersburg presented by Beef ‘O’ Brady’s (December 19)

Matchup: UCF (8-4) vs. Rutgers (8-4)
The Line: Rutgers -2.5

The Lead: Rutgers just making a bowl game game is no longer exciting for their players and fans who had higher hopes coming into this season than to finish 3-4 in the Big East. UCF meanwhile will be playing less than three hours from their campus and should be thrilled to be there.

Jeff Pick: UCF +2.5
Brian Pick: Rutgers -2.5

R + L Carrier New Orleans (December 20)

Matchup: Southern Miss (7-5) vs. Middle Tennessee (9-3)
The Line: Southern Miss -3.5

The Lead: Southern Miss returns to the New Orleans Bowl for the second straight year. Last year, Southern Miss blocked a field goal in overtime to defeat Troy 30-27 in one of the more entertaining 2008 bowl games. Middle Tennessee State is one of the hottest teams in the country, having won 6 straight and reaching the 9 win plateau for the first time since joining Division I-A in 1999. Southern Miss has a perfect 3-0 record in the New Orleans Bowl.

Brian Pick: Southern Miss -3.5
Jeff Pick: Southern Miss -3.5

MAACO Las Vegas (December 22)

Matchup: Oregon State (8-4) vs. BYU (10-2)
The Line: Oregon State -2.5

The Lead: BYU was on top of the world after beating Oklahoma to start the season. Oregon State was on top of the college football world in the final Thursday night of the season when playing Oregon for the Pac-10 title. Things didn't work out as either team had hoped from those points on though and they both fell to the pre-Christmas Las Vegas Bowl. Oregon State has plenty to prove though as they attempt to beat BYU, TCU and Boise State in the next 11 months and serve as the non-BCS school killer.

Jeff Pick: Oregon State -2.5
Brian Pick: Oregon State -2.5

San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia (December 23)

Matchup: Utah (9-3) vs. California (8-4)
The Line: California -3

The Lead: With BC losing to Vanderbilt last season, Utah now owns the longest active winning streak in bowl games, having won their last 8 games including last year’s Sugar Bowl over Alabama. Cal is riding a seven game streak for bowl apperances, the longest in school history.

Brian Pick: Utah +3
Jeff Pick: Utah +3

Sheraton Hawaii (December 24)

Matchup: Nevada (8-4) vs. SMU (7-5)
The Line: Nevada -15

The Lead: This game features a very good WAC team against a very good C-USA team but does that mean that they are actually good teams? It's tough to say. Neither team has a very impressive win this season and both seemed to lose all their games when they had opportunities to prove themselves. Will anyone watch the Christmas Eve game in Hawaii? Other than Brian?

Jeff Pick: SMU +15
Brian Pick: Nevada -15

Little Caesars (December 26)

Matchup: Marshall (6-6) vs. Ohio (9-4)
The Line: Ohio -2.5

The Lead: This game renews a rivalry game between the two schools located only 80 miles apart. Ohio and Marshall used to compete in the Battle for the Bell which is set to be renewed in 2010. Ohio leads the all-time series 29-17-6, however Marshall has won 8 of the last 10 matchups between the two geographic neighbors.

Brian Pick: Ohio -2.5
Jeff Pick: Ohio -2.5

Meineke Car Care (December 26)

Matchup: Pittsburgh (9-3) vs. North Carolina (8-4)
The Line: Pittsburgh -3

The Lead: What a disappointing finish to the season for Pittsburgh. Pitt lost to their backyard brawl rival West Virginia before losing to Cincinnati in a de-facto Big East Championship game. The Panthers led the entire game against Cincinnati but could not finish so now instead of the Orange Bowl they get a trip to Charlotte to play North Carolina in a "road" bowl game. Good luck getting your team fired up for this one, Dave!

Jeff Pick: North Carolina +3
Brian Pick: Pittsburgh -3

Emerald (December 26)

Matchup: Boston College (8-4) vs. USC (8-4)
The Line: USC -9

The Lead: The 8-4 Eagles travel to San Francisco for the second time this decade to take on the 8-4 USC Trojans. This is the first time in seven years that USC hasn’t played in a BCS bowl game (5 Rose Bowls, 2 Orange Bowls). Good news for the Eagles is the last time Pete Carroll found himself in a non-BCS bowl game, the Trojans lost 10-6 to Utah in the Las Vegas Bowl. You don't think we would pick against BC now, do you?

Brian Pick: Boston College +9
Jeff Pick: Boston College +9

Gaylor Hotels Music City (December 27)

Matchup: Kentucky (7-5) vs. Clemson (8-5)
The Line: Clemson -7.5

The Lead: If Boston College's 2008 performance in the Music City Bowl is any indication of how Clemson might play this year after the disappointing ACC Championship Game, it's is going to be tough to watch for Tiger fans. But after losing to South Carolina, the ACC really doesn't need Clemson, or any of its top programs, to lose to mediocre SEC teams. Clemson ticket sales for the bowl have been soft but hopefully Dabo can rally this team to victory.

Jeff Pick: Kentucky +7.5
Brian Pick: Clemson -7.5

AdvoCare V100 Independence (December 28)

Matchup: Texas A&M (6-6) vs. Georgia (7-5)
The Line: Georgia -7

The Lead: Georgia wraps up an otherwise disappointing, up-and-down season in Shreveport, Louisiana. For every quality win for UGA, there seemed to be an equally puzzling loss this year. Defeat Arkansas, get crushed at Tennessee. Defeat Auburn, lose to Kentucky at home, come back and defeat in-state rival Georgia Tech. Texas A&M has had a similar up-and-down season, but seemingly backed into the postseason having lost 3 of their last 4 games.

Brian Pick: Georgia -7
Jeff Pick: Georgia -7

EagleBank (December 29)

Matchup: UCLA (6-6) vs. Temple (9-3)
The Line: UCLA -4

The Lead: UCLA had to wait to see the result of the Army-Navy game before getting officially invited to this bowl game. In the bowl's second season, I don't imagine that their will be much hype this year compared to last year's geographically favorable matchup of Wake Forest vs. Navy. Look for Temple to surprise some people and possibly knock off a BCS school in this one.

Jeff Pick: Temple +4
Brian Pick: Temple +4

Champs Sports (December 29)

Matchup: Miami (Fla.) (9-3) vs. Wisconsin (9-3)
The Line: Miami -3

The Lead: This year’s Champs Sports Bowl is a matchup of 9-3 ranked teams. Both teams are coming off strong finishes, each winning 4 of their final 5 games. Wisconsin finished the season with a 51-10 drubbing of Hawaii on the road, while Miami took care of USF 31-10. Miami is 2-0 all-time in the Champs Sports Bowl. Wisconsin played in Orlando last season, losing to Florida State 42-13. This is the last year the Big 10 will be represented in this bowl as the Big East will send a team to face an ACC opponent starting next season.

Brian Pick: Miami -3
Jeff Pick: Miami -3

Roady’s Humanitarian (December 30)

Matchup: Bowling Green (8-5) vs. Idaho (7-5)
The Line: Idaho +1.5

The Lead: Another game that might set an attendance record this season but not the kind of record that you want to be setting if you are putting this bowl together. Boise fans might already be on their way to the Fiesta Bowl so even getting a few locals to come out for this game will be difficult. Bowling Green has a pretty good WR, and Idaho plays home games in a dome. That's all I have for this one.

Jeff Pick: Bowling Green -1.5
Brian Pick: Idaho +1.5

Pacific Life Holiday (December 30)

Matchup: Arizona (8-4) vs. Nebraska (9-4)
The Line: Arizona -1.5

The Lead: Arizona - having defeated the Trojans 21-17 to move to 6-3 in conference - will represent the Pac-10 as its #2 team in the Holiday Bowl. Nebraska won the Big 12 North, finishing the season at 9-4, 6-2 in conference. The Cornhuskers are coming off a heartbreaking 13-12 loss to Texas in the Big 12 Championship Game.

Brian Pick: Arizona -1.5
Jeff Pick: Nebraska +1.5

Bell Helicopter Armed Forces (December 31)

Matchup: Houston (10-3) vs. Air Force (7-5)
The Line: Houston -4.5

The Lead: The mighty Houston Cougars who knocked off Oklahoma State at home are only 4.5 point favorites against Air Force? Oh right, we later found out that Oklahoma State was not nearly as good as anyone thought the would be and failed to make a push for a BCS bowl by nearly losing to Colorado and then getting destroyed by Oklahoma to end the season. Air Force had another nice season but only managed a 1-5 record against bowl bound teams this season.

Jeff Pick: Air Force +4.5
Brian Pick: Houston -4.5

Brut Sun (December 31)

Matchup: Oklahoma (7-5) vs. Stanford (8-4)
The Line: Oklahoma -8

The Lead: This should be an intriguing matchup between the unstoppable force (Heisman runner-up Toby Gerhart and the 15th ranked Stanford Cardinal offense) and the immovable object (Oklahoma's 7th ranked defense). Oklahoma has had an otherwise disappointing season, that is, up until they put a 27-0 hurtin' on in-state rival Oklahoma State in Bedlam. Stanford may or may not be playing without the services of starting freshman quarterback Andrew Luck.

Brian Pick: Stanford +8
Jeff Pick: Oklahoma -8

Stanford Runs Out Of Luck Before The Sun Bowl

ccmachine — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 16:23:25 -0000

More photos » by Marcio Jose Sanchez - AP

Stanford quarterback Andrew Luck will not be in uniform against Oklahoma in the Sun Bowl. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez)

Browse more photos »

Early yesterday evening it was announced that Oklahoma and Stanford would face each other in the Sun Bowl on New Year's Eve. Then it was announced by Cardinal Head Coach, Jim Harbaugh that starting quarterback Andrew Luck wouldn't be playing against the Sooners.

Luck has thrown for 2,575 yards and 13 touchdowns this season but suffered an injury to his hand against Notre Dame and is now recovering from surgery. He'll be replaced by Tavita Pritchard who was once the starting quarterback before Luck arrived. Pritchard has completed 244 of 449 pass attempts at Stanford for 2,747 yards but also has thrown 22 interceptions to 15 touchdowns. Looks like Toby Gerhart is going to get even more touches.

Pritchard led Stanford to their first upset of #2 USC in 2007 so the Oklahoma defense isn't going against someone who has never been under pressure. It doesn't mean that the game plan for Oklahoma's defense didn't just get easier or the bowl game didn't get uglier. There's a reason why Pritchard was beaten out by a redshirt freshman and now having him in the game puts OU at a defensive advantage. Both defenses will be focused on stopping the run and making quarterbacks beat them.

Pac 10 holes to fill in 2010

John Berkowitz — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:03:21 -0000

More photos » by STEPHEN BRASHEAR - AP

Washington tailback Chris Polk became the first Husky frosh to ever rush over 1000 yards in a single season. (AP Photo/Stephen Brashear)

Browse more photos »

The Pac 10 proved itself in 2009 to be an elite conference with lots of parity for the first time since Pete Carroll's first season at USC. As for 2010 you can usually make a pretty good prediction on what is going to happen next year based on the previous years record, returning starters, and most importantly experience at quarterback.

If you are using that as a guide it is pretty easy to pick the Oregon Ducks as the favorite to win the conference in 2010. Overall the Pac 10 was young in 2009 and that was one reason for all the parity. Washington and Washington State like to point at youth for being a reason they will be better in 2009 but you can say that about any team in the conference next season excluding ASU and Arizona.

At first glance this is an early look at the holes that teams need to plug next season and what the reasonable expectation should be for 2010.

1. Oregon - Offense - 10 - Defense - 9

The Ducks go into 2010 as the favorite to win the conference. On offense they have everyone coming back except for TE Ed Dickson who will be adequately replaced by David Paulson. Defensively they need to replace half of their defensive line which is graduating but they do have the beef in reserve to do that. The defensive backfield will be young but a lot of those players saw considerable action this season.

The big key for Oregon is the return of Jeremiah Masoli at QB and his partner in crime LaMichael James. The Ducks should start next season in the top five nationally and be primed for a national championship run. If you are a duck fan you don't have too much in the immediate future to worry about.

2. Southern Cal - 7 Offense - Defense - 7

The Trojans lose three offensive lineman and their TE so their is some rebuilding to do up front. On defense they need to replace the entire secondary. This was a young USC team with plenty of talent on the roster which will only get better with time. The key to 2010 will be the continued development of QB Matt Barkley and the hope of some playmakers maturing around him on offense.

Pete Carroll has recruited well at USC but he didn't have any actual superstars on the roster in 2010 at key positions like he did in the past. The Trojans need a RB to emerge to compliment what Barkley will bring next season. Expect the improvement at QB to be there as usual. SC needs some serious playmakers if they are going to get past Oregon.

3. Oregon State - Offense - 8 - Defense - 9

On offense the Beavers need to replace Sean Canfield who played himself into a NFL draft pick this past season. The Rodgers brothers are scheduled to return but I could see James leaving early for the NFL. The Beavers lose only one starting offensive lineman. On defense the Beavers lose a LB and one of their CB's so they are in really good shape going into 2010 if Lyle Moevao can get a sixth year to come back and run the Beav offense.

If Moevao can get another season and James Rodgers comes back the Beavers will be very good on offense. If they don't come back I could see this team fall a couple of spots despite having an improved defense. You win with experience at QB in this league. If OSU is breaking in a new QB there will be some growing pains.

4. California - Offense - 9 - Defense - 5

The Bears only lose one offensive lineman and will likely lose RB Jahvid Best who is headed for the NFL early. No big deal because Shane Vereen is just as scary. Other than that the Bears return pretty intact on offense which means trouble for the rest of the Pac 10. On defense the Bears will loose 3/4 of their secondary, half of their LB corps and a DE so there is some rebuilding to be done.

I expect the Bears to do better on offense next season. Kevin Riley has to get better at QB with another year under Tedford. Defensively the Bears are rebuilding and that will ultimately keep them from winning the title. Tedford has recruited well over the years so he has some talent in the depth that is ready to move up to help fill holes on defense.

5. Stanford - Offense - 8 - Defense - 7

The Cardinal lose Heisman hopeful Toby Gerhart who is a huge part of their offense. He will be tough to replace. They also lose one OL and a TE so with the exception of Gerhart they return pretty much intact on offense. On defense they lose the two best players in their secondary in McNally and Sherman. They also lose monster NT Ekom Udofia and LB Will Powers.

Imagine Stanford without Toby Gerhart in 2009. How competitive would this team have been? Gerhart is a generational talent who the Cards won't be able to replace. Harbaugh continues to bring in solid recruiting classes so the Tree will be an improved team. The questions are will Andrew Luck be able to pick up enough of the slack in 2010 for the Stanford offense to be a factor? Can Stanford find an adequate replacement for Gerhart?

6. Washington Offense - 9 - Defense - 7

The Huskies lose Ossai and Homer from the offense. On defense they lose Butler and Savannah at LB plus Jones and Teo Nesheim on the DL. Jones was more of a spot starter because of injuries and the same can be said of Savannah who will petition for a 6th year.

The Huskies have some good returning at the offensive skill positions but they are in year one of rebuilding the offensive line because Sark couldn't find any to sign in year one. It will take at least two years of development until this highly rated OL class is ready to contribute. The only big question on offense is if Jake Locker will return. If he does UW should go to a bowl in 2010. If he doesn't it will set the program back a year or two.

Defensively Washington played a lot of young players in 2010. They also have a lot of talent coming in with the next class which should alleviate depth concerns. Washington will be improved on defense next season even though the losses of Teo Nesheim and Butler will be felt.

If Jake Locker doesn't come back the Huskies would fall to eighth in my early predictions. Not much of a fall but the difference between making or not making a bowl game in 2010 unless a miracle happens at QB.

7. Arizona - 5 Offense - Defense - 4

The Wildcats lose WR Terrell Turner, FB Chris Gronksowski, and most of their offensive line. On defense they lose half the defensive line and all three of their starting LB's. They also lose two starters in the secondary.

Thank god for Nick Foles and Nic Grigsby because this team is going to need them next year. Arizona and ASU are really the only team in the conference doing a major rebuild from an attrition standpoint next season. If TE Rob Gronkowski returns it will be another big plus.

8. UCLA - 8 Offense - Defense - 7

The Bruins lose FB Chane Moline, WR Terrance Austin, and TE Logan Paulsen on offense. Defensively they lose the Bosworth twins and Reggie Carter at the LB spots. Alteraun Verner is always leaving at CB. You can count on Rick Neuheisel to continue bringing in new talent from the recruiting trail. There are some losses on defense but the Bruins have the talent to fill the holes coming back or coming in. T

The big questions are on offense. Can the Bruins develop an adequate starting QB to go along with an adequate running game in 2010. It all starts on the offensive line. Has Rick built up enough talent and depth here to make a difference on the OL in 2010?

9. Arizona State - 2 Offense - Defense - 5

The Sun Devils are in trouble unless Dennis Erickson can plug some major holes immediately. On offense they lose three starting linemen along with the TE, WR's, RB, HB, and QB. As bad as they were on offense maybe starting over is a better idea.

On defense they lose DE Dexter Davis, LB Travis Goethel, LB Mike Nixon, and 3/4's of the secondary. The defense was the only spark the Devils had last year so this is a major area of concern.

Erickson starts 2010 on the hot seat for the first time as a college coach. He really needs to hit the JV trail this off season to have a chance to get this team near .500 in 2010. I don't think he can get it done in the time he probably has left. Breaking in a new QB won't help matters.

10. Washington State - 8 - Offense - Defense 9

On offense the Cougars lose QB Kevin Lopina, RB Dwight Tardy, C Kenny Alfred, and TE Tony Thompson. On defense they lose LB Andy Mattingly and Safety Xavier Hicks.

The good news is that everyone who matters is coming back. The bad news is that really nobody on this roster matters at this point. WSU needs a massive influx of talent to climb out the basement. Wulff needs to put together a remarkable recruiting class this off season or he isn't going to make it out of Pullman alive next season.

Cal vs. Stanfurd, Post-112th Big Game Thoughts

HydroTech — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 11:23:42 -0000

More photos » by Marcio Jose Sanchez - AP

about 1 month ago: California players celebrate an interception by Mike Mohammed (18) late in the fourth quarter against Stanford during a NCAA college football game in Stanford, Calif., Saturday, Nov. 21, 2009. California won 34-28. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez)

Browse more photos »

(1) Tedford's decision to center the ball on 3rd and 8 was a conservative decision but not a wrong decision. Let's get something out of the way first. Tedford centered the ball. He didn't take a knee. I see a lot of people, and newspaper writers who seem to think the only point of that play was to not stop the clock and make Stanfurd use their last timeout. If those were the only reasons, then Tedford would have just called a run play. But Tedford centered the ball. Centering the ball places the ball directly between the hash marks to give the kicker a straight-line kick. As we all know, the further you move left or right from directly between the hash marks, the smaller the width of the uprights become due to the angle. Thus, centering the ball is more crucial in college football than the NFL because the hash marks in college football are wider than the NFL. And centering the ball is also more crucial the closer you get to the goalline because the angle of the kick is harsher from the 10 yard line right hash (for example) as opposed to the 30 yard line right hash. In short, Tedford centered the ball. He did not just "take a knee."

This decision to center the ball was clearly a conservative decision. I personally would have run the ball left (because Cal was on the right hash). Running the ball left serves two purposes: (1) it keeps the clock running; and (2) it can potentially center the ball. Of course the runningback might take the ball outside one of the hashes rather than keeping the ball between the hashes and thus the ball is no more centered than it was earlier, but the benefit of actually running the ball is that there is a potential to score a touchdown. By centering the ball, Tedford gave up any chance that Cal might score a touchdown. At the time of that 3rd and 8, Cal was up 31-28 with about 2:45 left on the clock in the 4th quarter. A touchdown would have made the game 38-28 (assuming Cal goes for the PAT and makes it). That would have made the game a two-score game and essentially would have iced the game - or at least made it very difficult for Stanfurd to come back. On the other hand, centering the ball and kicking the field goal merely assured that Stanfurd needed a touchdown to win, as opposed to 10 points to tie or 11 points to win (if Cal had scored a touchdown on the 3rd and 8 with a play).

I suppose it's possible that the team could have executed a run play to the left and told Vereen to directly between the hashes as much as possible. Such a play preserves the chances of getting a touchdown (although those chances are probably reduced because Vereen is restricted to his running space), but it also serves the purpose of centering the ball (although the centering probably won't be as accurate as a QB-centering).

I do believe that centering the ball is more important than most critics of Tedford's decision realize. This should not be confused with saying that centering the ball is extremely important. However, critics of Tedford's decision don't even mention the lowered chances of a successful field goal kick from a far hash at extremely close range. To them, it appears, as if there is no difference between kicking a field goal from the 11 yard line far hash, and from the 11 yard line center. This is where they are wrong. Clearly there is a difference and kicking from a far hash is harder. How much of a difference does it make? It's a small one. Small enough that many coaches will just ignore the diminished percentage, and essentially trade a slightly bigger chance at missing the field goal for a chance at scoring a touchdown by running a play on 3rd down instead of centering the ball. Using numbers, it might sound like this: a kicker has a 95% chance at making a field from the 11 yard line center; a kicker has a 90% chance at making a field goal from the 11 yard line far hash; and the team has a 15% chance at scoring a touchdown on a run play from the 11 yard line. Most coaches will gladly take a 5% less chance at a field goal to keep that 15% chance of scoring a touchdown. Obviously Tedford isn't one of those coaches.

Was Tedford's decision wrong? No. I don't think so. There are two ways to win the game in Cal's situation. You go for a touchdown on third down, and if you get it, you ice the game with a 10 point lead. Or you kick the field goal, go up 6 points, and force the offense to score a touchdown. Both ways are valid ways to win. Of course one is more conservative than the other, or one is more aggressive than the other, but neither way is wrong. What is a wrong decision in football? Had Tedford passed the ball on the 3rd down to get a touchdown, I think that would be a wrong decision. You clearly want to run the ball on the 3rd down to make the offense use its last timeout. Even if Tedford passed the ball and Cal scored a touchdown, I would still criticize the decision as being wrong. Anyways, I don't think Tedford's decision is "wrong" as so many of his critics suggest. Conservative? Sure.

If you want to talk about "wrong" decisions, then let's talk about Stanfurd Head Coach Jim Harbaugh's decision to go for it on 4th and 8 on his own 23 yard line with 3 timeouts remaining. That was wrong. That decision pretty much gave Cal a very good chance at scoring a touchdown that would have put Stanfurd into a 10 point hole, and at the very least it gave Cal an extremely good chance at a field goal which would put Stanfurd into a 6 point hole. The 6 point hole now required that Stanfurd get a touchdown to at least tie the game or win it. On the other hand, if Stanfurd had punted the ball on the 4th down and subsequently forced Cal's offense to punt on Cal's next possession, then Stanfurd would only need a field goal to tie the game. If Stanfurd scored a touchdown, they would have gone up 35-31 which then would have required Cal to get a touchdown to win the game.

Clearly, Tedford's decision to center the ball on 3rd down was conservative, but it was nowhere near as "wrong" as Harbaugh's decision to go for it on 4th and 8 from his own 23. That decision was clearly wrong (no quotes).

Addendum:

Coincidentally, Cal's first field goal of the game, was from the 11 yardline right hash - the very same position that Cal was in during the 4th quarter with just under three minutes remaining. Tedford had no problem kicking the field goal from the far hash then. On their face, these situations seem the same, and people might suggest that Tedford's actions were inconsistent. But the situations were slightly different. The first field goal kick was early in the game and Cal had tons of time left in the game to score again even if the field goal was missed. But the second situation was near the end of the game. Cal needed points and knew that they might not get the ball back this game. Thus, the added risk of a far hash kick may be less acceptable, hence why Tedford centered the ball.

And, of course, CGB did delve even further into these decisions last week, which you can read about here.

(2) Tedford should have gone for it on 4th and less than one yard. Another conservative decision. I personally would have gone for it. It's hard for the defense to prevent the offense from gaining less than a yard. That first down which never occurred could have led to a touchdown drive or perhaps another field goal.

(3) Gregory kept the 3-4 defense on the field on most third downs. When Cal forces opponent offense into 3rd downs, Cal usually brings out its 3-3 defense. However, in Big Game, the first thing I noticed was Gregory keeping the 3-4 defense out on the field for third downs, even third and longs. Why? He clearly wanted greater run support against Stanfurd runningback Tony Gearhart. Cal's pass rushing linebackers, and nickleback are less effective in run support than Cal's bigger 3-4 linebackers. I liked this decision by Gregory. It did concern me though because this decision also allows Stanfurd to put a slot WR against LBs. That is a huge mismatch that Stanfurd tried to exploit, but believe it or not, Cal's linebackers played very well and didn't allow too many easy completions against them.

(4) The wildcat might be better served if it handed the ball off to Sofele on the fly sweep more often. When Cal uses wildcat, the runningback will usually keep the ball. Usually may be an understatement. I think that perhaps 95% of the time, the RB will keep the ball. Stanfurd's defense was clearly not respecting the fly sweep action much during Big Game and was just hitting their interior gaps to stop Vereen. They were pretty successful too, as since Vereen was mostly limited to tough 2-4 yard gains. If Cal handed the ball off about as equally as the RB kept the ball, it would get the defense into more of a read-and-react mode allowing the offensive line to push back the DL with more ease, and freeze outside defenders who are responsible for outside containment of the fly sweep allowing Sofele to gain an advantage. But since Ludwig has the RB keep the ball a very high percentage of the time, the defense is less likely to be read-and-react, and will just play the RB as opposed to the fly sweep.

(5) Cal's offensive line shows up for once! The run blocking clearly wasn't the best we'd ever seen, and perhaps it wasn't even "great" but it was better than we have seen for a couple of months now. I don't know what Marshall did during the week to motivate the guys, but it seemed to work.

(6) Trick plays; the flea flicker. When they work, everyone heaps praise on the coaches. When they don't work, everyone always says something like "that was a wasted play, why'd they get fancy when they didn't need to?" The announcers said pretty much exactly that after Cal tried to run a flea flicker. Cal's intended WR (Boateng?) was open deep too and had beaten the deep defender. That could have been a touchdown if Riley had space to step up into the pocket. But instead, Cal's LG (Summers-Gavin) got beat very badly on the play. The LG lost his individual battle and his defender was the one who pressured Riley to scramble and throw the ball away. Again, it takes 10 men winning their individual position battles and executing for plays to work.

(7) Cal throws in a new blocking scheme! Cal's past power running scheme has utilized a backside pulling guard. There have always been just one pulling blocker. But against Stanfurd we saw the revealing of a new scheme where Cal had two pulling blockers. This occurred out of the 12 personnel set (1 RB, 2 TEs, 2 WRs). Cal would put two TEs to one side of the formation. One TE would be on the LOS in their normal position just outside of the offensive tackle, and the second TE (sometimes called H-back) would be just back and outside of the first TE. The side that the two TEs are lined up on is the strong side. Cal would actually run to the weakside and pull the strongside guard (the backside guard), and the second TE. This play works well theoretically for two reasons: (1) it breaks Cal's tendency to run strongside; and (2) it makes it riskier for the defense to overload on the strong side of the offensive formation in anticipation of a strongside run. Cal also ran this same scheme with 21 personnel (2 backs, 1 TE, 2 WRs) from the Weak-I formation using the fullback on a pull in lieu of the second TE.

(8) The outside zone returns! I'm not really sure why Big Game was the game that it made a reappearance. But in the 4th quarter we saw it run a few times. Perhaps Ludwig saw something schematically that he wanted to exploit, but that doesn't quite explain why we didn't see the outside zone earlier on in the game. Or, perhaps Ludwig felt that the Stanfurd defense was getting tired and would be too slow to stop the outside zone. He did use a new wrinkle in that he used some pre-snap motion to the playside with the fullback. This pre-snap motion gives the fullback a head start on his block, and allows him to get further outside.

(9) Cal covered up the TEs a lot. This was actually something that I did notice slightly during the game but had forgotten about by the time I got home. Commenter Missing Barry asked me about this, and despite his questioning I still didn't recall these plays. But after watching the game again, yes, I did finally remember some of these plays.

Cal rarely covers up their TEs. By "covering" or "covering up" I mean that the TEs become ineligible receivers and thus cannot go downfield for a pass. Cal rarely does this because it removes the TE as a passing threat to the defense. Why does Cal do it then? Well, if covering up the TE removes it as a passing threat to the defense, then the TE becomes a blocking threat to the defense. Because of this, the defense has to respect the run a little more. And that's just what Cal wanted the defense to do. Cal, in formations where the TE was covered up, would mostly playaction pass. In other words, Cal purposely used formations where the TE was covered up to cause the defense to bite harder on the run-fake (because the defense expected run due to a covered TE), to open up the pass.

When Cal covers up the TEs, it's usually out of the I-formation with twin WRs to the side of the TE (the strong side). Because the rules requires that the offense have at least seven men on the line of scrimmage (LOS), one of the WRs has to be on the LOS. 5 OL guys, plus 1 TE, plus 1 WR, equals 7 men on the LOS. However, in these formations that Missing Barry noticed, Cal was covering the TE up with 12 personnel (1 RB, 2 TEs, 2 WRs) rather than the usual 21 personnel (2 backs, 1 TE, 2 WRs) for I-formation.

(10) Cal's punt which was blocked was due to a player not winning his individual battle. I know we all love to hat ("hate" for all you CGBers, or non-CGBers who are unfamiliar with our slang) on Alamar but I'm not sure we can blame that blocked punt on him. Cal's long snapper, Rios, missed his block pretty bad and thus his defender got into the backfield for the block. I know lots of people might be thinking, "well, It's Alamar's job to prepare his players so if they mess up then its the coach's fault." My response is that the players play the game and not the coaches. At some point, you have to stop blindly blaming the coaches and you have to start looking at the individual players. Does this mean I don't think Alamar is on the proverbial hot seat? No. He definitely is. Not for this blocked punt, but for many years of sub-par kick return and especially kickoff coverage.

My point here is that there isn't a lot or any blame to be placed on Alamar for this blown play. It wasn't a scheme issue or confusion between players on who to block. All the Cal blockers knew who to block, it was just a matter of the defender beating the long snapper. Rios just got beat bad. He knew it too. Despite him recovering the blocked punt, after the play he had his head down and slowly walked off the field. He knew he was responsible for that block.

(11) The 112th Big Game was perhaps Riley's most clutch game. I don't know if I would say it was his best game. That was probably the Maryland game earlier this year where Riley finished with a 65.4% completion rate, four touchdowns, and zero interceptions. But Riley sure was clutch towards the second half of the game. He got yardage when nobody was open, and he threw some great balls too.

I sort of hate using that whole cliche "maturity" line, but after the Arizona State game and this game, I do feel like Riley's matured. Matured not in the sense that he's been messing around and now he's finally decided to get his head in the game, but matured in that he's seasoned. He's seen it all. He's been through lots. He's played in a variety of situations to the point where it's nothing new and he's more familiar with things. He's probably less rattled about the situations than before. And I hate making these kind of statements based off of snippets of TV coverage, but he did just seem more calm, poised, and "in the zone" than ever before.

In the podcast this week, some of my fellow Marshawnthusaists expressed the idea that perhaps Riley is now the second best QB of the Tedford era. I whole-heartedly disagree with such a notion (imo, at least two other QBs come to mind before Riley), but I do admit that this game has inched him up the ladder a little bit. If he really turns things around in 2010, perhaps he can take the title of the second best QB of the Tedford era, but that's going to take a lot of work.

(13) Empty set is killer. I love empty (when Cal spreads out the defense with five receivers - and not necessarily wide receivers). I love it for two reasons: (1) Cal seems to be fairly successful out of it; (2) if nobody is open Riley seemingly is always able to run for a few yards of gain. I'm glad that we've seen the use of empty formation increase over the past few weeks. I've been advocating for it quite a bit as since Cal usually runs seam routes, and vertical routes out of this formation and those routes are routes that Riley is pretty good at hitting.

In previous post-game thoughts against Arizona, I've noted how Ludwig had been using 5 WRs in the empty set. Such an observation was significant because Cal used to only use 11 personnel (3 WRs, 1 TE, 1 RB) out of empty. So the switch to 5 WRs out of empty was a surprise. But in Big Game, Cal went back to using 11 personnel. Why this special change? Well, first of all, using 11 personnel helps disguise the empty set. Cal uses 11 personnel in other formations, so when Cal sends 11 personnel into the huddle the defense doesn't really know if Cal is going to line up in empty or another regular formation. But when Cal was using 5 WRs for empty (and Cal only uses 5 WRs for empty and nothing else), the opposing defenses knew they would be seeing an empty formation. Because the defense knows this prior to the defense breaking the huddle, the defense can call a play in response to not only just the personnel group, but the formation too; whereas with using 11 personnel, the defense can only call a defensive play in response to the personnel grouping and not formation.

Side Note: The defense can call a play in response to the offense's formation without seeing the formation post breaking of the huddle based on tendencies. For example, Cal usually passes from shotgun on 3rd and long. Defenses, can extrapolate from this and can make the (generally correct) assumption that if Cal sends 11 personnel on the field, that they are going to see a shotgun formation too.

Cal was also using a little neat trick with the empty sets to get player mis-matches. Specifically, Ludwig would put the TE and RB out as the widest receivers leaving the slot receivers (the WRs) inside and lined up against safeties and linebackers. This is a very simple tactic to get mismatches. I will cover this in-depth in a frame by frame analysis later on.

(14) Luck's ill-fated pass. So Mohamed did a great job reading Luck's eyes and getting the perfect depth. Even if Mohamed wasn't there, I think Cattouse might have INTed the ball anyways. Cattouse was on the intended receiver like white on rice. If Cattouse hadn't intercepted the ball, he definitely would have at least defended the ball. I can see why Luck thought his receiver was open, because his guy definitely was for a moment. But by the time that Luck threw the ball, and by the time the ball would have gotten to the intended receiver, Cattouse had cut in front of the intended receiver to defend the pass. What Luck needed was to put more air under the ball to get it over Mohamed. But more air under the ball might not have helped anyways actually because Cattouse was there to pick anything thrown near him. So I guess what I'm saying is Luck was screwed even if Mohamed wasn't there and even if Luck had put more air under the ball like he had wanted to.

(15) Vereen rushes 42 times! Not much to say here but Vereen was beastly. Sure he's a bit slower than Best, but what he lacks in pure speed, he makes up for in his uncanny ability to gain a few extra yards when surrounded by four defenders and having no business getting any additional yards. He just has that subtle elusiveness to intricately weave through the defenders and trash to get those yards nobody really thinks he'd get. I suppose this is a bit surprising because Cal really hasn't had a RB like him before. Previous RBs just brutally powered their way through the trash and defenders (Lynch, Arrington, Echemandu). Best sort of puts his head down and runs through them but without tons of power. But Vereen just kind of slips through them - like magic.

(16) Cal owns the time of possession 39 minutes to 21 minutes. Stanfurd's defense had to have been tired. Being on the field for that long, having to defend 88 offensive plays!!! Geez. Cal has been averaging 65.2 plays per game prior to Big Game with a 4.87 standard deviation. It's been a while since done statistics, but doesn't that mean something like 95% of the data points will be within two standard deviations greater than and less than the mean? So that means 95% of the time Cal will run anywhere from 55.46 to 74.94 plays per game. Running 88 plays in a game put Cal 4.68 standard deviations above the mean! That's ridic. Straight ridic. Perhaps this is why Ludwig wanted to try some outside zone late in the game; he wanted to see if the Furd defense had the energy in them to defend the outside.

(17) Cool story, Hansel. So my parents' neighbor went to Big Game. He apparently knew some big Furd donor and got to go with him to the game or got his tickets or something. The Furd donor has luxury box suites. The neighbor got to the stadium early before most of the fans got there. In the luxury boxes, there was tons of free food around. My neighbor, taking advantage of the situation, began gorging himself on all the food set out for the rich Furd donors who hadn't arrived yet - everything from fancy burgers to monster sized hotdogs. When the Furd donors arrived, they were quite stereotypically, old and white. Stanfurd, quite intelligently, had a coffee bar in the luxury suite area so the old fogies could stimulate themselves to an awake state to watch the game. Also, quite intelligently, the luxury suite area had a full bar where the rich donors could then drink themselves into a stupor after the loss. Some famous people that were in attendance in the luxury suites: Condoleezza Rice, and Jim Plunkett. Best part of this story: the old Furd donors did not appreciate the loud cheers of the neighbor. Quite literally, when the neighbor would cheer, the old Furd donors would turn around to him and say for him to not cheer so loud. Something about the cheering overloading their hearing aids or something. How rude of the neighbor. Doesn't he know that he's at a football game? You're not supposed to make noise!

************************

Bonus Thoughts from college football games from the weekend of Friday, November 27th, to Saturday, November 28th.

Texas vs. Texas A&M - Exciting game. Texas A&M got risky and frisky with some blitzes and man coverage. They got burned. Perfect examples of what can happen when you roll the dice. I'm not saying Cal shouldn't be more aggressive (sending more pass rushers) on defense because this is what happens, but this certainly is what can happen. We should all be aware of the risks. Also, if I recall correctly, Texas A&M missed a short field goal from far hash that could have made a difference in the game. Just another reason why perhaps Tedford isn't completely crazy for centering the ball on that 3rd and 8.....

Alabama vs. Auburn - Auburn really showed some 2-minute drill ineptitude at the end of the game. They needed to drive the field in about a minute, and ended up calling about 3 plays in all that time. Their QB was confused. The coaches weren't getting playcalls into the game quickly. It was one ugly hot mess. That is what happens when you don't practice the 2-minute drill and you don't have a system to get playcalls into the game quickly. Thankfully, you'll never really see Cal do the epic failure that Auburn did. First of all, Cal practices its two-minute drill every practice. Every single day, they practice scoring in under two minutes.

Second, and I've talked about this before, but Ludwig has installed a great two-minute drill system. In previous years, the sideline QBs would signal in the playcall to the starting QB. The signals would take a few seconds to signal in, and then the starting QB would spend another 15 seconds telling the play to the players - in actual team language. Meaning, the defense can hear what the offense's playcall is. Sometimes, you can figure out what parts of the play will be based on the terminology (some of the terminology was too closely tied to the words/routes that they were meant to represent). But now, the sideline QB just signals in a number, one through nine. This takes about half a second. The QB will then yell out the number to the offense. All the offense players have those 9 plays memorized. The players need only to merely line up and run their play. This takes less time than the previous system. The additional benefit of the new system is that the actual playcall terminology isn't being yelled out by the QB so the defense can't hear it, thus further protecting the playcall.

To Center the Ball? Or to Not Center the Ball?

Texas vs. Texas A&M - aTm doesn't center the ball and misses a short field goal that would have made a difference in the game.

Arkansas vs. LSU - Arkansas doesn't center the ball and misses a short game-tying overtime field goal.

Arizona vs. Arizona State - Stoops centers the ball for a game winning field goal and the kick is good.

It's like the football gods are talking to us and telling us to center the football. This weekend might be the undeniable proof that so many center-the-ball haters need to finally appreciate Tedford's decision.

Was Jeff Tedford Too Passive? Was Jim Harbaugh Too Aggressive?

Avinash — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:47:35 -0000

Who's a better head coach, Jim Harbaugh or this 5th grader?

There've been a lot of hand-wringing about the playcalling by the coaches by Cal fans, about how Jeff Tedford nearly gagged away the Big Game with ultra-conservative playcalls that would've made Pat Robertson shudder. It could certainly be argued that taking one or two extra risks would've ended the game instead of leaving the door at open for the Furd to climb back into it

What was lost in the shuffle though was the absolute badness of Jim Harbaugh's aggressive calls. Unlike Tedford's calls, where there's some debate as to whether they were prudent or imprudent, there's not much debate about Harbaugh's playcalls.

Twist and I discuss the following calls after the jump.

1) Tedford choosing to punt on 4th and short rather than going for it--next drive led to a quick Furd TD to cut the lead to 3; we both agree it was an ok call, although we wish

2) Harbaugh going for it on 4th and 8 deep in his own territory--led to a Cal FG that made it a touchdown game; we both agree the call was stupid.

3) Tedford choosing to kneel and center the ball on 3rd and goal--prevented a chance for a Cal TD, settled for the FG; we both agree the call was a little conservative, but again had merit and did make the Furd's chances of winning much longer.

4) Harbaugh passing the ball on 1st and 2nd down with Gerhart available--led to the game-clinching interception. As this 5th grader above us says, very questionable.

Twist: These calls were certainly controversial. To fully understand the situation, let's try to look at them in context at the time they were made. I wanted to take a closer look at the 4th and 1 call.

Here's the thing. If it was up to me, I probably woulda gone for it. But I'm also the person who does fake punts in Madden on 2nd down and has a "No Kicking" policy, too. I'm an imbecile. I realize that here in the blogosphere, we are supposed to have extreme opinions that create a lively, if oftimes redick discussion and, most importantly, hits galore. That's never really been my style, per se. Like I said, with my limited knowledge, I probably would have gone for it, but instead of talking about what I would have done or even what one *should* have done, what I want to do was take a closer and clearer look at the situation that Tedford faced. Try to get a better understanding at the decision that Tedford faced at that time, instead of after the game or days later.

I fear that there has been a lot of miscommunication based on faulty remembrances about Tedford's decision. Personally, I have seen people say things like:

"Tedford shoulda gone for it to ice the game."
"Tedford shoulda gone for it, because we couldn't be stopped."
"Tedford shoulda gone for it, because after they punted, Stanford was right back there just a few plays later."

via calbearsonline.com

Based on the ESPN Play By Play, here is the drive.

California at 12:47		CAL	STAN
1st and 10 at CAL 27	Shane Vereen rush for 4 yards to the Cal 31.	31	21
2nd and 6 at CAL 31	Shane Vereen rush for 5 yards to the Cal 36.
3rd and 1 at CAL 36	Timeout CALIFORNIA, clock 11:07.
3rd and 1 at CAL 36	Kevin Riley rush for 1 yard to the Cal 37 for a 1ST down.
1st and 10 at CAL 37	Shane Vereen rush for 3 yards to the Cal 40.
2nd and 7 at CAL 40	Shane Vereen rush for 6 yards to the Cal 46.
3rd and 1 at CAL 46	Kevin Riley rush for no gain to the Cal 46.
4th and 1 at CAL 46	Bryan Anger punt for 41 yards, fair catch by Michael Spanos at the Stanf 13.
DRIVE TOTALS: Cal drive: 6 plays 19 yards, 03:34 Cal PUNT

The first misconception that I've seen is that this play happened much later in the game. However, this drive starts with nearly 13 minutes left in the 4th quarter. It ends with a little over 9 minutes left in the 4th quarter. The play, in specific, took place with probably about 10 minutes left in the 4th, although it is slightly unclear to me exactly when from this play by play. So, to me, the concept that Tedford could have "iced" the game here seems laughable. You can't ice a game with 9-10 minutes left. Period.

I realize that the counter argument is that if Cal successfully continues the drive, they can a)take more time off the clock and b)go up either 34-21 or even 39-21! Certainly, 39-21 with 9 or fewer minutes left in the 4th does seem unbeatable, no matter how much Cal Cal is. And Cal is fairly Cal, let's not forget that.

But that seems to assume a lot. If Cal converts here, they are at their own 47 yard line. Not Stanford's 22 or something like that. They still have 53 more yards to go to hit pay dirt. So, to me, attempting and perhaps even successfully converting the 4th down conversion does not an iced game make. So, hopefully, looking at the play by play can clear up that conception.

The second thought I've seen out there is that Cal shoulda gone for it, because they've been doing really well in the running game and could probably have just pounded it home there. That is a fair point to me. We had been performing really well in the running game.

But we had also been performing really well on defense. After Stanford jumped out to a quick 14-0 lead in the early part of the 1st quarter, Cal's D had held Stanford to merely 1 Touchdown since. If my math is accurate, Stanford had gained 110 total yards between scoring their 2nd TD with about 5 minutes left in the 1st quarter and the play call in question here. 69 of those yards came on their sole TD drive in the 3rd quarter. Basically, that's roughly 38 minutes of game time, 2+ quarters, with a grand total of 110 yards given up by the Cal D.

Any way you cut that, that is incredibly impressive. Luck goes 4-14, which is......not good. Just the drive before, Stanford had showed wild desperation, throwing long on its first 2 passes and going 3 and out quickly and quietly. So, the concept of forcing them to drive 80 yards to pay dirt after holding them down for so long doesn't seem so bad to me. Tedford was banking on his defense being able to hold Stanford down at that point.

via calbearsonline.com

Avi: CBKWit mentioned in the podcast he disagreed with this decision more than the 3rd down kneeldown one (which we're building up to). I'd say this call was very similar to the Belichick playcall (2 minutes, up a score at your own 30 seems about the equivalent as being up 10 points at midfield). Unlike the Patriots coach, Tedford chose not to take the risky decision and trust his defense, which up to this point had shut them down.

Now as Smart Football and Advanced NFL stats pointed out, going for it on 4th down at this range isn't that bad a call. The stats seem to favor going for it--at that range, the success rate is around 75-80%. However, there's still a 20-25% chance that it fails, and given how hard we've been pushing Vereen, and the fact that we couldn't pick up 1 yard on a 3rd and short on a quarterback sneak (which is usually a sure thing), I can see that Tedford would be heistant to go for it and hand the Cardinal any momentum. As Bill Simmons said, statistics can only tell you so much; you have to assess the situation too.

The referees had been handing out questionable spots throughout that drive, and the possibility you get screwed again always factors in.
You're on the road (yeah I know, the least intimidating road stadium in the world, but it's still the road) trying to protect an upset bid.
The crowd had been dead most of the game, but give them the first down and there's a chance you rev them up for the remainder of the 4th quarter.
You've been holding Furd's offense in check the entire game.
You don't want to hand the Cardinal a short field and give them a quick chance to cut the lead to a one score game.

Twist: Of course, I would be remiss if I did not point out that the Cal D was not able to hold Stanford down at that point. I have seen many people claim that Stanford was right back at the 50 just a few plays later. It wasn't actually even just a few plays later. It was merely one, the big 37 yard play where Luck hit Owusu. Certainly, I'm MUCH happier that Stanford hit this 37 yard pass from their own 13 as compared to Cal's 46.

Stanford at 9:03		CAL	STAN
1st and 10 at STAN 13	Andrew Luck pass complete to Chris Owusu for 37 yards to the 50 yard line for a 1ST down.	31	21
1st and 10 at STAN 50	Andrew Luck pass complete to Chris Owusu for 12 yards to the Cal 38 for a 1ST down.
1st and 10 at CAL 38	Andrew Luck pass complete to Ryan Whalen for 12 yards to the Cal 26 for a 1ST down.
1st and 10 at CAL 26	Andrew Luck pass incomplete to Ryan Whalen.
2nd and 10 at CAL 26	Toby Gerhart rush for 21 yards to the Cal 5 for a 1ST down.
1st and Goal at CAL 5	Toby Gerhart rush for 5 yards for a TOUCHDOWN.	31	27
	Nate Whitaker extra point GOOD.	31	28
	Nate Whitaker kickoff for 66 yards returned by Jeremy Ross for 24 yards to the Cal 28.
DRIVE TOTALS: Stanf drive: 6 plays 87 yards, 01:44 Stanf TD

In 1:44, they travel nearly the length of the field, gaining over 2/3rds of the yards they have gained in the last 38 minutes of the game. Andrew Luck is 3-4 and Gerhart averages 13 yards a carry (kind of a skewed stat there). Certainly frustrating after it looked like Cal might gone for it on 4th and taken more time off the clock and even gotten up by 18 points!

Was the Stanford O hyped by the Stanford D stopping Cal on 3rd down? I don't know. But they woulda been, it follows, even more inspired if Stanford stopped Cal on 4th down. And only had 47 yards to go instead of 87.

Yes, it is a lot of fun to imagine Cal performing the best case scenarios. And it is frustrating to compare the reality of the situation with what could have been. It's also important to look at the worst case scenarios that Tedford was attempting to avoid and compare those to what might have been. Here, my frustrations lie less with the call, although I am not sure I necessarily agree with it, and more with the fact that the Cal D allowed the Stanford O to go 87 yards in 6 plays and 1:44.

I think people are viewing the call as a negative call, because of the negative result (the following Stanford TD) that did not have much to do with that call per se. And if the Cal D had stopped the Stanford O on the next drive, nobody would have much discussed the 4th down punt. Although, certainly if the 4th down attempt had failed and Stanford had quickly scored and gone on to win, people would have lambasted Tedford for that odd 4th down call, claiming the D was playing great and it woulda been better to just trap Stanford deep in their own territory.

Hopefully, this has cleared up the situation and will allow us to look at the decision making process with the facts that existed AT THE TIME OF THE CALL as compared to the 20/20 hindsight and misconceptions that I think many are currently laboring under. Again, the idiot that I am, I probably woulda gone for it there, but, being the risk adverse person that I am, think I have a grasp of how Tedford's decision making process went.

via calbearsonline.com

Avi: Indeed, that's the outcome bias working--we're judging Tedford for decisions made based on what happened afterwards as opposed to the value of the decision at the time it was made. It's human, but it's erroneous to blame Tedford for this decision because the Furd happened to score.

Twist: Let's go one drive before that:

Stanford at 4:27		CAL	STAN
1st and 10 at STAN 21	Andrew Luck pass incomplete to Coby Fleener.	31	28
2nd and 10 at STAN 21	Toby Gerhart rush for 2 yards to the Stanf 23.
3rd and 8 at STAN 23	Andrew Luck pass incomplete to Chris Owusu.
4th and 8 at STAN 23	Andrew Luck pass incomplete to Jim Dray.
DRIVE TOTALS: Stanf drive: 4 plays 2 yards, 00:50 Stanf DOWNS

This is the drive preceding. Luck not looking so good on there. But the key portion here is the 4th down play. Stanford is on its own 23. Roughly 4 minutes and change left. All 3 time outs. In the previous two Cal drives, we had gone 12 plays for a total of 35 yards. Most of which came on one 18 yard pass completion. Two punts. Clearly, the momentum had shifted back to Stanford at this point. So, if you punt and can hold Cal, you got another great shot. Certainly, if Tedford was in this situation, he would have punted. But Harbaugh decided to go for it. On 4th and 8. On his own 23. With 3 time outs and 4 minutes left in a 3 point game.

Avi: Unlike the 4th and inches, which you could consider either good or bad, this was a truly atrocious call. There's a small chance Luck succeeds here and scrambles for the first down, but only the remotest possibility that he throws for one (9 for 26 on the game up to this throw). It's 4th and long too, so the odds of a run are totally minimal, leaving the defense likely to play mainly the pass, and maybe a Luck scramble.

More importantly, YOU ARE HANDING CAL POINTS IF YOU FAIL. A field goal means you now need to drive down the field, likely without the majority of your timeouts. A touchdown ends the game. If Tedford had made a decision like this I'd be tearing my hair out. You punt the football and trust your defense, which has stopped the Bears from scoring the last two times (with some home town reffing helping them out, but whatever). Get the ball back and all you need to do is drive for a field goal, which given Furd's quick strike offense is totally feasible.

Imagine if the Furd had gotten to the red zone down 3 instead of down 6--think that the playcalling changes bigtime for Harbaugh? I feel that way.

Some Cal fans out there might prefer Harbaugh's aggressiveness because it's manly. It's ballsy. It sticks it to other opponents, it makes you feel awesome if it succeeds, it reinforces all the cliches of a football coach. It's just more social biases at work--we feel better because he played to win rather than playing not to lose. It doesn't excuse the fact that it's a bad decision the same way Les Miles's decision to dial up a throw to the end zone with 7 seconds left in field goal range. Ballsy, but literally fucking stupid.

Twist: And his ultra-aggressiveness does not pay off. Of course, when Stanford turned the ball over on downs, Cal fans in my section and, assuredly, other sections started to believe that the game was done. Cal would punch it in, make it a 2 score game with a minute or so left and we all go home happy.

Then, this happened:

via calbearsonline.com

California at 3:32		CAL	STAN
1st and 10 at STAN 23	Shane Vereen rush for 12 yards to the Stanf 11 for a 1ST down.	31	28
1st and 10 at STAN 11	Shane Vereen rush for no gain to the Stanf 11.
2nd and 10 at STAN 11	Timeout STANFORD, clock 02:55.
2nd and 10 at STAN 11	Shane Vereen rush for 2 yards to the Stanf 9.
3rd and 8 at STAN 9	Timeout STANFORD, clock 02:48.
3rd and 8 at STAN 9	Kevin Riley rush for a loss of 2 yards to the Stanf 11.
4th and 10 at STAN 11	Timeout STANFORD, clock 02:46.
4th and 10 at STAN 11	Vince D'Amato 28 yard field goal GOOD.	34	28
	Giorgio Tavecchio kickoff for 42 yards returned by Josh Catron for 14 yards to the Stanf 42.
DRIVE TOTALS: Cal drive: 5 plays 12 yards, 00:46 Cal FG

Let's take a deeper look here. Vereen starts off with a killer rush. However, his next two attempts net 2 total yards. Cal does not in any way attempt anything close to a pass in this situation.

Many people were greatly concerned about this lack of killer instinct. Maybe it is a lack of killer instinct, I don't know. But, in my belief, the downside of a pass attempt is FAR greater than the downside of any rush attempt. Forcing Stanford to use all 3 time outs limits Stanford's offensive playcalling on their next drive.

I know what you are saying here. But if we score, their next drive don't matter. A salient point. Here, Tedford is going for the least risky plan. Especially considering that they IN NO WAY trust Riley in the red zone. We saw it in the Arizona game and we saw it again in the Stanford game. After Riley throwing 3 picks in the red zone and fumbling once there also, once they get near the goal line, they would rather take 3 then risk a pick. Considering that Vereen had had an amazing day to that point, they put it into the hands of the man they trust the most. I believe they even used a WildBear or two, to try to mix it up. This is a point lost in all the "TAKE A SHOT AT THE END ZONE!" lines. The upsides of the plays called seem limited not because they have low upsides, but, because they just plain didn't work.

So, Cal decides to drain Stanford of time outs, force them to have to go the length of the field in roughly 2 minutes with no time outs. To ensure that, he decides to center the ball. At the close range, centering the ball becomes epically more important. The angles are much harsher the closer in you go. And Cal has certainly had its fair share of kicking troubles this year. So, I see no problem with this play.

IMG_9968 (via Monica's Dad)

Avi: There's also the matter of Riley's red zone struggles. This season, he's only completed 45% of his passes in the red zone. Worse, he's thrown three interceptions, one of which destroyed early momentum against USC, another which could've cost us the Arizona upset (the other was earlier in the Big Game and was not Riley's fault). Although he threw a TD early in the 4th quarter, it wasn't an easy throw. Plus with a 3rd and goal at the 8, Furd's defense will probably play hard to guard the end zone on a pass.

Imagine if the Bears had thrown an incompletion that stopped the clock and left the Cardinal with one timeout, or worse, thrown a pick with the Cardinal likely playing the run. You'd probably feel much worse waking up Sunday morning.

No, the only decision here is to run the football a la Arizona, preferrably up the middle to center the ball and hope that you find the crease to the end zone. I find it quizzical that in this situation (like on 4th and inches) you don't trust Vereen to secure the ball, considering he's not fumbled all game long. I would've liked to see a run, but I guess when they got nothing on the first two runs they figured Vereen was spent and decided not to get too fancy at the end and do something totally mind-blowing (and there've been plenty of mind-blowing finishes in college football before).

Leave the Cardinal with no timeouts and they have no choice now; score a touchdown or lose the game. You're limiting Harbaugh's options, and that might've helped force the last questionable decision of the game.

Twist: Of course, after hitting the field goal and kicking off, Stanford then proceeds to march the length of the field VERY quickly.

Stanford at 2:42		CAL	STAN
1st and 10 at STAN 42	Andrew Luck rush for 12 yards to the Cal 46 for a 1ST down.	34	28
1st and 10 at CAL 46	Andrew Luck rush for 4 yards to the Cal 42.
2nd and 6 at CAL 42	Andrew Luck pass complete to Toby Gerhart for 29 yards to the Cal 13 for a 1ST down.
1st and 10 at CAL 13	Andrew Luck pass incomplete to Coby Fleener.
2nd and 10 at CAL 13	Andrew Luck pass intercepted by Michael Mohamed at the Cal 3, returned for 6 yards to the Cal 9.
DRIVE TOTALS: Stanf drive: 5 plays 45 yards, 01:06 Stanf INT

The bulk of the drive is the one pass to Gerhart for about 30 yards. A frightening moment for any Cal fan. But one that we might have seen more of if Cal had attempted a pass and failed. Luck had looked terrible all day, going 10-30. Gerhart had certainly killed us, but Tedford's plan to drain Stanford of all 3 of its timeouts had limited Stanford's ability to use Gerhart. When you have the ball at Cal's 13, you want to go to your stud RB first, right? He averaged 6.8 yards on the day per carry. Give it to him twice and bam, you score the potential game-winning TD. But with no time outs, Stanford could NOT do that. They had to throw throw throw. And when you throw throw throw, what happens? Well, just the series before, you have 3 incompletes and fail. Here, Luck threw another incomplete and then a pick to the Prophet.

As a final thought, I know Cal fans love ballsy aggressiveness. I get that. They want to see stirring sacks and long bombs (although once you start at the 23, you can't really long bomb). But there are considerations other than proximity to goal line that come into effect here when choosing a play.

Tedford didn't necessarily see it as a difference between a 38-28 game and a 34-28 game, like many fans do. He saw it as a difference between a 34 (maybe)-28 game where Stanford had 1-3 time outs and roughly 3:30 left and a 34 (for sure)-28 game where Stanford had 2:42 and 0 time outs left. When viewed from that prism, I, the risk adverse person that I am, have to agree with the game management here. Sure, the otherworldy talent of Toby Gerhart nearly gave us all heart attacks. But when you have a limited playbook and have to rush your plays because of no time outs, bad things happen.

And a bad thing did happen. To Stanford! Especially compared to if Stanford had punted on the 23, stopped Cal, driven 30+ yards and hit a field goal to tie the game. This may be controversial, but I fully support Tedford's calls here.

Avi: I was baffled by Harbaugh's playcalling on 1st and 2nd down in the red zone. You have two minutes on the clock, and probably five-six plays to go. At this point, all you can do is score (turning the ball over ends the game), so why not run the football? If you score a touchdown immediately, you leave TWO MINUTES on the clock for Riley and the Bears to march downfield on a pass defense he's torched all game long.

More importantly, Andrew Luck is even worse with his accuracy in the red zone than Riley (after the Big Game, he's barely at 40%). Whether it's due to his receivers dropping passes or him making bad decisions. Although Cal held him down for much of the game, it was clear to almost any Cal fans we were more terrified of Gerhart running it up on us than Luck throwing it on us.

To be honest, I'm not sure Harbaugh should've even called that final timeout. You let Cal run the clock down to two minutes, keep that timeout in your back pocket, and in case you get to the goal-line (Furd's been a quick-hitting team all year, and their last drive only took 90 seconds), you have it ready so you can still factor Gerhart's running ability into the equation.

I hate to say it, but I feel the perfect college football coach choked a little under the spotlight. Just a little. (Actually, what the hell am I saying, I LOVE to say it.)

via calbearsonline.com

Who cares about us though, what were your thoughts on these calls?

Poll

How many of the playcalling decisions above do you agree with?

All four of them

22 votes

Three of them

27 votes

Two of them

60 votes

One of them

52 votes

None of them

22 votes

183 votes | Poll has closed

Where Does Shane Vereen's Effort Rank Among Greatest Big Game Performances?

Avinash — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:16:41 -0000

by Marcio Jose Sanchez - AP

Shane Vereen carried the Golden Bears to victory in the Big Game. Is this the greatest Big Game performance ever?

View full size photo »

Add Shane Vereen to the list of greatest Big Game performers, perhaps the best of the Tedford era. 42 carries, 193 yards, 3 touchdowns, gutted out first down after first down after touchdown. Like Hydro says, he runs dirty, and he got plenty mud on his boots tonight. We needed every yard tonight and Shane delivered the most thrilling Big Game win in ages.

But beyond the numbers, what really encapsulates his performance is this quote from Okanes.

After Cal linebacker Mike Mohamed clinched the victory by intercepting a pass with 1:36 remaining, the Bears needed only to take a knee three times. Vereen spent that time encouraging the Cal contingent in the back of the end zone to celebrate. When time expired, Vereen soaked up the on-charging crowd while pointing to his family in the stands.

"I needed to do anything I could do to help our team win," Vereen said, his voice choking with emotion. "I've never carried that many times, and I never thought I would carry that many times. I came into the game prepared for anything."

Wow. If you don't get a little misty-eyed reading that, Moscow might be the place for you--I hear Russians dig the heartless.

Defensive performance goes to Mike Mohamed, who showed us how fierce he can be with a a solid linebacking corps anchored with him. 10 tackles, 1 for a loss, and an interception punctuating a forgettable night for Andrew Luck. This picture makes me as happy as a 10 year old girl winning Jonas Brothers tickets (HT royrules).

What are your favorite Big Game performances through the ages, offensive, defensive, special teams? Where do Shane's and Mike's efforts rank for you overall? And who are the other players (Riley, the offensive line, ) you felt deserved some, if not equal dap?

There'll be deeper insights about the Big Game coming up during the week (maybe some griping too, because, you know, we're Cal fans and all), but for now and the rest of this weekend, MORE REVELING!

Runner-up for Big Game MVP goes to the amazing Cal fans, for helping cause the most unintentionally hilarious acceptance speech in recent memory by Tiger Woods (someone needs to put that clip on YouTube, stat). For the first time that I can remember, he looked baffled and rattled, as if the chorus of boos from Cal fans and dead silence of Furd fans was as foreign as if he were addressing a group of berating Wookies. From that point on I knew the Bears would win; if you can rattle Tiger, you know something special's happening.

Poll

Shane Vereen's performance in the Big Game ranks among all time Big Game performances as....

Less than top 20

5 votes

Top 20

48 votes

Top 10

122 votes

Top 5

254 votes

#1!!!!!!

49 votes

478 votes | Poll has closed

Inside The Numbers: Stanford Edition

TwistNHook — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:15:14 -0000

Hang in there folks. I know Stanford just dropped 100+ on two teams we scored a grand total of 6 on. I know that everybody and their mom's grandfather is predicting Stanford will win. And I know that Cal fans are a negative bunch by nature.

But let's not pencil in losses before they happen. We haven't played the game yet! And there have been innumerable times during this rivalry when it was MUCH closer than the records would predict. Sure, Stanford is red hot right now, no denying that. But Cal is bringing in some momentum from its defeat of a ranked Arizona team, who beat Stanford. After the fold, we take a look at the Stanford's statistics. In the comments, discuss the statistics and tell us how you predict this game is going to go. Hopefully, it will GO BEARS!

TwistNHook: Lets take a look at the Stanford passing attack:

Situation	G	Att	Comp	Pct.	Yards	Int	TD	Rating	Long	1st	15+	25+
All Plays	10	243	141	58.0	2232	3	13	150.37	63	97	61	25
1st Half	10	143	86	60.1	1344	3	9	155.66	63	62	35	14
2nd Half/OT	10	100	55	55.0	888	0	4	142.79	47	35	26	11
1st Quarter	10	71	38	53.5	520	2	3	123.35	42	24	12	7
2nd Quarter	10	72	48	66.7	824	1	6	187.52	63	38	23	7
3rd Quarter	10	41	28	68.3	512	0	3	197.34	47	20	16	7
4th Quarter	9	59	27	45.8	376	0	1	104.88	36	15	10	4

13-3 TD-Int ratio. Damn. 150 QB rating. Damn. 58% QB percentage, not so great in comparison to some of these other numbers, but still pretty good. It is, of course, pulled down by a 4th quarter that is fairly poor. Still, looking at these numbers, this is certainly an eye-poppingly good passing offense and I already need a new pair of underwear.

Avinash: I'm sick of looking at stats like this. Why can't Juice Williams play in this conference?

While Luck isn't a real accurate passer yet, what's impressive is his 9.3 YPA, 7th in the country. Even if you somehow stop the White Stallion from trudging forward on 1st and 2nd down, Luck can pick up a first down on average anyway (in fact in 3rd and 7-9 situations he's converted over half his attempts into 1st downs). Has to be depressing prospects for any defense he faces.

Although Gerhart has been an integral part of their success, Luck deserves as much credit. When Gerhart killed good teams last year, they stacked the box against him and forced poor Tavita Pritchard to beat them. Luck has made defenses pay for that strategem this season.

Addendum: Luck struggles with his accuracy particularly in the red zone, throwing only 13 for 29 (but six touchdowns and only one pick).

TwistNHook: Here's the one I fear to look. Rushing stats

Situation	G	Att	Yards	Avg.	TD	Long	1st	10+	20+
All Plays	10	422	2224	5.27	28	60	111	65	16
1st Half	10	224	1146	5.12	17	60	60	33	6
2nd Half/OT	10	198	1078	5.44	11	39	51	32	10
1st Quarter	10	108	639	5.92	9	60	31	17	4
2nd Quarter	10	116	507	4.37	8	22	29	16	2
3rd Quarter	10	85	407	4.79	4	31	18	11	2
4th Quarter	10	113	671	5.94	7	39	33	21	8

Ok, not as bad as I thought. I anticipated that it'd be like 7 or 8 yards a carry, Marshawn or Jahvid style. Still, though fearsome. And I am sure that if you look at the at the last few games, his numbers might be much better.

Date	Opponent	Surface	Result	Att	Yards	Avg.	TD
09/05/09	@ Washington St.	Turf	W 39-13	42	288	6.86	3
09/12/09	@ Wake Forest	Turf	L 17-24	26	115	4.42	0
09/19/09	San Jose St.	Grass	W 42-17	40	211	5.28	2
09/26/09	Washington	Grass	W 34-14	51	321	6.29	3
10/03/09	UCLA	Grass	W 24-16	44	174	3.95	3
10/10/09	@ 20 Oregon St.	Turf	L 28-38	31	149	4.81	2
10/17/09	@ Arizona	Grass	L 38-43	40	150	3.75	2
10/24/09	Arizona St.	Grass	W 33-14	46	237	5.15	4
11/07/09	11 Oregon	Grass	W 51-42	52	254	4.88	4
11/14/09	@ 22 Southern California	Grass	W 55-21	50	325	6.50	5
	Totals			422	2224	5.27	28

Interestingly enough, that is not quite the case. Although Stanford had a 6.5 yard per carry amount for the USC game (and this is not specific to Gerhart, but I assume he got the bulk, if not all, of the carries), the Stanford average for the Oregon game was even less.

Of course, the craziest one is the ASU game where they shredded ASU to the tune of 5.15 yards per carry. ASU has a REALLY good Run D. Thus, Stanford has a REALLY good run O.

Situation	G	Att	Yards	Avg.	TD	Long	1st	10+	20+
1st Down	10	218	1171	5.37	16	60	26	29	10
2nd Down	10	132	644	4.88	9	27	46	22	1
3rd Down	10	64	349	5.45	2	31	32	13	4
3rd Down, 1-3 To Go	9	31	145	4.68	1	30	19	3	2
3rd Down, 4-6 To Go	7	10	57	5.70	1	16	5	2	0
3rd Down, 7-9 To Go	9	13	106	8.15	0	31	5	5	1
3rd Down, 10+ To Go	7	10	41	4.10	0	22	3	3	1
4th Down	8	8	60	7.50	1	39	7	1	1

Avinash: Nothing really to like here. In almost any situation, Gerhart is capable of gashing yardage. Attribute this to blocking; the Furd likes to put a lot of extra blockers on 1st and 2nd down and dare defenses to stack the box against Gerhart. So far it seems they've had some success, although with Luck throwing the ball as well as he has, it makes it hard for defenses to commit so many players inside.

In every 3rd down situation (save 3rd and long), Gerhart can get the 1st down. Bleh. If the Bears stop Gerhart, it'll be their most impressive effort of the season (more so than containing Quizz or Foles). Cal managed to hold him the best last season, but that was with Pritchard at QB and a much better defense. Although our run defense is solid, there are better ones, and the Furd has gashed them. If we can hold them under 150 we have a good shot.

TwistNHook: Now, let's take a look at the Stanford Defense. Let's start first with their passing D:

Situation	G	Att	Comp	Pct.	Yards	Int	TD	Rating	Long	1st	15+	25+
All Plays	10	343	216	63.0	2449	6	14	132.92	55	110	63	18
1st Half	10	154	103	66.9	1086	2	6	136.38	43	55	32	4
2nd Half/OT	10	189	113	59.8	1363	4	8	130.11	55	55	31	14
1st Quarter	10	65	41	63.1	404	2	1	114.22	43	21	9	2
2nd Quarter	10	89	62	69.7	682	0	5	152.57	31	34	23	2
3rd Quarter	10	98	60	61.2	785	2	5	141.26	55	31	16	8
4th Quarter	10	91	53	58.2	578	2	3	118.08	44	24	15	6

Let's take a gander here. Ok, so their numbers aren't super great. Allowing a 63% completion rate. Allowing a QB Rating against of roughly 132. That QB Rating against is more impressive than the 63% completion rate. If Riley is completing 63% of his passes, I will be happy. He is currently hitting 55.6% of his passes, so that would be quite the improvement. Please complete 63% of his passes, please complete 63% of his passes.

Interestingly enough, if you look at the attempts over time, the first quarter attempts are much lower than any other quarter. 65 compared to the next lowest of 89 attempts. I wonder why people try to run all over Stanford at the start of the game. Perhaps we should move on towards Stanford's rush D soon.

Avinash:

Situation	G	Att	Comp	Pct.	Yards	Int	TD	Rating	Long	1st	15+	25+
1st Down	10	138	91	65.9	987	2	5	135.08	47	38	26	7
2nd Down	10	114	77	67.5	792	2	3	131.07	40	38	21	3
3rd Down	10	82	42	51.2	634	2	3	123.36	55	31	16	8
3rd Down, 1-3 To Go	9	13	5	38.5	53	2	0	41.94	25	4	2	1
3rd Down, 4-6 To Go	10	22	15	68.2	210	0	3	193.36	43	14	5	1
3rd Down, 7-9 To Go	10	24	12	50.0	228	0	0	129.80	55	7	5	4
3rd Down, 10+ To Go	10	23	10	43.5	143	0	0	95.70	31	6	4	2
4th Down	7	9	6	66.7	36	0	3	210.27	12	3	0	0

Not very good really. Furd's pass defense is their Achilles heel. You think Cal's pass defense is, take a look at how Furd's passing defense has been lit up by Pac-10 quarterbacks.

09/05/09	@ Washington St.	Turf	W 39-13	30	19	63.3	247	8.2	0	1	143.49
09/12/09	@ Wake Forest	Turf	L 17-24	27	19	70.4	207	7.7	0	1	146.99
09/19/09	San Jose St.	Grass	W 42-17	39	23	59.0	204	5.2	1	1	106.24
09/26/09	Washington	Grass	W 34-14	31	16	51.6	191	6.2	2	1	101.11
10/03/09	UCLA	Grass	W 24-16	34	22	64.7	204	6.0	0	0	115.11
10/10/09	@ 20 Oregon St.	Turf	L 28-38	32	22	68.8	290	9.1	0	1	155.19
10/17/09	@ Arizona	Grass	L 38-43	52	40	76.9	415	8.0	0	3	163.00
10/24/09	Arizona St.	Grass	W 33-14	30	13	43.3	161	5.4	0	2	110.41
11/07/09	11 Oregon	Grass	W 51-42	37	21	56.8	334	9.0	0	3	159.35
11/14/09	@ 22 Southern California	Grass	W 55-21	31	21	67.7	196	6.3	3	1	112.15
	Totals			343	216	63.0	2449	7.1	6	14	132.92

Goodness. Their best performance was against Masoli (who still put up 3 scores and 9 YPA), Locker after the USCS game, and the ASU quarterback troupe. Foles and Canfield torched them. Lobbastel and Riley Skinner and even Kevin Prince looked pretty good against them. If Kevin Riley puts up a bad performance against them...well, I don't know what to think. HE HAS TO HAVE A GOOD GAME OR WE ARE F****D.

TwistNHook: Yea, definitely. Let's now take a look at the Stanford rushing D:

Situation	G	Att	Yards	Avg.	TD	Long	1st	10+	20+
All Plays	10	304	1385	4.56	15	61	73	47	11
1st Half	10	140	702	5.01	5	61	34	21	8
2nd Half/OT	10	164	683	4.16	10	57	39	26	3
1st Quarter	10	79	498	6.30	3	61	21	13	6
2nd Quarter	10	61	204	3.34	2	25	13	8	2
3rd Quarter	10	88	352	4.00	3	28	22	13	1
4th Quarter	10	76	331	4.36	7	57	17	13	2

Well, now we know why people try to run all over the Furd at the start. They give up 6.3 yards a carry in the first quarter!!!! WHA???? I don't know why there would be such a distinct differential between the first quarter and the rest of the game. I just hope Cal can take advantage of that. Honestly, if I see Cal winning this game, they have to do 3 main things.

1. Minimize any special teams nightmares. Cal's special teams have been poor at times and Stanford can take advantage of special teams mistakes.

2. Stop Gerhart. Easier said than done, but Cal has had success stopping the run this season. Of course, we haven't quite faced a RB with the power of a Gerhart. Syd'Quan will be much needed in the run D here.

3. Control the game with our offense. In the 3 games that we lost, our offense sputtered. Whether it was a lack of holes for the RBs or Riley not being in sync with the WRs, we had a lot of quick drives that resulted in no points. This put the D back on the field, tired and weary. They are great players, but can only do so much. Especially considering that even if they manage to slow or stop Gerhart, they still have Luck to concern themselves with. I felt that the D played fairly well against OSU and USC, but wasn't helped by the O at all. Cal can't put the D in that position if we are going to win against Stanford. We need to control the clock and long, methodical drives between Vereen will hopefully help.

What are your final thoughts, Avi?

Avinash:

via farm4.static.flickr.com (IMAGE)

TwistNHook: Solid. GO BEARS!

Poll

Who is going to win Big Game?

Big Cal victory

28 votes

Close Cal victory

79 votes

Close Stanford victory

14 votes

Big Stanford victory

19 votes

Cal fans, for not going to Stanford

41 votes

181 votes | Poll has closed

Roll On: When Was Your First Big Game And What Was It Like?

Avinash — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:15:52 -0000

via farm4.static.flickr.com

Usually, I'd write something breaking down the Furd's offense and defense. But what's the point? Jim Harbaugh is the hottest coach in the country. He's the perfect guy you want to play for. He's the most blue collar head coach with a $70 thousand toilet. Michigan should throw piles of money at his feet, right underneath the newspaper displaying his rant about their academics. Toby Gerhart is a Heisman candidate who's getting shafted because he's white, and happens to be fairly smart too (kind of like Alex Mack and Joe Igber). Andrew Luck is also a dark horse Heisman candidate, plus the next Peyton Manning, according to the unbiased Jim Plunkett.

No reason to even bother analyzing this game. The Furd are superior in every way. They've dominated the two best teams in the conference, one coming off a letdown week, the other decimated by the Football Crystal of Power. No way a Cal squad without Jahvid Best that couldn't even kick an extra point to seal an upset last week can match with them.

Plus, Tedford doesn't win big games. He's stoic, he peruses the sidelines, he's conservative, he's past his prime, and he's shown no signs that he's going to change. Harbaugh gets in your face and kicks your ass and washes his hands. This is his moment, his Big Game and Rose Bowl bid to lose. There is absolutely no way he can lose this game.

And hey, no one thinks we're going to win. We should just bow our heads down and hand over the Axe now. Then watch in misery as the Furdies miraculously sneak into a New Year's Bowl and bring the hammer down on Ohio State. Then hear an endless year of speculation of how Cal is on the downside, Furd is on the upside, and there's nothing Tedford can do to stop it...

(If what I just said above didn't make your blood boil, you belong in category 4 and should go wine-tasting this weekend. Then smash a bottle of Pinot Grigio over your head.)

Anyway, instead of going crazy with that stuff, let's talk history and look beyond this week's game to the first time you truly made the leap as a Golden Bear. We've talked about Furd pranks and Furd hate, let's revel in the experience of Big Gaem week and the game itself. Discuss in the comments: When was your first Big Game and what was it like? Was it awesome? Did it suck? How'd you manifest your hatred for all things red?

After the jump, we recall the experiences of two Bears who were at the greatest Big Game of all.

Two of Cal's most famous alum (you're probably familiar with one of them) recalled their first Big Games with Joseph Cannon in the Daily Cal.

For Michael and Michele, "The Play" is not just the greatest play in football history, it is a defining moment in their lives.

Michael (Silver) is now covering the NFL for Yahoo! Sports and after all these years, he still remembers it:

"I saw-even before The Play-one of the greatest college football games I've ever seen ... We were on the alumni side, and I'll never forget what I saw next, because I swear I would have remembered it forever even if The Play had never occurred: The entire Cal student section stood up as one and began clapping and doing their pre-kickoff cheer in what I can only describe as a total and uniform act of defiance.

"What I saw in that moment was a large group of people saying, 'Fuck it-we have come too far and worked too hard for this, and we do not accept this outcome. We are NOT FUCKING LOSING THIS GAME.' In other words, they were clinically insane.

"And that, honestly, was the moment I knew I'd go to Cal if I were to get admitted. Those were MY people, or at least I wanted them to be."

Silver got in. And so did Michele Tafoya. Now a sideline reporter for Monday Night Football, she got her first taste of the field at Memorial Stadium, when she stormed the it after "The Play."

"People ask me, 'Is that why you decided to go to Cal, because they won that game?' And I say, 'No, it was more the energy and the atmosphere of the university that Cal had, compared to what I experienced when I visited Stanford,'" Tafoya said. "Though "The band is on the field!" play certainly didn't hurt my decision."

At that moment, Tafoya fell in love and simultaneously found something to hate.

"As soon as that game was over, I knew what it meant to not like Stanford," Tafoya said. "From the moment I made my decision, it was an instant dislike, an instant I'm-never-going-to-like-you feeling towards Stanford."

So let's go back into the memory banks in the comments. Spill your first Big Game experiences.

Poll

My first Big Game experience...

rocked (great week, great game)

65 votes

rocked and sucked (great week, bad game)

43 votes

sucked and rocked (bad week, great game)

1 votes

sucked (bad week, bad game)

21 votes

130 votes | Poll has closed