Current research indicates that probably no one reads the DBD. So I'll make it as Twitterific as possible. With March Madness looming, it's time to ask, what is your favorite playoff system?

Brief summary of each system.

NFL: Four weeks of unpredictability, the most hyped up event to finish it off, but can be disappointing if games get out of hand since there are so few of them. At least you can see commercials of stupid animal tricks in the end.

NBA: Plenty of games, it lasts nearly two months, but usually rewards the best team that season with the title. Reserved for masochists like me.

NHL: Similar to the NBA. I've heard their playoffs are fantastic. I'll get to them someday.

MLB: Pitchers, hitters, duels. It's all about who's got the most cajones, or something. Who's got what it takes to win a Game 7 (and Game 7s in baseball are unparalleled). It's also really really short for a season that's two years long.

Soccer: Does soccer even have a playoff system? I know in Europe they have some Champions League thing, but that somehow has nothing to do with the actual club performance. It doesn't make any sense. Damned Euros. It's even worse than college football.

NCAA Basketball: Perfect for filling out pools and claiming bragging rights over your friends, even if you have no real interest in 95 percent of the teams or players. Probably the only time where a majority of women are just as interested in a sporting event. Full of upsets, full of unpredictability, but usually gets the best teams at the end.

NCAA Football: Emerald Nuts anyone? I guess if you count the regular season as the playoffs, maybe you could enjoy the finish...

Dump away with the usual hub-hub, but only AFTER you give an answer. Otherwise you will be punished with a link to an addicting flash game.

You might remember my attempt at creating a map of Beavers Meetups. I've been converting the map and the other team specific maps I created into a sports bars wiki, and am trying to assemble a comprehensive list of worldwide sports bars to make it easier for fans to watch the game. I was wondering what you guys thought of these places or if there are any other places to watch them that I missed.

Where do you guys watch the Beavers? Have you been to any of the sports bars of Oregon St. sports? What are your favorite sports bars in general?

Here's the partial list of OSU-friendly bars. You can edit and add to this list by clicking on the link and registering on the wiki, or just add other places you watch them in the comments!

Continue reading this post »

You might remember my attempt at creating a map of Golden Bears Meetups. I've been turning the map and the many, many others I created into a sports bars wiki, and am trying to assemble a comprehensive list of worldwide sports bars to make it easier for fans to watch the game. I was wondering what you guys thought of these places or if there are any other places to watch them that I missed.

Where do you guys watch the Golden Bears? Have you been to any of the sports bars of Cal sports? What are your favorite sports bars in general?

Here's the partial list of Cal-friendly bars. You can edit and add to this list by clicking on the link and registering on the wiki, or just add other places you watch them in the comments!

California

• The Davis Graduate; 805 Russell Blvd., Davis, CA
• The Graduate; 344 West 8th St, Chico, CA
• 3rd Ave. Sports Bar and Grill; 77 E 3rd Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401, (650) 340-9872‎
• Players Sports Bar; 7061 Clairemont Mesa Blvd in San Diego, CA
• Barney's Beanery; 99 E. Colorado Blvd. in Pasadena, CA
• Busby's; 3110 Santa Monica Blvd., Santa Monica, CA
• Huntington Beach Beer Co; 201 Main Street, Suite E, Huntington Beach, CA, 714 960-5343.

Colorado

• Fox & Hound Smokehouse & Tavern; 9239 Park Meadows Dr, Lone Tree, CO - (720) 875-9161‎

District of Columbia

• Bar Louie; 701 7th Street NW (202 638-2460), Washington DC

Illinois

• Full Shilling Irish Sports Pub; 3724 N. Clark St., Chicago, IL, 773-248-3330

Massachusetts

• Baseball Tavern; 1270 Bolyston St., Boston, MA, 02215

Nevada

• Paradise Cantina; 4480 Paradise Rd, Las Vegas, NV 89169, (702) 434-0031‎

New York

• The Pacific Standard; 82 4th Ave, Brooklyn, NY
• MJ Armstrong's; 329 1st Ave, New York, NY

Oregon

• Life of Riley; 300 NW 10th Ave, Portland, OR.

Texas

• The Mezzanine Lounge: #150, 2200 Southwest Freeway, Houston, TX
• Legend's; 8901 Business Park Dr., Austin, TX 78759 (512) 343-0888

Hi vassals, good to see you again. You might remember my attempt at creating a map of Oregon Ducks Meetups. I've been turning the map info into a sports bars wiki and the many, many others I created, and am trying to assemble a comprehensive list of worldwide sports bars to make it easier for fans to watch the game. I was wondering what you guys thought of these places or if there are any other places to watch them that I missed.

Where do you guys watch the Ducks? Have you been to any of the sports bars of Oregon sports? What are your favorite sports bars in general?

Here's the partial list of Duck-friendly bars. You can edit and add to this list by clicking on the link and registering on the wiki, or you can just comment below!

Arizona

• Native New Yorker; 5030 E Ray Rd # 5, Phoenix, AZ 85044, (480) 496-5717‎, nativenewyorker.com
• Dukes Sports Bar and Grill; 7607 E. McDowell Road, Scottsdale, AZ 85257, (480) 675-9724‎, dukessportsbar.com

California

• Mr Pockets Sports Bar; 516 N Sepulveda Blvd, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266, (310) 372-4343‎, mrpockets.com
• National Sports Grill; 450 N. State College Blvd, Orange, CA 92868, (714) 935-0300‎, nsganaheim.com
• Beer Hunter Sports Pub & Grill; 78483 Highway 111, La Quinta, CA 92253, (760) 564-7442‎, laquintabeerhunter.com
• Barney's Beanery; 99 E Colorado Blvd, Pasadena, CA 91105, (626) 405-9777
• McNear's Saloon & Dining House; 23 Petaluma Blvd N, Petaluma, CA 94952, (707) 765-2121‎, mcnears.com
• MVP's Sports Bar and Grill; 1629 Capitol Ave, Sacramento, CA 95816, 916-441-1114
• Canes Bar and Grill; 3105 Ocean Front Walk, San Diego, CA 92109
• R Bar; 1176 Sutter St, San Francisco, CA 94109, (415) 567-7441
• Stadium Pub; 1420 Lincoln Ave, Walnut Creek, CA 94596, (925) 256-7302

Colorado

• Jackson's All-American Sports Grill; 10710 Westminster Blvd, Westminster, CO 80020, (303) 635-2222

Hawaii

• The Shack Waikiki; 2255 Kuhio Ave, Honolulu, HI 96815, (808) 921-2255‎

Idaho

• Tavern at Bown Crossing; 3111 S Bown Way, Boise, ID 83706, (208) 345-2277‎, tavernatbown.com

Illinois

• Witts; 2913 N Lincoln Ave, Chicago, IL 60657, (773) 528-7032

Massachusetts

• The Baseball Tavern; 1306 Boylston St., Boston, MA 02215, (617) 437-1644

Minnesota

• Joe Senser's Restaurant and Sports Theater; 2350 Cleveland Ave N, Roseville, MN 55113

Nevada

• PT's Pub; 1651 E. Sunset, Las Vegas, NV
• Amendment 21 Grill and Sportsbar; 425 South Virginia St, Reno, NV, (775)-786-0808

New York

• The Hill; 416 3rd Ave., New York, NY 10016

North Carolina

• The Box Seat; 5006 High Point Rd., Greenboro, NC 27407

Oregon

• Louie's Bar and Grill; 41 North Main Street, Ashland, OR 97520
• Copper Monkey Restaurant; 6540 SW Fallbrook Place, Beaverton, OR 97008, (503) 352-3399
• Sidelines Sports Bar & Grill; 1020 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701, 541-385-8898
• Bay Street Grille; 1341 Bay Street, Old Town, Florence, OR 77439, 541.902.9033
• Hilton Eugene; 66 East Sixth Avenue, Eugene, OR 97401
• Macadam's Bar & Grill; 5833 SW Macadam Ave., Portland, OR, (503)-246-6227
• The Sky Box; 535 SW 6th Street, Redmond, OR 97756, (541) 504-2575
• Splitz Sports Grill; 2400 NE Diamond Lake Blvd, Roseburg, OR 97470, 541-672-3601
• Magoos; 275 Commercial Street SE, Salem, OR 97301, 503-363-5836
• Marcellos; 4 Ponderosa Rd., Sunriver, OR 97707, (541) 593-8300

Virginia

• Summers Restaurant & Sports Bar; 1520 N. Court House Rd., Arlington, VA 22201

Washington

• Sport Restaurant; 140 4th Avenue North Suite 130, Seattle, WA 98109, (206) 404-7767

US Virgin Islands

• Caribbean Saloon; Red Hook, 6501 Red Hook Plaza, Suite 201, St. Thomas, USVI 0080200

via img17.imageshack.us

As part of Twist's ongoing plans to expand the CGB Empire, he desires to know about the nobles .who are plotting around him to usurp his throne. We've already had many significant missions subjugating the vassals upstairs in Eugene, but now he wants to know more about us equals. Or something. Or maybe it's me. You don't know, more to the point, you don't care.

We know all about your Cal history. What was your Cal life like outside of sports? Started out in isolated Foothill (like me), get the beefcake of Bowles, or were you like most of us rocking out in the units? Did you enjoy your time in the dorms?

What was the post-dorm experience like? Were the frat boy/sorority girl stereotypes overrated or not hammered home enough? Were co-ops bang for the buck? Who else got screwed by their corrupt and incompetent apartment managers?

Twist'll have significant links soon enough. In the meantime, stare at this tree or answer the questions.

via www.coasttocoastam.com

via imgur.com

As Cal basketball inches closer to a tourney berth, we're pretty satisfied, if not exhilarated at how our team has performed. This leads us to a scenario where both of Cal's major sports are fielding strong, competitive teams. Considering how important education and athletics will be for incoming recruits in the ongoing economic downturn, there's nothing to suggest that California won't remain a hot spot well into the next decade.

Say that Cal football under Tedford and Cal basketball under Montgomery will field competitive teams for the next 5-10 years. What would you take more pleasure from on a day to day basis, watching our football team, or watching our basketball team?

Pros for football: Fewer games means every game means that much more and is thus more exciting to the average fan. Getting and/or winning a Rose Bowl seems far likelier than advancing deep in the NCAA tournament. Plenty of more people watch football. California football has never been this high in modern times and might never be this way again, given the traditional Pac-10 football programs who will always be around.

Cons for football: Just as the importance of a critical win is magnified, the devastation from a critical loss is so real. Discussions tend to be more fractious since there's a chain of command and it's easier for fans to assign blame. Also the sport is so complex it's difficult to discuss in layman's terms with fellow fans outside of 'Who ya think should start at QB?" and "Player X blows'. Way too much Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

Pros for basketball: Easier to understand; a far more laid back experience, quicker in pace and thus takes less time game to game. Not as difficult to learn the intricacies, more kinetic in pace. Games usually no longer than two hours, the equivalent of a Premier League soccer match. Strategy discussions way cool. Deeper history of Cal basketball than of Cal football. Also usually the best teams in the conference advance since there are more games; slip ups against Oregon State can be swept under the rug, unlike in football.

Cons for basketball: Chances of winning a National Championship without a star player are close to nil. Too many games to keep track of and dilutes the meaning of the regular season (a little bit, at least compared to college football). Lots more value placed on quality of officiating in basketball, and Pac-10 refs blow.

What are your thoughts on this?

Dump away as usual, and don't forget about the Gameday signs.

If I were running the AtQ occupation, I'd be a benevolent dictator (call me the nice version of Twist). I actually have useful questions to ask you guys, rather than jailing dvieria and throwing him in a Napa Valley gulag. Oh well. I'll just have to inquire your noble minds, servants.

As you might know, Andy Ludwig was hired as Frank Cignetti's replacement as Cal's offensive coordinator. I realize Oregon fans have a good amount of experience with him, having coached at Eugene in 2002-2004. What do you guys think of him as a coach, and what type of playcalling and offensive styles can we expect next season from the Golden Bears?

On today, the holiest of holidays, we have another case to solve, this time to save the public image of a beloved son. Twist would like to speak on the matter (and he will later), but he's currently disposed on watching the final episode of the Hills.

via spd.fotologs.net

"I believe you have an excellent case!"

Here are all the details that have been released.

Buffalo Bills running back Marshawn Lynch was arrested on February 11 and charged with felony possession of a concealed firearm.  Lynch was released on $35,000 bond.  The case will be submitted to California's District Attorney's office for for "filing consideration".

The news has been known for about 36 hours at this point, but Mike Florio at Pro Football Talk has confirmed the story.

Lynch won't have to deal with mere firearm charges, either.  As a repeat offender of the NFL's personal conduct policy, it's unlikely that Lynch will receive a reprieve from league commissioner Roger Goodell.

...

Culver City police did not immediately return a phone message seeking information about why officers approached Lynch and his companions.

Lynch’s lawyer, M. Gerald Schwartzbach, said his client was not involved in a traffic incident. Schwartzbach said the player was in California to visit friends.

I also believe there was a report somewhere that the firearm was in the trunk, NFL Network?

This is the California Statute concerning concealment of weapon in vehicle.

§ 12025. Carrying weapon concealed within vehicle or on person; offense; arms in holster or sheath

(a) A person is guilty of carrying a concealed firearm when he or she does any of the following:

(1) Carries concealed within any vehicle which is under his or her control or direction any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

(2) Carries concealed upon his or her person any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

(3) Causes to be carried concealed within any vehicle in which he or she is an occupant any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

(b) Carrying a concealed firearm in violation of this section is punishable, as follows:

(1) Where the person previously has been convicted of any felony, or of any crime made punishable by this chapter, as a felony.

(2) Where the firearm is stolen and the person knew or had reasonable cause to believe that it was stolen, as a felony.

(3) Where the person is an active participant in a criminal street gang, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 186.22, under the Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act (Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 186.20) of Title 7 of Part 1), as a felony.

(4) Where the person is not in lawful possession of the firearm, as defined in this section, or the person is within a class of persons prohibited from possessing or acquiring a firearm pursuant to Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, as a felony.

(5) Where the person has been convicted of a crime against a person or property, or of a narcotics or dangerous drug violation, by imprisonment in the state prison, or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.

(6) By imprisonment in the state prison, or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment if both of the following conditions are met:

(A) Both the pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person and the unexpended ammunition capable of being discharged from that firearm are either in the immediate possession of the person or readily accessible to that person, or the pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person is loaded as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 12031.

(B) The person is not listed with the Department of Justice pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision © of Section 11106, as the registered owner of that pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

(7) In all cases other than those specified in paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive, by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.

© A peace officer may arrest a person for a violation of paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) if the peace officer has probable cause to believe that the person is not listed with the Department of Justice pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision © of Section 11106 as the registered owner of the pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, and one or more of the conditions in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) is met.

(d)(1) Every person convicted under this section who previously has been convicted of a misdemeanor offense enumerated in Section 12001.6 shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for at least three months and not exceeding six months, or, if granted probation, or if the execution or imposition of sentence is suspended, it shall be a condition thereof that he or she be imprisoned in a county jail for at least three months.

(2) Every person convicted under this section who has previously been convicted of any felony, or of any crime made punishable by this chapter, if probation is granted, or if the execution or imposition of sentence is suspended, it shall be a condition thereof that he or she be imprisoned in a county jail for not less than three months.

(e) The court shall apply the three-month minimum sentence as specified in subdivision (d), except in unusual cases where the interests of justice would best be served by granting probation or suspending the imposition or execution of sentence without the minimum imprisonment required in subdivision (d) or by granting probation or suspending the imposition or execution of sentence with conditions other than those set forth in subdivision (d), in which case, the court shall specify on the record and shall enter on the minutes the circumstances indicating that the interests of justice would best be served by that disposition.

(f) Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section.

(g) For purposes of this section, "lawful possession of the firearm" means that the person who has possession or custody of the firearm either lawfully owns the firearm or has the permission of the lawful owner or a person who otherwise has apparent authority to possess or have custody of the firearm. A person who takes a firearm without the permission of the lawful owner or without the permission of a person who has lawful custody of the firearm does not have lawful possession of the firearm.

(h)(1) The district attorney of each county shall submit annually a report on or before June 30, to the Attorney General consisting of profiles by race, age, gender, and ethnicity of any person charged with a felony or a misdemeanor under this section and any other offense charged in the same complaint, indictment, or information.

(2) The Attorney General shall submit annually, a report on or before December 31, to the Legislature compiling all of the reports submitted pursuant to paragraph (1).

(3) This subdivision shall remain operative until January 1, 2005, and as of that date shall be repealed.

Beast Mode, a fellow Bills fans, has already talked about it in detail, but for those with short attention spans, here are his preliminary thoughts.

Without question if that is the only reason they stopped the vehicle, the discovery of the firearm is going to be suppressed. Nothing there indicates a traffic violation, a warrant, etc. We also have no idea why the officers asked the men inside to step out of the vehicle. If they had a reason to stop the vehicle and in approaching the car they saw the firearm in plain view then fine. If they had a reason to stop the vehicle and when they approached they smelled marijuana, then they could perform a search. The key here is justifying the stop and justifying the search. I am also extremely unclear as to how they determined the firearm belonged to Marshawn. Presumably it was legally purchased and registered in his name. Barring that, unless there was some sort of confession, I have no clue how they determined it belong to him.

Laywers, please sort out this depressing case before we move on to the happier matter of Stanford chokejobs (men's basketball and Michelle Wie alike). After you've come to an amiable solution, go ahead and dump away.

Feb 14, 2009 5:16 AM EST: I dunno why there's been no coverage of this so far, but apparently the 6 PM telecast in KABC Los Angeles had him arrested for carrying a concealed firearm in Culver City. He's already been released on bail.

Although there's been NO report of it online, this was part of the  TV broadcast and several Cal Bears fans reported it. I can't see why they'd lie about this. Hopefully it was just mistaken identity.

Update: Apparently if you want to confirm this info, you can check with the Culver City PD. Here's a link to their department.

Just got off the line with the Culver City PD Watch Commander. He read me what sounded like a formatted press release which stated that ML was among three men who were stopped on February 11 riding in a Mercedes Benz in that City. A hand gun was found concealed in the vehicle and follow up investigation confirmed that the gun belonged to Marshawn Lynch. Lynch was booked for possession of a concealed weapon and he was subsequently released on bail. The case will be presented early next week to the DA who will decide whether or not to prosecute. That is all that the WC had available. He referred me to their media Lieutenant who will be out for the next several days. It will be interesting to see whether the story goes any further over the next few days. If no one has run with it so far, it might get more play if and when the DA decides to prosecute.

EDIT: LA County Sheriff has information on a Marshawn Terrell Lynch, born 4/2/86, being arrested on a felony charge on 2/11/09 at 1800, being released on bail of 35K at 2045. You can do a search of his name here. Coverage or no coverage, I think the question mark can be taken off here.

No. NO. NOOOOOOOOO!

Just heard an article on KABC News in LA that Marshawn was arrested in Culver City for possession of a firearm. They had a copy of his booking photo. No more details, and I haven't found a link, yet.

The weird part is that there's been no coverage of this outside of that report, so maybe it isn't totally for sure that it was Beast Mode. But two Cal fans have seen it and verified it from BI, so the original report at least exists.

This is depressing. I'm not even ready to think about the basketball game. PLEASE MEDIA, BE WRONG AGAIN!

Update: Apparently if you want to confirm this info, you can check with the Culver City PD. Here's a link to their department.

Just got off the line with the Culver City PD Watch Commander. He read me what sounded like a formatted press release which stated that ML was among three men who were stopped on February 11 riding in a Mercedes Benz in that City. A hand gun was found concealed in the vehicle and follow up investigation confirmed that the gun belonged to Marshawn Lynch. Lynch was booked for possession of a concealed weapon and he was subsequently released on bail. The case will be presented early next week to the DA who will decide whether or not to prosecute. That is all that the WC had available. He referred me to their media Lieutenant who will be out for the next several days. It will be interesting to see whether the story goes any further over the next few days. If no one has run with it so far, it might get more play if and when the DA decides to prosecute.

EDIT: LA County Sheriff has information on a Marshawn Terrell Lynch, born 4/2/86, being arrested on a felony charge on 2/11/09 at 1800, being released on bail of 35K at 2045. You can do a search of his name here. Coverage or no coverage, it looks like it happened.

via i31.photobucket.com

To commemorate this Valentine's Day weekend before the Furd hate commences, here's some linkage love to the outgoing seniors.

Alex Mack is really psyched, and apparently has much higher opinions of Cal coeds than most of our commenters.

.If my interview with Mack earlier this week on Sirius NFL Radio were an example of how he will perform when interviewed at the Combine, he'll pass with flying colors. He is working out on campus with his college strength coach rather than at a fancy training center because he believes in sticking with what got him to this point. He responded to a question of what he likes about football by saying he enjoyed "smashing the hell out of the noseguard on double teams in the running game". He handled questions about protection adjustments and his practice mindset with equal aplomb. Heck, he even said that he would rather knock a defender down to the ground with a pancake block than go out on a date with one of Cal's co-eds.

Rulon Davis is enjoying every minute of the buildup to draft day.

Often a man among boys in his time with the Cal football team, Rulon Davis has finally moved on to fry bigger fish.

Or become one, to be exact. Upon exhausting his eligibility following the Emerald Bowl, the senior defensive end and one-time junior college transfer joined the list of Bears eligible for the 2009 NFL Draft.

These days he finds himself preparing for the NFL Combine at Elite Athletics Training Center in Los Angeles, joining former teammates Zack Follett and Worrell Williams as well as current NFL guys such as Justin Forsett, Thomas DeCoud and Marshawn Lynch.

That means no more classes, no more meetings, no more drills.

"Right now my life is simplified," he says. "It's eating, sleeping and training, and that's what I do. That's my job. I wake up, I eat and train. I eat, then I train again, then I eat again.

"So it's real simple, and I love it. My life is beautiful right now. I wish I could do this my entire life, but I can't."

Spazzy really should be writing this and translating it into Pain Train (especially the Bonsai Trees bit), but he can do it in the comments.

When Zack Follett bought his first NFL game ticket in the ninth grade, he was merely a fan.

When the four-star prep linebacker signed his LOI to Cal, there were still only whispers of his potential to play at the next, next level.

But when the Bears elected to shift their defense to a 3-4 look following their 2007 Armed Forces Bowl win, much of that changed -- 10.5 sacks, 23 tackles-for-loss and five forced fumbles later, Follett's status now reads: Potential NFL draft pick.

Starting Wednesday, his status will soon be NFL Combine participant, one that's been dubbed as a potential mid-third to an early fourth-round selection.

"Excitement," Follett says to describe his emotions. "Training something for so long, one specific thing pretty much -- that 40-time -- constantly twice a day almost every day except Sunday, it's just real excitement. I'm eager to go out and do it.

"I'm not really nervous. I know the whole process is a big grind from what I hear, but it's something that I've always wanted to do watching on TV, so I'm pretty excited."

Interviews of Rulon and Zach are also included in the links.

On this Valentine's Day weekend, simple questions for you: Would you rather pancake block or date a Cal coed? What would you want to do more than date a Cal coed?

The lines are pretty much drawn between the CGB nation and the Bruins Nation. CGB remains feverishly obsessed with its baby brother to the south wondering why they are the way they are, while Bruins Nation refuses to exist to acknowledge the existence of the older sibling.  There is a historical parallel here...

via www.lionkingpride.net

We have the leaders of awesome, to some almost attaining godly status. We look over the magnificent vista of Strawberry Canyon and know things exist in cycles. Our coaches are masters of creativity and wisdom, looking at the big picture and making sure the players they're responsible for. They know the dark times won't last forever, and the Golden Bears will find their motives to shine.

via baltosource.timduru.org

They desire darkness and fundamentalism to rule their territories. They can't see outside their own twisted vision of the world, which has them worshipping at the feet of leaders known for their cronyism and their archaic, sport-hating ways. They might win occasionally, but they'll do it through ref-baiting, hipchecks, and some of the worst offense you've ever seen. There is nothing innovative or interesting about their teams, but the self-indulgence is quite fantastic.

CGB is on the alert as to whether the neighbors of the south try and usurp the future king, Tosh Lupoi. We must always be on the guard from the Claudiuses of the south.

(For those who are interested in such comparisons, Twist is Zazu, Danzig is obviously Rafiki. Rishi is that meerkat who doesn't shut up. If anyone can think of better Lion King parallels, feel free to add.)

Cal plays UCLA tonight. Describe your feelings for your little brother. Hatred? Frustration? Exasperation? Envy? Secret passion?

Continue reading this post »

Lost in all the hubaloo of the Husky victory is the return of Montgomery to Maples next Saturday. More importantly, it's Cal vs. Furd, and it's time for some good ol' fashioned HATE.

Hate can be good; its therapuetic value is undeniable. We save it for the most loathsome creatures in life, like Osama Bin Laden, Maman and Chris Kattan. And the 'Furd. What is there to love about the 'Furd?  They have a golf course right behind the campus. Donald Rumsfeld even got a chance to teach there, and he isn't teaching a class on How to Clusterf#&k The Middle East, so he clearly can't be the one either.

It's kind of hard to hate football players though. It's more of a collective experience to hate the team in general for just being the embodiment of evil, or at the very least focus ire on the coach running the thing. But basketball? It's much easier to find someone to hate. There's always someone there who annoys the crap out of you, someone you wish would run into a blind pick or get thrown into the third row on a fast break.

I have an obvious candidate.

via losestadoslatinos.com

Ugh. Puke. God damn you Robin.

Which 'Furd player/coach/figures do you despise to the core? If you've forgotten some of the names, here's the list.

The triple OT win has already earned itself a rightful place in the annals of classic Cal sports. I'm still downloading the torrent, but the highlights are here for those who just want the quick hits (thanks to PRD74). We might've talked about greatest Cal football victories at some point (I know I did) but let's extend it to basketball and all general sports as well (danzig give us the most glorious Cal volleyball victorious moments!) and come up with an extensive list of the most exciting Cal sports victories you've ever witnessed.

The obvious answer for a general Cal fan would be "THE BAND IS OUT ON THE FIELD!", but about 90% of you who comment here were either in diapers or in the womb. Unless the first thing you saw when you came out was Oski (a terrifying thought), that doesn't count. Old-timers, of course, should share their memories of the classics, but the rest of us should harken to modern day victories of a momentous order.

Let's keep this high going before the old Cal blues strike again.Share your stories.

Started this at California Golden Blogs, figured it has crossover appeal everywhere.

Obviously there have been calls everywhere for a system that determines a true national champion, and for what appears to be the sixth or seventh time in nine tries the current system has not produced a satisfactory result. So I've decided to break down the options and let you guys decide on what system you like best.

Current system--BCS #1 vs #2 for the national championship

Pros: Gives you a clearcut title game with the teams that pollsters and computers generally agree are the top two teams in the nation. Sometimes provides a compelling matchup like this season.

Cons: If there are a bunch of teams with the same record, how would you figure out who the best team was? 45-35? Didn't Auburn go 13-0? Nebraska lost their Big 12 title; why are they playing Miami for all the marbles? How is USC's loss to Oregon State worse than Oklahoma's or Florida's losses? How does Ohio State keep getting back in here (and in the BCS)?

And the questions go on, and on...

Who likes this system: Jim Tressel, Rose Bowl fanboys, Monopoly Man, General Grievous, Amitab Bachchan

Old system--whoever's ranked #1  by the pollsters/computers at the end of the bowl season gets the #1 seed.

Pros: Restores the traditional tie-ins. Big 12 champ goes to Cotton, SEC goes to Sugar, Pac-10/Big 10 in the Rose again. Creates classic clashes and revives local hatred, provides continuity to past rivalries and keeps the sports entirely regional. Makes things easier for fans, and puts a lot of their faith in the computers.

Cons: The computers decide the national champion. I'm sure people will be comfortable with this approximately never. Plus the midmajors get excluded. Plus certain conference just will never get the chance to face off against each other. There is no national championship and college football goes back to being a regionalistic sport that no one on the East Coast cares about.

(Of course you could argue for a +1 adaptation, where the top two teams after the bowls gets to go to a MNC, but that'd cause just as much problems, no?)

Who likes this system: Tom Hansen, Wilford Brimley, Yosemite Sam, Ayn Rand, whales, British character actors.

+1 system--a four team playoff, where #1 goes against #4 in some BCS bowl and #2 goes against #3 in some BCS bowl and meet for the title game x weeks later. The additional bowls could be kept for the regular conference champs who don't get in.

Continued after the break...

Continue reading this post »

As racsan points out, we get some recognition from the coaches, but just not enough from the AP.

AP poll

1 Florida (48) 13-1 1606 1
2 Utah (16) 13-0 1519 7
3 Southern Cal (1) 12-1 1481 5
4 Texas 12-1 1478 3
5 Oklahoma 12-2 1391 2
6 Alabama 12-2 1264 4
7 TCU 11-2 1193 11
8 Penn St. 11-2 1153 6
9 Ohio St. 10-3 1013 10
10 Oregon 10-3 997 15
11 Boise St. 12-1 938 9
12 Texas Tech 11-2 916 8
13 Georgia 10-3 903 16
14 Mississippi 9-4 857 20
15 Virginia Tech 10-4 713 21
16 Oklahoma St. 9-4 534 13
17 Cincinnati 11-3 506 12
18 Oregon St. 9-4 467 24
19 Missouri 10-4 435 25
20 Iowa 9-4 317 NR
21 Florida St. 9-4 246 NR
22 Georgia Tech 9-4 223 14
23 West Virginia 9-4 144 NR
24 Michigan St. 9-4 138 19
25 BYU 10-3 137 17
Others receiving votes: California 128, Pittsburgh 106, LSU 95, Nebraska 64, Tulsa 61, Northwestern 53, Ball St. 13, Boston College 11, Rutgers 11, Rice 8, Arizona 4, Kansas 2.

Coaches poll

1. Florida (13-1) 1524
2. Southern California (12-1)1393
3. Texas (12-1) 1389
4. Utah (13-0) 1375
5. Oklahoma (12-2) 1333
6. Alabama (12-2) 1157
7. TCU (11-2) 1114
8. Penn State (11-2) 1091
9. Oregon (10-3) 1011
10. Georgia (10-3) 904
11. Ohio State (10-3) 874
12. Texas Tech (11-2) 867
13. Boise State (12-1) 809
14. Virginia Tech (10-4) 740
15. Mississippi (9-4) 620
16. Missouri (10-4) 549
17. Cincinnati (11-3) 493
18. Oklahoma State (9-4) 480
19. Oregon State (9-4) 407
20. Iowa (9-4) 250
21. Brigham Young (10-3) 248
22. Georgia Tech (9-4) 219
23. Florida State (9-4) 217
24. Michigan State (9-4) 179
25. California (9-4) 116

You might like Sagarin more; it places Cal 16th and has 5 Pac-10 teams in its top 25.

Well, the CGB blogpoll might have to extend some bias for the Golden Bears in comparison to the coaches and the mainstream media. Carp will certainly be outraged considering where he placed them.

Does Cal's ranking look good to you in either poll? Will it have any bearing on our regular season ranking next year?

In general, which poll do you prefer, AP, Coaches or Sagarin? Any other wrinkles stick out of the polls (Utah got SIXTEEN 1st place VOTES?) that you take umbrage with?

I'm sure Twist has some important things to talk about the shocking Gossip Girl revelations. But he can talk about it elsewhere. Today we must mourn the end of another college football season. One game is left, the biggest one of them all, or whatever.

We've already talked about BCS/playoffs this week; if you want a nuanced article on the issue, check out Smart Football's take. If you want a strong and reasonable refutation of the BCS, check out sabermetric Bill James and his thoughts about the irrational calcuation of the computers as to who should be national champion. What we can debate is who you really believe deserves the national championship.

The winner of Florida/Oklahoma: It's the BCS championship, and the winner deserves it, no matter if it ends in a 7-3 slopfest or not. That's what everyone agreed upon, right? Both teams are 1 loss and probably deserving, but are they more deserving than everyone else? Do you believe the winner of this game can essentially beat the other three on a neutral site?

Texas: If Oklahoma wins, some AP voters might consider ranking them #1 since they beat Oklahoma head-to-head. None of those votes will come from the Bay Area. If they do, those journalists should be fired and deported to Somalia. They beat Missouri, Okie State and Texas Tech, but those wins are looking less impressive by the week. So they'll have to pin their hopes on the Red River Shootout being all that was needed to qualify them.

Utah: Undefeated, so they're Rick Reilly's champion, which means so much since he knows nothing about college football. They waxed Alabama from the mighty SEC in what was essentially a home game for them, so that's mighty impressive. They beat TCU, BYU, Air Force, Michigan and Oregon State, and you get the feeling they'd have the ability to compete against Florida or Oklahoma.

USC: Crushed Ohio State, a team that Texas barely scraped by. Beat up an Oregon team that will finish close to the top 10 if not in it. Lost to Oregon State, a team who had three losses to potentially three teams that'll finish in the top 10. They looked the fiercest of all the three contenders in their bowl matchup, eviscerating Penn State for one half and then providing them pity points for the final half when it was clear the Lions weren't playing to win. More importantly, there's a good chance if Florida or Oklahoma played USC, USC would be favored in both matchups.

Who do you think deserves the national championship the most and why? If you believe it should be split, who should get the pieces of the champion pie?

PS: One piece of good news for Hydro; the BCS will be around until at least 2013.

Brown, who has worked at ESPN for 21 of the network's 29 years, is not only the king of the mid-week college football game but also one of the driving forces behind games like the preseason Chick-fil-A College Kickoff game that pitted Alabama and Clemson last year and will match the Crimson Tide against ACC champion Virginia Tech on Sept. 5 to open the 2009 season.

He's also the person to talk to if you want to know if there will ever be a playoff in major college football. The answer, at least for the four-year duration of ESPN's recent agreement to broadcast the BCS bowl games, is a definite no.

"The next four-year cycle is done, so a playoff is not a consideration at this point," Brown said. "I wouldn't want to see the bowls changed because I don't want to create meaningless games during the regular season. I don't think that would be good for college football."

Started this at California Golden Blogs, figured it has crossover appeal everywhere.

Obviously there have been calls everywhere for a system that determines a true national champion, and for what appears to be the sixth or seventh time in nine tries the current system has not produced a satisfactory result. So I've decided to break down the options and let you guys decide on what system you like best.

Current system--BCS #1 vs #2 for the national championship

Pros: Gives you a clearcut title game with the teams that pollsters and computers generally agree are the top two teams in the nation. Sometimes provides a compelling matchup like this season.

Cons: If there are a bunch of teams with the same record, how would you figure out who the best team was? 45-35? Didn't Auburn go 13-0? Nebraska lost their Big 12 title; why are they playing Miami for all the marbles? How is USC's loss to Oregon State worse than Oklahoma's or Florida's losses? How does Ohio State keep getting back in here (and in the BCS)?

And the questions go on, and on...

Who likes this system: Jim Tressel, Rose Bowl fanboys, Monopoly Man, General Grievous, Amitab Bachchan

Old system--whoever's ranked #1  by the pollsters/computers at the end of the bowl season gets the #1 seed.

Pros: Restores the traditional tie-ins. Big 12 champ goes to Cotton, SEC goes to Sugar, Pac-10/Big 10 in the Rose again. Creates classic clashes and revives local hatred, provides continuity to past rivalries and keeps the sports entirely regional. Makes things easier for fans, and puts a lot of their faith in the computers.

Cons: The computers decide the national champion. I'm sure people will be comfortable with this approximately never. Plus the midmajors get excluded. Plus certain conference just will never get the chance to face off against each other. There is no national championship and college football goes back to being a regionalistic sport that no one on the East Coast cares about.

(Of course you could argue for a +1 adaptation, where the top two teams after the bowls gets to go to a MNC, but that'd cause just as much problems, no?)

Who likes this system: Tom Hansen, Wilford Brimley, Yosemite Sam, Ayn Rand, whales, British character actors.

+1 system--a four team playoff, where #1 goes against #4 in some BCS bowl and #2 goes against #3 in some BCS bowl and meet for the title game x weeks later. The additional bowls could be kept for the regular conference champs who don't get in.

Pros:  Would end much of the painful lobbying that seems to follow the last two weeks of the season, since most of the grousers would get their chance (i.e. Texas and USC this year, Georgia and USC last year, Michigan the year before, Auburn two years before that, etc.). Would allow for two more compelling matchups of the top 4 teams and would definitely generate high ratings.

Also, the Big 10 commish hates it, so it must be good.

Cons: Great for the teams, but will the fans travel around to TWO sites in two weeks? Even if it was at one site how would they stay occupied for the time they were there? The only other option seems to be that #1 and #2 get a home game and they play it a week after the conclusion of the reg, but you'd have to think that's comically unfair to #3 and #4. Plus some big conferences would protest not being included (hint hint ACC/Big East) because their teams always blow.

Other issues; midmajors would still be excluded from this formula under most circumstances since their SOS barely cracks the Top 12. They would still be left out of the mix even if they ran the table, barring dramatic circumstances. The Utahs and Boise States of the world would be out of the party and calling for their own piece of the pie.

Who likes this system: Pete Carroll, Mack Brown, Bob Stoops--essentially, everyone who's won a BCS title already.

6-8 team tournament--Top teams from each conference compete against each other (plus two at-largers), probably first round would give the higher ranked team home field; maybe an option for top 2 teams to get a first round bye. Basically a +2 format.

Pros: Would allow every conference to get a representative, no one would feel excluded, so every conference would have its strength gauged against every other conference in that certain year;

Cons: OH NO KIDS GOTTA TAKE FINALS OH NO THEY'LL NEVER FIND A WAY TO TAKE THEM OH NO WHAT DO WE DO????

Well, more importantly, the more games you add on, the less likely fans will travel along; and because it's a college event, it's not likely to attract the huge sponsors and $10,000 boosters that will put their fannies in the seats like the Super Bowl does. In other words, the National Championship could take place in a half-empty stadium.

Who likes this system: Italian Spiderman, Cesar Milan, Mark Wahlberg, postmodernists, and the Geico Gecko.

Crazy ideas: Anything above 8 teams in a tournament. The Pirate suggested that the team with the best academic GPA should win tiebreakers (something that'd favor Texas Tech in the Big 12), which would be great because a Harvard-Yale title game would enthrall everyone at MENSA. Phil Steele wants a 64 team playoff, which I'm sure will be approved by the year 2509. The college football season would probably end around February 28.

My personal preference in terms of the 'looney train' is to have a playoff system implemented overseas in Europe. BCS winners get a free study abroad program in Europe in the springtime, and they could play football games every week with random soccer stadiums. They could fill the stadium with rabid English soccer hooligans and studying abroad college students. Whenever they throw an incompletion fans could start throwing flares on the field, and then Rey Maulauga would run into the stands and start breaking them with his bare hands.

Pete Carroll would totally set up a pad in Amsterdam and start wearing a beret, Tim Tebow and the Pope could have a 'philosophical' discussion, Mack Brown and Bob Stoops could start learning how to lobby for votes in different tongues, and ABC could dedicate plenty of reality show time to it to encourage Americans to travel overseas. I believe Barack Obama should approve this plan immediately.

Who likes crazy ideas: Phil Steele, Mike Leach, Stephen Colbert, the cast of Monty Python, and Charles Bronson.

If you have alternatives, provide your proposals. And vote and debate--which system do you like best?

Not much introduction needed here. With Utah's destruction of 'Bama in the Sugar Bowl, this issue is at hand. Let's get to the nitty-gritty.

Current system--BCS #1 vs #2 for the national championship

Pros: Gives you a clearcut title game with the teams that pollsters and computers generally agree are the top two teams in the nation. Sometimes provides a compelling matchup like this season.

Cons: If there are a bunch of teams with the same record, how would you figure out who the best team was? 45-35? Didn't Auburn go 13-0? Nebraska lost their Big 12 title; why are they playing Miami for all the marbles? How is USC's loss to Oregon State worse than Oklahoma's or Florida's losses? How does Ohio State keep getting back in here (and in the BCS)?

And the questions go on, and on...

Who likes this system: Jim Tressel, Rose Bowl fanboys, Hydrotech (who I'm sure will argue his case willingly), General Grievous, Amitab Bachchan

Old system--whoever's ranked #1  by the pollsters/computers at the end of the bowl season gets the #1 seed.

Pros: Restores the traditional tie-ins. Big 12 champ goes to Cotton, SEC goes to Sugar, Pac-10/Big 10 in the Rose again. Creates classic clashes and revives local hatred, provides continuity to past rivalries and keeps the sports entirely regional.

Cons: The computers decide the national champion. That won't cause any conflict at all. Plus the midmajors get excluded. No one will object to this except everyone but carp.

(Of course you could argue for a +1 adaptation, where the top two teams after the bowls gets to go to a MNC, but that'd cause just as much problems, no?)

Who likes this system: Tom Hansen, Wilford Brimley, Ayn Rand, whales, British character actors.

+1 system--a four team playoff, where #1 goes against #4 in some BCS bowl and #2 goes against #3 in some BCS bowl and meet for the title game x weeks later. The additional bowls could be kept for the regular conference champs who don't get in.

Pros:  Would end much of the painful lobbying that seems to follow the last two weeks of the season, since most of the grousers would get their chance (i.e. Texas and USC this year, Georgia and USC last year, Michigan the year before, Auburn two years before that, etc.). Would allow for two more compelling matchups of the top 4 teams and would definitely generate high ratings.

Also, the Big 10 commish hates it, so it must be good.

Cons: Great for the teams, but will the fans travel around to TWO sites in two weeks? Even if it was at one site how would they stay occupied for the time they were there? The only other option seems to be that #1 and #2 get a home game and they play it a week after the conclusion of the reg, but you'd have to think that's comically unfair to #3 and #4. Plus some big conferences would protest not being included (hint hint ACC/Big East) because their teams always blow.

Other issues; midmajors would still be excluded from this formula under most circumstances since their SOS barely cracks the Top 12. They would still be left out of the mix even if they ran the table, barring dramatic circumstances. The Utahs and Boise States of the world would be out of the party and calling for their own piece of the pie.

Who likes this system: Pete Carroll, Mack Brown, Bob Stoops--essentially, everyone who's won a BCS title already.

6-8 team tournament--Top teams from each conference compete against each other (plus two at-largers), probably first round would give the higher ranked team home field; maybe an option for top 2 teams to get a first round bye. Basically a +2 format.

Pros: Would allow every conference to get a representative, no one would feel excluded, so every conference would have its strength gauged against every other conference in that certain year;

Cons: OH NO KIDS GOTTA TAKE FINALS OH NO THEY'LL NEVER FIND A WAY TO TAKE THEM OH NO WHAT DO WE DO????

Well, more importantly, the more games you add on, the less likely fans will travel along; and because it's a college event, it's not likely to attract the huge sponsors and $10,000 boosters that will put their fannies in the seats like the Super Bowl does. In other words, the National Championship could take place in a half-empty stadium.

Who likes this system: Italian Spiderman, Cesar Milan, Mark Wahlberg, postmodernists, and the Geico Gecko.

Crazy ideas: Anything above 8 teams in a tournament. The Pirate suggested that the team with the best academic GPA should win tiebreakers (something that'd favor Texas Tech in the Big 12), which would be great because a Harvard-Yale title game would enthrall everyone at MENSA. Phil Steele wants a 64 team playoff, which I'm sure will be approved by the year 2509. The college football season would probably end around February 28.

My personal preference is to have a playoff system implemented overseas in Europe. BCS winners get a free study abroad program in Europe in the springtime, and they could play football games every week with random soccer stadiums. They could fill the stadium with rabid English soccer hooligans and studying abroad college students. Whenever they throw an incompletion fans could start throwing flares on the field, and then Rey Maulauga would run into the stands and start breaking them with his bare hands.

Pete Carroll would totally set up a pad in Amsterdam and start wearing a beret, Tim Tebow and the Pope could have a 'philosophical' discussion about Jesus, and ABC could dedicate plenty of reality show time to it to encourage Americans to travel overseas. I believe Barack Obama should approve this plan immediately. Me and carp would be all over that.

Who likes crazy ideas: Phil Steele, Mike Leach, Stephen Colbert, the cast of Monty Python, and Charles Bronson.

If you have alternatives, provide your proposals. And vote--which system do you like best?

On right now: Cotton Bowl, Texas Tech vs. Ole Miss
5 ET/2 PT: Liberty Bowl, East Carolina vs Kentucky
8 ET/5 PT: Sugar Bowl, Alabama vs Utah

Image via i9.photobucket.com

Continue reading this post »

There is an incredible amount of rationalization going on here. Although I don't disagree with all of this, some of the comments are pretty bad. You don't have to guess twice as to where the sources are.

"I booed...

Aside from the 74 yarder to Tucker in the 1st quarter....Nate the great had 47 passing yds. the rest of the game. Are you kidding me? A senior quarterback, who supposedly had the best 2 weeks of practice of his career, gave one of the most atrocious performances in recent memory on national TV. Longshore sucked and deserved the booing. Good riddance he's gone."

"Nate is a big boy, a 5th year senior in his twenties, who is getting a free ride to one of the best universities in the world. I'm sure he can handle it."

"get over [the booing]. it happens in every college stadium in this country. let's stop acting like we are so superior to everyone else."

"People pay a lot of money to watch the game, drink a lot, and are bound to express their opinions because of it. Longshore was playing like garbage and I think more people were booing Tedford for leaving him in than booing Lonsghore himself. Even if they were directing their jeers at Longshore, can we stop the false pretense that these are impressionable kids? I'm not a "college kid" anymore but am still younger than Longshore, and people in their late teens and early twenties can deal with a little booing without melting down. A lot of guys in the NFL are younger than Longshore. I don't get why would you be against booing just on the college level. These aren't "kids" in my opinion."

"Longshore ranks right up there in the annals of Ca's terrible QBs (remember Jay Torchio???). Thank God both of them are gone! Hopefully we'll have a reprieve until the next awful QB comes on board.

But one thing's for sure.... the Offensive Coordinator needs to go! How many more games of the run Best, run Best, run Best, do we have to take before Best gets hurt or before the OC can be CANNED!?!!"

 

"Tedford should go spend some time at Oklahoma to find out how to develop a QB and a passing game. He has by any measure, completely lost it as a "QB guru" and "offensive genius.""
"This isn't DIII or JC football.
JT needs to do as he professes: put the team in a position to win.
Playing NL because of some imagined "moral obligation" is derelict.

A bowl game WIN is a great catalyst for next season and recruiting.

Thank GAWD for Zack.  Thank GAWD NL actually advanced the ball TWO YARDS for the winning TD (and didn't throw a pick-6 instead).

GO BEARS"

"There are 18 year olds getting shot at in the military and you are complaining about a college QB getting boed?  Is that correct?"

"The fans were booing Longshore and the incredibly poor decision to start him in this game.  Fans have 2 options to show displeasure.  One is boo the choice and the second is to stay away.  The fans chose to boo.  While I can understand the handwringing around booing a college player lets make no mistake that this is a business and a very big one.  JT is paid millions to coach, the players choose to play and get notoriety and praise when things go well.  It seems harsh to boo perhaps, well then do not charge what you charge to go to the games and lets pay the coach something more in line with what a coach should earn for coaching football.  I love Cal football and am so pleased that they are playing in bowl games etc.  Booing is an unfortunate bi product of being a part of a big public business.  Nate Longshore got a grand stage to show his wares to prospective NFL suitors and received a great education at the best public university in the nation and 1 of the very best period (public or private).  He chose to accept the scholarship and all the benefits it brings.  Sorry Nate, but booing goes along with the gig.  I understand the paying public wants a way to display displeasure.  Booing may be harsh, but the alternative would be to stay away.  With money comes scrutiny.  Very simple really."

You sound like all those soccer moms who have never played a team sport but act like they know everything abou the game. If you are over 35 years old, you know the booing comes with the territory-no matter what level of play. We have become of society of overpanderers. The fact that they are in college and getting paid (oops, I mean getting a scholarship) gives us as ticket payers, the right to voice our joy or displeasure on the performance. Remember this is entertainment, not REAL LIFE.

Hmm... maybe I was wrong about Longshore not being the most hated cal player ever.

Dump away. Or respond to the angry Cal fans.

via www.tombraider4u.com

I love how 1 picture=1000 words. If only SB Nation would pick up on that theme, I wouldn't have to put in actual thought. Onto the links!

Four big questions right now, so give some thought about it in the comments.

The Bear Will Not Quit has an optimistic spin on Coach M's departure. Do you guys concur?

However, despite him being a huge part of what Tedford has built at Cal, I confess I am not as upset as some about this (though I do think he's an excellent coach). First off, if there's ever a time to lose an assistant, it is when you have a good young group of linemen, which Cal does. Its RS freshman and sophomores are very talented and ready to turn the corner. That way if the recruiting stumbles a bit, you don't fall behind in your pipeline.

Second, though they have been injured a bit, I must say I think Cal's o-line has underachieved to a degree in 2006, 2007 and this year. Mack has been great, and Gibson had 1 good season. Otherwise, I think they've been good not great. His best years production-wise were 2004 and 2005. Doesn't mean he won't be missed, but I am not sure another coach won't do just as well.

Third, aside from some gems here and there, Michalczik hasn't exactly cleaned up as a recruiter. Finally, Tedford has mostly chosen great assistants, and I suspect this will be no different. More on possible replacements later.

Continue reading this post »

With Graham Harrell getting snubbed by the committee, this is pretty much a three way race. Nevertheless you could make an argument for all four and I'd say these are the four deserving candidates by a good margin. 

Sam Bradford

Pros: Probably the frontrunner unless the vote gets split between Big 12 voters. Most touchdowns in the country,  and hence highest passer rating in the country. Crushed teams after the Red River Shootout, throwing 25 TDs and 1 pick (his masterpiece coming against the Red Raiders). 7th in completion percentage, 3rd in yards per attempt.

Cons: Doesn't really have a signature win. Oklahoma's closest game was by 10 points this season, the loss to Texas. In every other game the Sooners were frontrunners and Bradford never really had to feel the pinch of leading his team from behind. So he has that on his resume. Also might feel the wrath of some voters who think OU ran up the score on lesser teams.

Graham Harrell

Pros: Knocked Texas out of the national championship game with a big game winning drive. Second in passing yards/game, 9th in passer rating, tied for 4th in Tds, 3rd in completion percentage at 71.5% (yeah, 71.5% is only 3rd. Comical). And of course this offense is dependent on him more than any other, and he was excellent in getting the Red Raiders to 10-0.

Cons: We already know he lost, since he was not invited to New York. Way to show you're not elitist Heisman voters. That being said there's a good case you canmake against him--Harrell's numbers slid in the final two games of the season, and he was at best average against the Sooners (and turned the ball over on some crucial possesions). And you could argue his yardage stats were the nature of the beast that is the Airraid.

Colt McCoy

Pros: Unprecedented 77.6 completion percentage. Passer rating of 179.2, 3rd in the country behind Bradford and Johnson. Of the three Big 12 quarterbacks, he has the best mobility, averaging a pretty decent 4.5 yards per carry when he needed to take off and go. And also showed comeback abilities in bringing Texas back against Oklahoma and Texas Tech.

Cons: He's not playing in the title game? The only thing I can think of is that he struggled to find his footing in the first half against the Red Raiders and that he was shut down by the Red Raider defense on the ground too.

This is really a tough situation for McCoy, who is every bit as deserving as Bradford and BEAT Bradford in Dallas, but since Bradford is in Miami you'll probably see the Sooner QB get more votes.

Tim Tebow 

Pros: In almost any other year he'd win the Heisman hands down. If you were giving this to the best college athlete, Tebow landslides the competition. It kind of reminds me when Michael Jordan was the greatest player alive for 10 years, but they handed off the MVP to someone else because they had a stellar season. And then he torched them in the Finals.

His resume is pretty impressive. Finally showing he can come back in a big game by beating Alabama. Fifth in passer rating, 4th in passing yards per attempt (albiet a slight step down from last season because of the Big 12 QBs). He only threw two interceptions. TWO.

Drawback: If you use the same criteria from last season (amazing statistics), Tebow just doesn't compare to the Big 12 quarterbacks. His rushing stats are way down (he only averaged 3.66 yards per carry and 12 TDs), although you could argue Florida didn't have to rely on him as heavily this season with the Gators blowing opponents out.

Who ya got? And feel free to submit a dark horse candidate, just be prepared to back it up.

(Stats from cfbstats.com)