Figured I would I would post this here, given the mutual hatred Cal fans should have for both teams. 

The game had several bad call and non-calls. But at the end of regulation, I think the refs got the call seriously wrong.

The refs initially ruled that time had expired because Robert Woods didn't get out of bounds in time. On review, they ruled that Woods went down, in bounds, with one second left. BUT, they ruled that the one second would have run off before USC could have run another play even though USC had timeouts remaining.

Here are my thoughts: This is seems to me to be absolutely non-sensical for the following reasons (1) When they restore time, it has to be a dead ball with that amount of time on the clock. Challenges create dead balls whether or not there is time left on the clock. (2) Refs shouldn't be able to theorize on what would have occurred had the gotten the call right in the first place. A challenge creates an alternative timeline from the point of the challenge (1 second), not a slightly altered version of what occurred following the incorrect call. USC should have had the chance to kick a field goal. 

My questions:  (1) Is there even a rule at all for this situation. If there is no rule, why are we comfortable with the refs winging it here?  (2) If there is a rule, did the refs get the rule right?

Yesterday watching the Cal game, I was struck how quickly I had forgotten the lessons of last season.

There was nothing to complain about in yesterday's win, nothing.

So, my mind turned to the other things...

Why isn't Cal ranked? Where were we going to be in the Top 25 come Sunday afternoon?

Why isn't Jahvid on the Heisman lists, when a bunch of established losers like Pat White are?

The point, this was exactly the kind of crap we all got too caught up in last season.

I stopped myself and I realized the following things...

(1) I want Cal to be under the radar for as long as possible. If we could remove ourselves from consideration in the BCS and the polls, I wouldn't really mind it. I just want it to be "Cal". Not "No. 23 Cal" like we have something horrible to lose if we don't play well enough. Just win games - and keep proving that last year was the fluke. Everything is within our control.

(2) Best is fantastic, and through two weeks has been the best player in the nation. If Beanie Wells had two 80 yard TDs runs in a game, he would have been handed the Heisman in the end zone. But you know what...I don't want anyone to know Best. I don't want a Heisman campaign for him. I don't want him on the Heisman watch lists. I don't want Lee Corso or Kirk Herbstreit to know his name. I just want him to run the football.

In the end, I just want to watch (dominant) football devoid of everything else. This year, that is possible again. For now, Best and this team belongs to Cal and Cal fans and no one else. Unfortunately, 66-point Pac-10 wins mean It might not stay that way for long.

Haven't really seen either of these articles featured prominently here, so I thought I would post them along with a little analysis (sorry, but these are too important for a FanShot - if I outright missed them somewhere else, well, then at least read my inconsequential musings.)

The article that obviously has gotten attention today has been Cam Inman's piece outright endorsing Riley as the starter - as of 9:00 p.m. it was still the featured story on the Contra Costa Times homepage.

Overall, I think this piece isn't significant for its logic, but rather its prominence - the lead column on the first day for camp for the paper with the highest Cal grad / reader ratio around.

Inman's logic is fairly shallow:

• The end of 2007 sucked...
• Riley prevented it from being the worst collapse by any team ever (agreed, here) ...therefore...
• Riley should be the starter...
  
• Additionally, even if Riley doesn't win the job outright heshould get the nod purely to break with 2007. (CGB start your hate-mail machines!)
  

More interesting than the daily "I am a writer/blogger and I think Riley/Longshore should start/go to hell" pieces, was Rusty Simmons' piece in the Chron. It used quotes and historical examples and stuff (yah reporting!),

Rather than diving into the depths of who should start, it instead points out that this type of tenuous situation could create long-term problems for the team as a whole. That, in the end, a decisive choice might be better than the right choice.

In my opinion, this is the single most important passage in any Cal football article this offseason:

 

"I don't look at the quarterback situation as a question," Tedford said. "It's just a matter of making a decision on who is going to take the first snap."

That's where Follett, speaking as the voice of the players, re-enters the picture. He knows he's right in the middle of a potential quagmire.

"You can tell it is split among guys about who they want to be the quarterback, but we know we have to support either one," Follett said. "If we don't, it will rip the team apart."

Arizona State coach Dirk Koetter committed every possible wrong in a similar situation in 2006. He named the more experienced Sam Keller as the starter, only to reverse his decision to the younger, flashier Rudy Carpenter within 24 hours. Keller transferred, and the team struggled to a 7-6 record.

Follett knows about the ASU debacle and also saw what happened last year in Berkeley when Longshore tried to return from a sprained ankle, but threw at least one interception in five consecutive games as Cal went 1-4. Longshore remained a favorite among some in the locker room for trying to play through pain, and Riley emerged as a favorite among others for showing flashes of brilliance.

"We've already had a season when our team got ripped apart, and we won't let that happen again," Follett said. "We had way too many egos last year, and we had people picking sides. We have a whole new face that won't allow that now."

 

Let's being to break that down, shall we:

(1) Finally, someone (Follett) gets the sack to admit that the "team chemistry" problems in 2007 were a direct product of the QB controversy.

(2) In 2008, we have a coach who thinks it will be OK to not come to a clear resolution of this problem.

(3) The players are still spit.

(3) A player (OK, it is Zack Follett, so we can't take this as representing the whole team) leaves open that this issue could again tear the team apart yet again. Yes, he does while denying that it will happen again, but they are strong words nonetheless.

(4) We are compared to 2006 Arizona State! (And we aren't going to have off-the-field issues decide this one. In a sense, Koetter got lucky that Keller was so messed up that the team as a whole decided to endorse Carpenter.)

This got me thinking about just how difficult this decision will be, and that despite having strong opinions,that I in no way would want to be the guy to decide this.

Some of the factors at play just off the top of my head:

• The NFL - how does Longshore's future weigh into this? Does Tedford owe him a senior season, even if Riley might be as good or perhaps better.
• 2008, based on personnel, should be a rebuilding year on offense. Does that mean we want a senior, experienced quarterback to guide our young'uns or a guy who still has three years of eligibility?
• How useful is practice in determining a starter when we have two years of gametape for Longshore, and a general idea that Riley is pretty good in games? Is this decision going to be based 25% on past performance, or 75% on past performance? In either case, which quarterback benefits?
• Will the opinion of the team factor in at all? (Remember, this is what did in Koetter at ASU - he lost his job in part because he never even asked the team for an opinion and it turned out they were 100% unanimous for the other guy.)
• Will Brock Mansion transfer immediately if Riley is named the starter?
• How does Tedford's overall assessment of the team's potential influence his choice?

I am sure that there are more issues. I don't envy coach Tedford right now.

Riley fans, Longshore fans, let us pray together for a peaceful resolution over the next four weeks.

For now, this is a QB competition and not yet a controversy. It seems impossible, but I am holding out hope that it remains that way.

Now that the two certified geniuses (genii?) of the college football analysis world, SMQ and Phil Steele, have issue their verdicts on Cal football, I now firmly believe it is time for the homeristic a--holes to start weighing in. Dibs!

Rather than giving a position-by-position breakdown (after all, we are all waiting for the Hydrotech's two-deep breakdown of player's genetic code), I thought I would offer some completely biased opinions on the things I am thinking about (most are probably things that you are thinking about as well.)

The common quote about the Cal football program this year is, "the shine is off." The general logic is that because for three or four seasons when we were pretty good we didn't win a national championship, we forever will be an also-ran.

First, I would like everyone to take a deep breath. Consider what has happened over just the last four seasons...

• 2004 - Cal is really good. Really, really good. Better than USC in conference. Except that we lost to USC (despite dominating). Really kickstarts the Cal is freakin' awesome hype.
• 2005 - A pretty good team that would have been one of the best teams in the country if Aaron Rodgers had returned. Totally got screwed by that guy. Outside of QB, this team was just as talented as any of the other Tedford teams. Beat a decent BYU team in Las Vegas, too.
• 2006 - Trendy, but legit, mythical title pick. Hammered at Tennessee, bad loss to Arizona (albeit on a bogus P.I. call against Dante Huges) and a bad loss at USC (led in fourth quarter). Still, a pretty good season capped by a 45-10 killing of Texas A&M.
• 2007 - Went really high in the polls. Then sucked - but this was caused by injuries both physical (Longshore ankle) and mental (Longshore brain) that in combination made winning tough.

So, in three of the last four seasons, at some point, we were completely legitimate picks to win a national title. Twice, we probably were the best team in the nation (at USC in 2004 - before losing. After Oregon in 2007 we certainly were the most accomplished team to that point.) The fourth season (2005) we might have been better - but our QB was too good and went to the NFL early. That is a pretty ridiculous stretch of highs (and lows) in a four year period. It was certainly the most exciting (and likely best) period to be a Cal fan ever.

Which brings us to 2008. Again, on the surface, we are talented. Again, we have lots of things to ponder during the offseason...

1. Just to clarify - despite the fact it has been in the news a lot - the ancient, spiritual oak grove actually has nothing to do with this season. If it ends, if it continues, I don't really care. I don't think anyone should really care (unless they love them some Dumpster Muffin). It is going to get built sooner rather than later. Everyone realizes this. I am confident the university has it in capable hands. It isn't going to change (or cloud) my view of 2008 in anyway. Now on to actually important things...

2. The rubble of 2007. The other thing I would prefer not to be thinking about. At all. At least Riley ended it on three quarters of blessed perfection.

But the collapse lingers. Answers are still sought. Zach Follett, in fact, has gotten a lot of attention for the following quote:

"(Coach Jeff) Tedford has changed his tone. It’s more of a team-oriented approach now," Cal linebacker Zack Follett told the Contra Costa Times. "Last year a lot of our leaders were stars who were young. They didn’t provide leadership. No disrespect to those guys, but sometimes when you have star athletes, it’s hard to be a coach to those kinds of players."

People have seen this as a quote that calls out DeSean Jackson. If that is true it is fairly pathetic...

• Zach Follett obviously could have been the needed leader. But instead he was busy not making the transition to middle linebacker that the coaching staff wanted him to make. Remember, Zack, when you point a finger at "stars who were young," two fingers point back at you.
• DeSean Jackson is a wide receiver. Wide receivers are crazy. Wide receivers under no circumstances should be expected to be leaders. The only guy in the NFL who might be considered a leader at WR is Marvin Harrison ... and he was involved in an offseason shooting! Please, quarterbacks, runningbacks, *cough* linebackers *cough*, linemen, step up and be leaders. Wide receivers, I just want you to catch touchdowns. (Though I guess Geoff MacArthur was a leader, when he wasn't punching through windows.)

Now, scapegoating is all well and good if it makes you better this year. DeSean is gone, he left early, he probably is making some decent dollars, so he is a good person to scapegoat. But seriously, blaming what happened last season on the lack of leadership from DeSean Jackson is absurb. He never should have been a leader. And guess what...they aren't going to get any leadership from DeSean Jackson this year either.

3. OK, so now that those things are behind us...where might we get that leadership?

Maybe, from the quarterback position?

I know this sounds nuts, but it is a position I actually have a fair amount of confidence in.

Why?

In part because Phil Steele says, "No matter who wins the starting job, Cal should have significantly improved passing numbers."

And, I agree...

• Pre-injury Nate Longshore was pretty decent. Not great, decent. If the injury was the problem all along last season, there is a chance that he will be a pretty good quarterback in 2008. I believe it was a nagging injury - after the WSU game last season, on the radio Tedford basically said that Longshore had been lying to him about the injury all season.  But, Longshore is not the key to the season, because...
• Kevin Riley is really good. Like Aaron Rodgers good. Longshore has the experience, but clearly the future of the team is with Riley, who still has three (3) years of eligibility.

In the end though, I am not really sure that this is a case of experience versus potential. I think it is just common sense.

Riley, in the Armed Forces Bowl, played a better game than Longshore has ever played. He played a better game than nearly any quarterback has ever played. That isn't potential, that is on-the-field performance.  On-the-field performance is where Longshore really struggles, especially in his exceedingly lame fourth quarters.

Riley could play at about 70% of his Armed Forces Bowl level, and be much better than Longshore on a good day (maybe not on Longshore's best day.) If Riley can be 90% of his Armed Forces Bowl level, he will be the best Cal QB ever.

That is why, it goes without saying, that Riley will be the starter.

4. Jahvid Best

I was pretty much the biggest Jahvid Best fan in the world before last year, and continue to be the biggest Jahvid Best fan on the planet. We have seen the potential. Unfortunately, hip injuries are really scary. And when a guy's talent is his (absurd) speed, well, hip injuries are that much scarier.

But remember, if he is OK, he is going to be one of the ten most exciting players in the nation. This means watching football will be pretty fun.

5. The 3-4.

Finally, the bend-don't-break has been declared unfixable. This can't be anything but good news in my opinion. There was nothing worse than the feeling of see the cracks form in the middle of the defense, then the rifts, and finally the canyons and hoping that Bob Gregory had enough duct tape to hold it together for another win.

The 3-4 should put us on the offensive (or as offensive as defense can get.) With about eighty-five good linebackers on the roster (Felder, Williams, Follett, Eddie Young, Mike Mohamed...) they should be freed up to make plays. It should also take pressure off our rather thin defensive line. Unlike last year, we will have more of our best players on the field at any given time. I have hope that Derrick Hill will be an immovable but athletic force in the middle - he showed flashes last year (and had more tackles than the departed Malele.) Should be fun, and interesting. Follett should Erik Ainge numerous fools.

via media.knoxnews.com

6. Frank Cignetti

The guy seems like he can coach a great, no gimmicks offense. An offense that Tedford won't feel uncomfortable leaving in Cignetti's hands - unlike the Dunbar disaster in 2006.

---
All of the above give me hope. It is the beginning on July, and I can't stop thinking about college football... of tailgating (semi-unfortunately in Austin, not Berkeley), College GameDay, college overtime, BCS rankings, and defending Pac-10 honor.

I can see August 30th already. I see Kevin Riley taking the snap alongside a healthy Jahvid Best. I see a relaxed Tedford freed from the drama (and expectations) of 2007. I see Bob Gregory finally having a defense that fits his personnel.

Oh, and I see the chain saw slices through trees.

A guy can hope.