Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Henndog's avatar

One thing I've noticed is that, especially in PAC-12 play, we tend to give ourselves better odds against what we perceive as lesser or equal competition, while having the opposite view against stronger teams. While this might appear to be common sense, a closer examination of our wins and losses from last year uncovers a different pattern. Many of our closely contested games were against teams we initially considered stronger, while we encountered more difficulties against opponents we believed we should have defeated. I'm grappling with understanding this conundrum, and my current interpretation is that the teams we categorize as 'weaker' or 'beatable' view us as their must-win games. Consequently, they elevate their performance beyond the norm to secure a victory against us. The question remains: why do we seem to adopt a similar approach against better competition, although resulting in close losses against teams with superior records, yet not against lower-ranked teams? This dilemma leads us to experience anticlimactic losses against strong teams and incredibly disheartening defeats against middle to lower-ranking PAC teams.

Last year we lost by one score at Notre Dame.

#9 U$C

#18 fUCLA

We lost by a larger margin against the following teams:

Arizona by 18 points

Washington State by 19 points

Oregon State by 28 points

Outlier in the sense that it coincided with the expectation:

Lost to #8 Oregon by 18

Expand full comment
Bowlesman 80's avatar

"Satisfied" given:

1. Previous season

2. Our present skill/recruitment levels

Over five years, I expect to be progressively less satisfied with middling results. Our tolerance of middling is what put us behind the Eight Ball.

Win or die on the vine.

Go Bears!

Expand full comment
14 more comments...