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$C
#18 fUCLA
We lost by a larger margin against the following teams:
Arizona by 18 points
Washington State by 19 points
Oregon State by 28 points
Outlier in the sense that it coincided with the expectation:
It was the worst call I have ever witnessed. We likely would have won the game if it weren't for the referees. This situation continues to exemplify how we tend to perform better as underdogs, in contrast to our preseason expectations.
Love that bell curve. I also live the 12-0 season where all the conferences come on bended knees. 💐 🌹 🌸. What ever prediction model they used is likely correct. 6 to 7 wins.
For reference, here is what ESPN FPI forecasts for each game (with W4C in parentheses):
1) @ UNT: 75.4% (76.3%)
2) vs AU: 54.1% (46.5%)
3) vs ID: 96.8% (86.3%)
4) @ UW: 31.7% (36.0%)
5) vs ASU: 72.8% (64.3%)
6) vs OSU: 44.1% (52.6%)
7) @ UT: 17.7% (27.2%)
8) vs U$C: 23.9% (36.2%)
9) @ OR: 21.7% (30.2%)
10) vs WSU: 71.1% (59.9%)
11) @ LSJU: 67.6% (78.0%)
12) @ fUCLA: 37.6% (44.5%)
TOTAL: 6.15 6.38
So, W4C seems to simultaneously pessimistic regarding the sturdy Golden Bears versus the meh to bad teams (aside from Leland Jr) on the schedule while being optimistic regarding our chances versus the good teams on the schedule. We are used to the madness of WilcoxBall. Overall win total ends up in a pretty similar place. 6-6 with a late December game against a middling team in the All Coast Conference would be welcome after two disappointing seasons.
A useful comparison that makes our predictions seem less homer-like. Does anyone at w4c know how well calibrated our preseason predictions tend to be, year in year out?
Expectations above seem unreasonably elevated vs OSU, and probably ASU, given where they sit in the schedule. OSU will probably be favored, based on what we know today, and ASU following a trip to Seattle is a trap game if ever there was one so soon after a probable Husky mauling.
Hopefully we do better, we will see how it goes this Saturday. I want to see us run it and run it often with success this year. We have the backs to do that. Go Bears.
Because that was when the conference flipped. Used to just be USC/Cal/UO in the 00's. Furd and UW really stepped their game up for the 10's, and we ended up with the hardest in-conference scheduling having to play UO/UW/Furd/USC/UCLA every year in addition to WSU peaking under Mike Leach right as we went into a rebuild.
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$C
#18 fUCLA
We lost by a larger margin against the following teams:
Arizona by 18 points
Washington State by 19 points
Oregon State by 28 points
Outlier in the sense that it coincided with the expectation:
Lost to #8 Oregon by 18
ND was skewed because of the Immaculate Encroachment.
It was the worst call I have ever witnessed. We likely would have won the game if it weren't for the referees. This situation continues to exemplify how we tend to perform better as underdogs, in contrast to our preseason expectations.
Yeah, thanks. You see a similar pattern in 2021.
"Satisfied" given:
1. Previous season
2. Our present skill/recruitment levels
Over five years, I expect to be progressively less satisfied with middling results. Our tolerance of middling is what put us behind the Eight Ball.
Win or die on the vine.
Go Bears!
Love that bell curve. I also live the 12-0 season where all the conferences come on bended knees. 💐 🌹 🌸. What ever prediction model they used is likely correct. 6 to 7 wins.
6-6. Usually I am in the voice of reason but I don't recall voting in the poll.
I need some of that Calamo ganja. Hell yes 12-0!!
For reference, here is what ESPN FPI forecasts for each game (with W4C in parentheses):
1) @ UNT: 75.4% (76.3%)
2) vs AU: 54.1% (46.5%)
3) vs ID: 96.8% (86.3%)
4) @ UW: 31.7% (36.0%)
5) vs ASU: 72.8% (64.3%)
6) vs OSU: 44.1% (52.6%)
7) @ UT: 17.7% (27.2%)
8) vs U$C: 23.9% (36.2%)
9) @ OR: 21.7% (30.2%)
10) vs WSU: 71.1% (59.9%)
11) @ LSJU: 67.6% (78.0%)
12) @ fUCLA: 37.6% (44.5%)
TOTAL: 6.15 6.38
So, W4C seems to simultaneously pessimistic regarding the sturdy Golden Bears versus the meh to bad teams (aside from Leland Jr) on the schedule while being optimistic regarding our chances versus the good teams on the schedule. We are used to the madness of WilcoxBall. Overall win total ends up in a pretty similar place. 6-6 with a late December game against a middling team in the All Coast Conference would be welcome after two disappointing seasons.
A useful comparison that makes our predictions seem less homer-like. Does anyone at w4c know how well calibrated our preseason predictions tend to be, year in year out?
Must be Christmas. No L.
15-0
Expectations above seem unreasonably elevated vs OSU, and probably ASU, given where they sit in the schedule. OSU will probably be favored, based on what we know today, and ASU following a trip to Seattle is a trap game if ever there was one so soon after a probable Husky mauling.
Hopefully we do better, we will see how it goes this Saturday. I want to see us run it and run it often with success this year. We have the backs to do that. Go Bears.
The backs, the backs...we don't need no stinkin' backs.
WE NEED AN OL!!
LOL! Yes, we certainly do!
Because that was when the conference flipped. Used to just be USC/Cal/UO in the 00's. Furd and UW really stepped their game up for the 10's, and we ended up with the hardest in-conference scheduling having to play UO/UW/Furd/USC/UCLA every year in addition to WSU peaking under Mike Leach right as we went into a rebuild.
In true Cal fashion, our timing sucks.