No clue as to what our record may be. Every year is a tough schedule for Cal in PAC 12 North. I consider this the first true year under the Musgrave offense so I expect a lot of kinks will need to be worked out and mixing and matching of personnel. Not sure what the OL will look like but still no confidence in that unit until they actually show up. If the OL isn't massively improved then you can fuggetttaboutit, Cal will be pressed to put points on the board. I, for one, will definitely have a raised eyebrow should Daltoso start at right tackle, WTF!!
DL should be significantly improved with the only caveat that we don't know the extent of the injuries. If BJ is out for most of summer conditioning and camp that won't be good (no idea the extent of his injury and wasn't aware of it until the spring game). The return (hopefully) of Maldonado would be a YUGE lift to the interior line. Linebackers should be good even with 2 new ILBs. Safeties, as well, should be solid. The youth and inexperience at corners may take some time to ease in. So, they will need to show the moxie required to play every down in a PAC 12 game prior to facing teams like $C and Wazzu. I don't expect we will see the stellar play at corner that we've been accustomed to during the Wilcox era until mid to late season.
Special teams, meh. Ragle was brought in to recruit a geographical area. It seems he spent a lot of time trying to get the AZ job and another job as well (Montana State, IIRC). So, it is not clear where his head is at.
Injuries. Welp, if Garbers goes down mid season Cal fans can kiss the baby!! All other position groups have better depth now given some stellar recruiting (how abut the staff keeping this past year's class together during the pandemic!!).
So I'll wait to see how the summer camp goes before jumping into the fray on potential record. But yeah like any other year it's a tough schedule. Two things will pique me interest during summer camp: 1) OL, OL, OL 2) Millner. Woops, I guess that is 4 things, how do I edit me post?
Re: QB depth - please start Zach Johnson & play him at least half of the Sac St game. Purely as a scripted learning opportunity, no dis intended toward Garbers. Will pay more dividends down the road than as a scrimmage for Garbers. Same for mop-up time in one-sided games. reps!
I like the kid and he's obviously a great teammate. But four years into the Wilcox era is enough time to develop other talent. Recruiting on the OL hasn't been great but it isn't bad either. Notably Craig & Mettauer come to mind. I'd like to see Driscoll get some PT at center this year. The Freshman Swinney could turn out to be special, very good athlete for a big man.
Here's an OL I'd like to see playing together: LT Craig, LG Cindric, C Driscoll, RG Mettauer, LG Rohme/Mello.
Nisich was a kid that I had high hopes for. He's been moved from DL to OL and now back to DL. Hell if the kid is that talented (& smart) to be on both sides of the ball there must be some PT for him somewhere. Also he's a former wrestler and those guys are beasts in the trenches.
I feel like Daltoso holds the starter moniker for the sake of him being a senior on this squad, going through many offensive transformations when in reality what he brings to the table can be replicated by a sophomore. ILB's in my opinion were a pain for us last year, getting caught in jump cuts by RB's, crossing routes, and wheel routes, but I am hopeful they can step it up in the long run. Having Anusiem, Drayden, and Hicks (still don't know why he's at safety) will be a good start for the secondary but I feel that guys like Humphries and Gamble could make a difference given the raw in game experience that comes with the painful mistakes at time. Musgrave's offense is just naturally just more flowing than Baldwin's, we had a lot more yards and ball movement than the last few years and while we still can't convert a 3rd and 1 running up the middle, I'm confident this offense will take a much needed leap in terms of fluidity and play action passing.
I don't even care at this point. I am just: a) happy at the prospect of having a regular, full season; and b) at the same place this year I am every year (until the sobering realities of mid-season come through) which is unbridled enthusiasm for a 12-0 regular season despite any evidence to the contrary.
I always find it interesting how others grade our opponents over the season and suggest which teams we should beat and which teams we may have a tough time with. Let's start with my first premise that I learned while I coached: there are no sure wins. Every coach knows this and they need to instill this belief into their players so they practice hard and prepare for the 'loser' teams the same way they prepare for the 'winner' teams. While on paper talent levels between teams may look very different, on the field its narrow enough that game results often comes down to who makes the most mistakes versus who has the better talent. Better talent is ALWAYS a benefit and sometimes forces weaker teams to make mistakes, but good teams with good talent have lost to lesser teams because of lack of preparation. Remember when we came up to play UNR and Kaepernick was there QB and we got our asses handed to us? I hope our kids are reminded of this as they prepare. TCU is going to be a challenge as an away game. Sac State we should win but they have a very innovative HC in Troy Taylor and he will come with a great game plan. Expect surprises. UW will be interesting. We've beat them the last two times we played them. Why should that change? WASU will be interesting. This is a team I would admit we should beat, but Rolovich will have a year under his belt and the kids will learn his nuances of the Air Raid and I expect them to be much improved this year. With respect to the Ducks: they have talent galore but we beat them last year and we'll beat them again. Why? We have better coaches and will come with a better game plan and schemes. I expect DeRuyter to come at Garbers with a lot of pressure because its the only way they can beat him. If Chase learns to take what the defense gives him and uses outlet passes, it could be a good day for the Bears. Colorado played well this past season. Dorrell had them playing good football. If that is a sign of things to come, it will make for an interesting match up this year. OSU scares me. I think their young head coach is amongst the best in the PAC12. His kids come ready to play and are prepared. His schemes are good and he does have decent talent. They will be a true test. Arizona I have no idea about. I would think because they have gone through a coaching change that they will struggle a bit this year. But I could be completely wrong. new coach, new culture and new discipline might be all they need to step up their game. USC: USC is like Oregon, they have great talent. But like Oregon I'm not super impressed with the preparedness of the team come game day. With good schemes we can beat USC and I'll take our coaches over theirs any day of the weak. Stanfurd is gonna be tough. Shaw is a helluva coach despite his record the last two years. He's dealt with some pretty heavy personal stuff that is now in the rear view mirror. Stanfurd continues to recruit well. Their kids are smart and their coaches are good and they will be tough. UCLA is going to be tough. Chip Kelly is recruiting better and Dorian Thompson-Robinson is playing the best football of his career. Chip Kelly knows how to call a game that ties us up in knots. I expect this game to be very tough especially as its played away. One piece of good news for us is that the former UCLA QB coach retired this year. We can win the conference and the championship with our kids. What its going to come down to is: 1. How Garbers plays will be how our season goes. 2.That means our second most important factor us Offensive line play. If they open holes for our run game then Musgraves offense should work and Garbers will have success throwing the ball. 3. Our D-line will need to be able to stop the run. IF we can clog up the middle then our linebackers have the speed and athleticism to make plays and I believe our secondary is still the strongest part of our defense. 4. Special Teams play needs to improve. If special teams plays like they did last year we will have a rough season. If we can keep from getting punts and kicks blocked and if we can get downfield to make tackles, we should be in good shape. Remember: there are no guaranteed wins. It should be a fun season because every team CAL will face knows they are facing a much improved and well coached team. The talking heads may never say it but the Bears are a legit contender for the PAC12 North. Go Bears!!
Very nice, thanks for your thoughts. One note about WASU specifically: Rolovich is "Run and Shoot" not Air Raid, and also has a big time talent "dual" QB transfer from Tennessee (which might not mean anything, but worth noting)
Mar 25, 2021Liked by Berkelium97, SGBear, Rob Hwang, Ruey Yen
We have decided to delete a comment that used an inaccurate term for SARS-CoV-2—i.e., the virus that causes COVID-19. The comment in question used a term that has been linked to a rise in anti-Asian rhetoric on Twitter [1] at a time when hate crimes against Asians have increased by a huge percentage [2] with countless senseless attacks on Asians—elders in particular—and the mass murder of six Asian women in Atlanta [3]. Beyond that, it's also just dumb because it's a vague and ambiguous term compared to those that actually link the virus to the relevant year and outbreak.
Yeah, I cringed when I read that, though you can tell from the rest of the post it wasn't meant to be hateful, just ignorant of the situation. My mom's husband steadfastly uses this term, and there's no amount of explaining you can do.. In fact this type of person doesnt understand the word "problematic" let alone have any context outside their limited world view. Its a derogatory term either way at this point. Some use it to express their Nationalism, against China the economic rival country (most claiming to be in this camp) and some just use it as a thinly veiled avenue for their racism and hatred in general, and some of the former are actually in both camps without having the meta cognition to know it. It's pretty annoying.
If one took into account the actions of the country in question it would be difficult to call the comment "ignorant". However, no one here does. My wife's family was destroyed by that country in question and the leaders of that country today are making the actions against their people look benevolent. But, hey, facts don't matter anymore. Only "feelings" do. Pathetic!
False equivalence or strawman, take your pick but I don't see anyone defending the CCP as you suggest. But tropes and stereotypes being utilized with an intention of whipping up xenophobia for people of Chinese ancestry, and really for anyone perceived to be Asian for that matter is indefensible, particularly when evidence, as Leland points out, that such language results in deadly violence. If you've studied any genocide in human history you'd know that dehumanization always starts with language intended to dehumanize and create a culture of permissive violence against the targets of such language. There is no good an evil in this world. There are ordinary people who will commit unimaginable atrocities, both as individuals and collectively, and it all starts with the very type of dehumanizing language you are defending here.
I didnt call the comment "ignorant" in general as you suggested by singling out that one word, but I said "ignorant of the situation." The "situation" being that it affects people's "feelings" (in quotes as you put it) in ways that weren't necessarily intended. Not knowing or realizing or being aware of or educated on something (like the real impact of your specific words, as just one example) I think is pretty much the definition of "ignorant", and not in any inflammatory way. It just is what it is. Also the next time you feel it's necessarily to put the word "feelings" in quotes, do some research on mental health or talk to a victim, or the family member of a victim, of a hate crime and spend a couple seconds considering if you should still use the quotes.
I have clearly provided sources that link the *facts* that the language you used is the direct cause of hate crimes, assaults, and deaths. No one brought up "feelings" but you.
There were no "facts" in any of those articles you linked that provided evidence that that term was the cause of any of those crimes. Only opinions. And, of course, left wing snowflake opinions are the only one's allowed by the "woke" of this so called forum. The "facts" show that the cause of over 2 million deaths were the result of the choices that one country in the world made. I'll not bother this forum again. I'm simply not "woke" enough for any of you! GO BEARS, ANYWAY!
Yeah the problem just is when such a large number of people are so off base and cant understand what is problematic, or why, let alone what that even means, there's really nothing to agree on.
To add on to Leland, here are our guidelines to the site and our community. We’ve rarely had to post this as our community has done a good job keeping their comments in check. But for reference sake.
Leland - thank U for letting us know. I’m sad that someone posting to this blog would do that, PARTICULARLY if it was one of us regulars. I know we have different political opinions, but respect for others is a core tenet of decency and I like to think of this blog as a safe and decent place in the wilds of the internet. And a site w decency where we can talk Cal
Sports is part of what makes me happy. So thank you!
To be fair, the comment in question was not actively promoting hate or discrimination—it was just using a problematic term. Hopefully it was just made in ignorance of the issues and current events. We are going to reach out to the commenter in question and invite them to repost their comment without that term.
I appreciate how you are navigating this issue, and I'm pretty sure what "level" of ignorance was reflected in the deleted comment. I can tell from the banter over the last many years that we are an educated community that likely knows a) numerous respectful ways to reference Covid19, and b) knows when we are using a politically or racially-tinted term that has the strong potential to offend other readers, at the very least, and to at worst, as you pointed out very well, incite violence against individuals of a group that have no responsibility WHATSOEVER for the condition our country and world is in. As I age I have less patience for that sort of behavior, and I'm pretty sure I never should have had patience for it..... Maybe THIS is why I'M not a moderator....... Again, thank you.
We’re going to have to buck some trends and beat teams we have not been beating (U of A, SC)...the 7-5, 6-6, range is reasonable, given that we struggle with injuries every year. If we can run Musgrave’s offense semi-efficiently, limit turnovers, make some f-ing FGs, and avoid giving games away on special teams, 8-4 is not out of cards, tho every game is gonna be a dog fight.
I’d be pleased with another bowl game as Wilcox continues to build the program after a very solid recruiting year...start becoming a yearly bowl team, and keep building. Go Bears.
Tough schedule I agree. While I hope we can be 9-3 or better I am afraid it is not in the cards. 8-4 as you guys suggest is probably about the best we can do. The tendency to play close games going down to the wire benefited us in past years (wins over Washington, Sanford, and SC come to mind) but last year the pendulum swung in the opposite direction. It would be nice to not have to try to run out the clock during the entire fourth quarter.
Given the brutal road schedule I believe we need to go 5-1 at home (6-0 would be preferable). That way a split on the road leaves us at 8-4, our best regular season win total in over ten years. BTW any idea why we always end with two road games in odd years and two home games in even years? It contributes to the feast or famine nature of our odd/even year schedules.
I think the short answer regarding ending the season either at home or on the road is "Notre Dame". ND has rotating series with both Stanford and USC, and they always play one in South Bend in October and end the season on the road in California vs the other (sure beats Indiana weather in late November). This is also why Stanford and USC have typically had their matchup during mid-September, so that they both have a conference season slot open for ND later in the season.
This brings us to Rivalry matchups at the end of the conference season (after Thanksgiving). Since either Stanford or USC will be playing ND that weekend, their rivalry game (vs Cal or UCLA, respectively) gets pushed up to the previous weekend. This often leads both Cal and UCLA needing opponents the last week of the season, and the last few years it's seemed easiest to have them schedule each other.
So, in odd years, you get the following games, just based on the historical rotation of home-and-away in the various series:
Stanford @ USC
USC @ Notre Dame
UCLA @ Stanford
USC @ Cal
UCLA @ USC
Cal @ Stanford
Cal @ UCLA
Notre Dame @ Stanford
And then you get the reverse during the even years.
No clue as to what our record may be. Every year is a tough schedule for Cal in PAC 12 North. I consider this the first true year under the Musgrave offense so I expect a lot of kinks will need to be worked out and mixing and matching of personnel. Not sure what the OL will look like but still no confidence in that unit until they actually show up. If the OL isn't massively improved then you can fuggetttaboutit, Cal will be pressed to put points on the board. I, for one, will definitely have a raised eyebrow should Daltoso start at right tackle, WTF!!
DL should be significantly improved with the only caveat that we don't know the extent of the injuries. If BJ is out for most of summer conditioning and camp that won't be good (no idea the extent of his injury and wasn't aware of it until the spring game). The return (hopefully) of Maldonado would be a YUGE lift to the interior line. Linebackers should be good even with 2 new ILBs. Safeties, as well, should be solid. The youth and inexperience at corners may take some time to ease in. So, they will need to show the moxie required to play every down in a PAC 12 game prior to facing teams like $C and Wazzu. I don't expect we will see the stellar play at corner that we've been accustomed to during the Wilcox era until mid to late season.
Special teams, meh. Ragle was brought in to recruit a geographical area. It seems he spent a lot of time trying to get the AZ job and another job as well (Montana State, IIRC). So, it is not clear where his head is at.
Injuries. Welp, if Garbers goes down mid season Cal fans can kiss the baby!! All other position groups have better depth now given some stellar recruiting (how abut the staff keeping this past year's class together during the pandemic!!).
So I'll wait to see how the summer camp goes before jumping into the fray on potential record. But yeah like any other year it's a tough schedule. Two things will pique me interest during summer camp: 1) OL, OL, OL 2) Millner. Woops, I guess that is 4 things, how do I edit me post?
Re: QB depth - please start Zach Johnson & play him at least half of the Sac St game. Purely as a scripted learning opportunity, no dis intended toward Garbers. Will pay more dividends down the road than as a scrimmage for Garbers. Same for mop-up time in one-sided games. reps!
^^^^^ THIS!!!
Excellent comments Taco and 100% agree about Daltoso. He's tough and works hard but has limited athletic ability.
I like the kid and he's obviously a great teammate. But four years into the Wilcox era is enough time to develop other talent. Recruiting on the OL hasn't been great but it isn't bad either. Notably Craig & Mettauer come to mind. I'd like to see Driscoll get some PT at center this year. The Freshman Swinney could turn out to be special, very good athlete for a big man.
Here's an OL I'd like to see playing together: LT Craig, LG Cindric, C Driscoll, RG Mettauer, LG Rohme/Mello.
Nisich was a kid that I had high hopes for. He's been moved from DL to OL and now back to DL. Hell if the kid is that talented (& smart) to be on both sides of the ball there must be some PT for him somewhere. Also he's a former wrestler and those guys are beasts in the trenches.
Those are solid choices for a starting O-Line.
I feel like Daltoso holds the starter moniker for the sake of him being a senior on this squad, going through many offensive transformations when in reality what he brings to the table can be replicated by a sophomore. ILB's in my opinion were a pain for us last year, getting caught in jump cuts by RB's, crossing routes, and wheel routes, but I am hopeful they can step it up in the long run. Having Anusiem, Drayden, and Hicks (still don't know why he's at safety) will be a good start for the secondary but I feel that guys like Humphries and Gamble could make a difference given the raw in game experience that comes with the painful mistakes at time. Musgrave's offense is just naturally just more flowing than Baldwin's, we had a lot more yards and ball movement than the last few years and while we still can't convert a 3rd and 1 running up the middle, I'm confident this offense will take a much needed leap in terms of fluidity and play action passing.
I don't even care at this point. I am just: a) happy at the prospect of having a regular, full season; and b) at the same place this year I am every year (until the sobering realities of mid-season come through) which is unbridled enthusiasm for a 12-0 regular season despite any evidence to the contrary.
I’m hopeful that Wilcox is unaffected by our road history at Arizona..... dang it.....
We already have been beaten in Arizona under Wilcox, it was the Brandon McIlwain experiment. We were ahead for awhile then (poof!).
Right, but it's the "once in 30 years" history I'm talking about.....
I always find it interesting how others grade our opponents over the season and suggest which teams we should beat and which teams we may have a tough time with. Let's start with my first premise that I learned while I coached: there are no sure wins. Every coach knows this and they need to instill this belief into their players so they practice hard and prepare for the 'loser' teams the same way they prepare for the 'winner' teams. While on paper talent levels between teams may look very different, on the field its narrow enough that game results often comes down to who makes the most mistakes versus who has the better talent. Better talent is ALWAYS a benefit and sometimes forces weaker teams to make mistakes, but good teams with good talent have lost to lesser teams because of lack of preparation. Remember when we came up to play UNR and Kaepernick was there QB and we got our asses handed to us? I hope our kids are reminded of this as they prepare. TCU is going to be a challenge as an away game. Sac State we should win but they have a very innovative HC in Troy Taylor and he will come with a great game plan. Expect surprises. UW will be interesting. We've beat them the last two times we played them. Why should that change? WASU will be interesting. This is a team I would admit we should beat, but Rolovich will have a year under his belt and the kids will learn his nuances of the Air Raid and I expect them to be much improved this year. With respect to the Ducks: they have talent galore but we beat them last year and we'll beat them again. Why? We have better coaches and will come with a better game plan and schemes. I expect DeRuyter to come at Garbers with a lot of pressure because its the only way they can beat him. If Chase learns to take what the defense gives him and uses outlet passes, it could be a good day for the Bears. Colorado played well this past season. Dorrell had them playing good football. If that is a sign of things to come, it will make for an interesting match up this year. OSU scares me. I think their young head coach is amongst the best in the PAC12. His kids come ready to play and are prepared. His schemes are good and he does have decent talent. They will be a true test. Arizona I have no idea about. I would think because they have gone through a coaching change that they will struggle a bit this year. But I could be completely wrong. new coach, new culture and new discipline might be all they need to step up their game. USC: USC is like Oregon, they have great talent. But like Oregon I'm not super impressed with the preparedness of the team come game day. With good schemes we can beat USC and I'll take our coaches over theirs any day of the weak. Stanfurd is gonna be tough. Shaw is a helluva coach despite his record the last two years. He's dealt with some pretty heavy personal stuff that is now in the rear view mirror. Stanfurd continues to recruit well. Their kids are smart and their coaches are good and they will be tough. UCLA is going to be tough. Chip Kelly is recruiting better and Dorian Thompson-Robinson is playing the best football of his career. Chip Kelly knows how to call a game that ties us up in knots. I expect this game to be very tough especially as its played away. One piece of good news for us is that the former UCLA QB coach retired this year. We can win the conference and the championship with our kids. What its going to come down to is: 1. How Garbers plays will be how our season goes. 2.That means our second most important factor us Offensive line play. If they open holes for our run game then Musgraves offense should work and Garbers will have success throwing the ball. 3. Our D-line will need to be able to stop the run. IF we can clog up the middle then our linebackers have the speed and athleticism to make plays and I believe our secondary is still the strongest part of our defense. 4. Special Teams play needs to improve. If special teams plays like they did last year we will have a rough season. If we can keep from getting punts and kicks blocked and if we can get downfield to make tackles, we should be in good shape. Remember: there are no guaranteed wins. It should be a fun season because every team CAL will face knows they are facing a much improved and well coached team. The talking heads may never say it but the Bears are a legit contender for the PAC12 North. Go Bears!!
To summarize: This year we are good enough that, if the ball bounces the right way, we could win more games than we lose.
Very nice, thanks for your thoughts. One note about WASU specifically: Rolovich is "Run and Shoot" not Air Raid, and also has a big time talent "dual" QB transfer from Tennessee (which might not mean anything, but worth noting)
Great catch. Thanks!
Wonderful overview of your thoughts. Always good to read. Thanks.
Sorry for all my typos....I should have proofed what I wrote.
We have decided to delete a comment that used an inaccurate term for SARS-CoV-2—i.e., the virus that causes COVID-19. The comment in question used a term that has been linked to a rise in anti-Asian rhetoric on Twitter [1] at a time when hate crimes against Asians have increased by a huge percentage [2] with countless senseless attacks on Asians—elders in particular—and the mass murder of six Asian women in Atlanta [3]. Beyond that, it's also just dumb because it's a vague and ambiguous term compared to those that actually link the virus to the relevant year and outbreak.
If you have any questions or concerns, please email us at admin@writeforcalifornia.com.
[1] https://abcnews.go.com/Health/trumps-chinese-virus-tweet-helped-lead-rise-racist/story?id=76530148
[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/anti-asian-hate-crimes-increased-nearly-150-2020-mostly-n-n1260264
[3] https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/03/17/us/shooting-atlanta-acworth
It's ok to call it the Mack Brown virus, yes? I'm sure he had something to do with it.
Yeah, I cringed when I read that, though you can tell from the rest of the post it wasn't meant to be hateful, just ignorant of the situation. My mom's husband steadfastly uses this term, and there's no amount of explaining you can do.. In fact this type of person doesnt understand the word "problematic" let alone have any context outside their limited world view. Its a derogatory term either way at this point. Some use it to express their Nationalism, against China the economic rival country (most claiming to be in this camp) and some just use it as a thinly veiled avenue for their racism and hatred in general, and some of the former are actually in both camps without having the meta cognition to know it. It's pretty annoying.
If one took into account the actions of the country in question it would be difficult to call the comment "ignorant". However, no one here does. My wife's family was destroyed by that country in question and the leaders of that country today are making the actions against their people look benevolent. But, hey, facts don't matter anymore. Only "feelings" do. Pathetic!
False equivalence or strawman, take your pick but I don't see anyone defending the CCP as you suggest. But tropes and stereotypes being utilized with an intention of whipping up xenophobia for people of Chinese ancestry, and really for anyone perceived to be Asian for that matter is indefensible, particularly when evidence, as Leland points out, that such language results in deadly violence. If you've studied any genocide in human history you'd know that dehumanization always starts with language intended to dehumanize and create a culture of permissive violence against the targets of such language. There is no good an evil in this world. There are ordinary people who will commit unimaginable atrocities, both as individuals and collectively, and it all starts with the very type of dehumanizing language you are defending here.
I didnt call the comment "ignorant" in general as you suggested by singling out that one word, but I said "ignorant of the situation." The "situation" being that it affects people's "feelings" (in quotes as you put it) in ways that weren't necessarily intended. Not knowing or realizing or being aware of or educated on something (like the real impact of your specific words, as just one example) I think is pretty much the definition of "ignorant", and not in any inflammatory way. It just is what it is. Also the next time you feel it's necessarily to put the word "feelings" in quotes, do some research on mental health or talk to a victim, or the family member of a victim, of a hate crime and spend a couple seconds considering if you should still use the quotes.
I have clearly provided sources that link the *facts* that the language you used is the direct cause of hate crimes, assaults, and deaths. No one brought up "feelings" but you.
There were no "facts" in any of those articles you linked that provided evidence that that term was the cause of any of those crimes. Only opinions. And, of course, left wing snowflake opinions are the only one's allowed by the "woke" of this so called forum. The "facts" show that the cause of over 2 million deaths were the result of the choices that one country in the world made. I'll not bother this forum again. I'm simply not "woke" enough for any of you! GO BEARS, ANYWAY!
lmao you deadweight anyway
If we all just agreed to avoid words that are problematic, the world would be a much better place.
Yeah the problem just is when such a large number of people are so off base and cant understand what is problematic, or why, let alone what that even means, there's really nothing to agree on.
To add on to Leland, here are our guidelines to the site and our community. We’ve rarely had to post this as our community has done a good job keeping their comments in check. But for reference sake.
https://writeforcalifornia.com/p/write-for-california-community-guidelines
Leland - thank U for letting us know. I’m sad that someone posting to this blog would do that, PARTICULARLY if it was one of us regulars. I know we have different political opinions, but respect for others is a core tenet of decency and I like to think of this blog as a safe and decent place in the wilds of the internet. And a site w decency where we can talk Cal
Sports is part of what makes me happy. So thank you!
To be fair, the comment in question was not actively promoting hate or discrimination—it was just using a problematic term. Hopefully it was just made in ignorance of the issues and current events. We are going to reach out to the commenter in question and invite them to repost their comment without that term.
I appreciate how you are navigating this issue, and I'm pretty sure what "level" of ignorance was reflected in the deleted comment. I can tell from the banter over the last many years that we are an educated community that likely knows a) numerous respectful ways to reference Covid19, and b) knows when we are using a politically or racially-tinted term that has the strong potential to offend other readers, at the very least, and to at worst, as you pointed out very well, incite violence against individuals of a group that have no responsibility WHATSOEVER for the condition our country and world is in. As I age I have less patience for that sort of behavior, and I'm pretty sure I never should have had patience for it..... Maybe THIS is why I'M not a moderator....... Again, thank you.
I appreciate you saying that—I fervently hate moderating.
I guess I'm just willing to give the benefit of the doubt that the term was used in ignorance of the violence it is causing Americans right now.
I am most worried about the games we "should" win. That has been our biggest problem of late.
Cough, cough, Oregon State, cough.....
We’re going to have to buck some trends and beat teams we have not been beating (U of A, SC)...the 7-5, 6-6, range is reasonable, given that we struggle with injuries every year. If we can run Musgrave’s offense semi-efficiently, limit turnovers, make some f-ing FGs, and avoid giving games away on special teams, 8-4 is not out of cards, tho every game is gonna be a dog fight.
I’d be pleased with another bowl game as Wilcox continues to build the program after a very solid recruiting year...start becoming a yearly bowl team, and keep building. Go Bears.
Tough schedule I agree. While I hope we can be 9-3 or better I am afraid it is not in the cards. 8-4 as you guys suggest is probably about the best we can do. The tendency to play close games going down to the wire benefited us in past years (wins over Washington, Sanford, and SC come to mind) but last year the pendulum swung in the opposite direction. It would be nice to not have to try to run out the clock during the entire fourth quarter.
Given the brutal road schedule I believe we need to go 5-1 at home (6-0 would be preferable). That way a split on the road leaves us at 8-4, our best regular season win total in over ten years. BTW any idea why we always end with two road games in odd years and two home games in even years? It contributes to the feast or famine nature of our odd/even year schedules.
I think the short answer regarding ending the season either at home or on the road is "Notre Dame". ND has rotating series with both Stanford and USC, and they always play one in South Bend in October and end the season on the road in California vs the other (sure beats Indiana weather in late November). This is also why Stanford and USC have typically had their matchup during mid-September, so that they both have a conference season slot open for ND later in the season.
This brings us to Rivalry matchups at the end of the conference season (after Thanksgiving). Since either Stanford or USC will be playing ND that weekend, their rivalry game (vs Cal or UCLA, respectively) gets pushed up to the previous weekend. This often leads both Cal and UCLA needing opponents the last week of the season, and the last few years it's seemed easiest to have them schedule each other.
So, in odd years, you get the following games, just based on the historical rotation of home-and-away in the various series:
Stanford @ USC
USC @ Notre Dame
UCLA @ Stanford
USC @ Cal
UCLA @ USC
Cal @ Stanford
Cal @ UCLA
Notre Dame @ Stanford
And then you get the reverse during the even years.