Fellow Cal fans: While it is obvious that we are the #1 public university (hell, #1 university period), I hope that all of the online taunting doesn't backfire on us this Friday and we get curb-stomped by that other UC. I have a hard time seeing fUCLA dropping three in a row, especially to a team that struggled to run against the worst rushing defenses (Colorado and Stanfurd) in the Pac-12. Football gods, pray for us.
Little known fact, but on his infamous Bronco run, USC grad OJ Simpson was trying to drive to UCLA as a place to hide. Apparently, it's the last place you'd expect to find a good football player.
Thanks for the super-detailed write-up Christopher.
While you have enumerated fUCLA's strengths, you have also pointed out their weaknesses - and that's why Cal is going to win on Friday afternoon. Also, we outnumber UCLA in terms of Nobel Laureates 22-8, not even close!!!
> "I don't get all the emphasis on the academic standing of universities on a football blog"
1. This is a Cal blog, not a football blog.
2. It speaks to an inferiority complex; an unearned arrogance born of a culture fragility and overcompensation. It's crucial to understanding UCLA.
> "I would say Stanford and UCLA are respectable universities"
I would say that a ham sandwich has sufficient nutritional value, but you won't see me bragging to everyone in earshot that the ham sandwich is the best lunch I've every had, definitely the #1 rated lunch according to some trash magazine that validates my hurt feelings, and who even wants a wagyu ribeye anyway?
Uh, no, I mean that it's a Cal blog. I'm not writing for some stuffy and dying newspaper, I'm writing for a _Cal blog_. I have no obligation to be fair objective (although I think I generally am when discussing Cal's opponents), nor do I care to. If you don't like it, you're more than welcome to get your Cal football news elsewhere. In fact, I'd prefer it.
Ah, no wonder you mistakenly think anyone cares what you have to say. I was wondering how you reconciled your awful takes with your complete lack of knowledge, but I think this explains it. It's funny to me in these football press conferences and media gatherings etc, that the absolute dumbest, most uninformed questions or opinions were always being blurted out by "real journalists."
I took a cursory glance at the list, and it looks like most of those top QBs are great at running the ball. If no one is open, instead of throwing an incompletion, you just run the ball. I suppose that's good for "passing efficiency" too.
I'm saying they're related. A QB that is really good at running the ball has no need to make risky throws that might be defended (PBU, INT, incompletion, etc), which would improve passing efficiency stats. Even the threat of running the ball means a defense has to commit defenders to stop the run, which can also help receivers get open for further easy completions.
I don't use stats to rank quarterbacks, so I'm not a good person to ask. Teams are increasingly relying on a short passing game, and I'm going to guess that a lot of short, easy completions are good for "efficiency," but it doesn't really tell me anything about that QB. I would bet Mike Leach QBs would dominate rankings like that just because of the offense he runs, and his QBs have ranged from anonymous to NFL-caliber, but I'd guess you wouldn't be able to tell which was which from the stats.
> "Saying Jadyn Ott is better than Charbonnet doesn't make any sense."
Yet another trash take. It makes perfect sense. Jaydn Ott is a better running back and has a much higher ceiling, because he is just as good at breaking tackles but has like twice the speed. All you're really saying is that UCLA has a better offensive line than Cal, which is a shock to absolutely no one who has watched a single Cal game.
Well if you don't find my "information valuable", how about you go stick to Canzano and Wilner and Faraudo and whoever else? It's like you fundamentally don't understand sports blogs. You're not my target audience; Cal fans are. This isn't a job for me, where I answer to editors or whatever it is you do. I already have a fulltime job, I'm spending my free time watching and covering Pac-12 football so that I can share my passion for Cal football with others. I spend an absurd amount of time studying Pac-12 games, making and uploading relevant clips, and then assembling them into some sort of narrative, and I do it all for free. And your entire argument is an enormous waste of time and space anyway, because my football coverage of Cal's opponents IS unbiased. I've been generally pretty spot on when discussing the talent levels of various players, and you can go through any of my old articles and see that they hold up pretty well (I can tell you off the top of my head, my only real misses were Luke Falk and Gardner Minshew). And because I'm writing for a Cal audience, I may occasionally take some cheap shots at Stanford or UCLA or whoever else, and that's my prerogative. So again, if you don't like it: Leave.
It seems like a stat that should exist in some advanced metrics somewhere (PFF?), like average yards before first contact, and I'd bet anything that Charbonnet gets way more of them than Ott, through no fault of his own. Even still, it wouldn't be a perfect metric, because it wouldn't quantify times when defenders were in the Cal backfield and didn't make contact with Ott because Ott made them miss. And it also wouldn't quantify the downfield blocks Charbonnet gets that Ott doesn't.
I'm not knocking Charbonnet at all, I think he's a fantastic running back, the 2nd best in the conference, and one of the top RBs in the FBS. But Ott, even as a true freshman, is a more complete back. I hope Cal is able to upgrade the offensive line in the off-season so that Ott can start getting the national respect commensurate with his talent.
I think your talking about the old pitch and student body left, student body right rushing offense. It works great if the O-line blocks. Not only Simpson but also figures like Charles White and Marcus Allen at SC were known for that. My first year of attending Cal games Marcus Allen ran for over 200 yards against the Bears at Memorial on his way to 2342 yards for the season.
Fellow Cal fans: While it is obvious that we are the #1 public university (hell, #1 university period), I hope that all of the online taunting doesn't backfire on us this Friday and we get curb-stomped by that other UC. I have a hard time seeing fUCLA dropping three in a row, especially to a team that struggled to run against the worst rushing defenses (Colorado and Stanfurd) in the Pac-12. Football gods, pray for us.
UCLA is heavily favored. If we lose, that's not a backfire.
UCLA JUST LOST TO Universiy of Second ChOICE! GERBEAR
Little known fact, but on his infamous Bronco run, USC grad OJ Simpson was trying to drive to UCLA as a place to hide. Apparently, it's the last place you'd expect to find a good football player.
I remember seeing that same ad a couple of weeks ago and rolling my eyes.
Thanks for the super-detailed write-up Christopher.
While you have enumerated fUCLA's strengths, you have also pointed out their weaknesses - and that's why Cal is going to win on Friday afternoon. Also, we outnumber UCLA in terms of Nobel Laureates 22-8, not even close!!!
> "I don't get all the emphasis on the academic standing of universities on a football blog"
1. This is a Cal blog, not a football blog.
2. It speaks to an inferiority complex; an unearned arrogance born of a culture fragility and overcompensation. It's crucial to understanding UCLA.
> "I would say Stanford and UCLA are respectable universities"
I would say that a ham sandwich has sufficient nutritional value, but you won't see me bragging to everyone in earshot that the ham sandwich is the best lunch I've every had, definitely the #1 rated lunch according to some trash magazine that validates my hurt feelings, and who even wants a wagyu ribeye anyway?
No, this is a Cal/UC Berkeley blog. We discuss not just football but basketball, olympic sports, et al. And if needed also cover University news etc.
Uh, no, I mean that it's a Cal blog. I'm not writing for some stuffy and dying newspaper, I'm writing for a _Cal blog_. I have no obligation to be fair objective (although I think I generally am when discussing Cal's opponents), nor do I care to. If you don't like it, you're more than welcome to get your Cal football news elsewhere. In fact, I'd prefer it.
> As a retired journalist
Ah, no wonder you mistakenly think anyone cares what you have to say. I was wondering how you reconciled your awful takes with your complete lack of knowledge, but I think this explains it. It's funny to me in these football press conferences and media gatherings etc, that the absolute dumbest, most uninformed questions or opinions were always being blurted out by "real journalists."
It’s a rivalry, of course we will poke fun in good nature. most of the universities in the pac12 are respectable. :)
May I interest you in the SI Page for Cal?
I took a cursory glance at the list, and it looks like most of those top QBs are great at running the ball. If no one is open, instead of throwing an incompletion, you just run the ball. I suppose that's good for "passing efficiency" too.
I'm saying they're related. A QB that is really good at running the ball has no need to make risky throws that might be defended (PBU, INT, incompletion, etc), which would improve passing efficiency stats. Even the threat of running the ball means a defense has to commit defenders to stop the run, which can also help receivers get open for further easy completions.
I don't use stats to rank quarterbacks, so I'm not a good person to ask. Teams are increasingly relying on a short passing game, and I'm going to guess that a lot of short, easy completions are good for "efficiency," but it doesn't really tell me anything about that QB. I would bet Mike Leach QBs would dominate rankings like that just because of the offense he runs, and his QBs have ranged from anonymous to NFL-caliber, but I'd guess you wouldn't be able to tell which was which from the stats.
> "Saying Jadyn Ott is better than Charbonnet doesn't make any sense."
Yet another trash take. It makes perfect sense. Jaydn Ott is a better running back and has a much higher ceiling, because he is just as good at breaking tackles but has like twice the speed. All you're really saying is that UCLA has a better offensive line than Cal, which is a shock to absolutely no one who has watched a single Cal game.
Well if you don't find my "information valuable", how about you go stick to Canzano and Wilner and Faraudo and whoever else? It's like you fundamentally don't understand sports blogs. You're not my target audience; Cal fans are. This isn't a job for me, where I answer to editors or whatever it is you do. I already have a fulltime job, I'm spending my free time watching and covering Pac-12 football so that I can share my passion for Cal football with others. I spend an absurd amount of time studying Pac-12 games, making and uploading relevant clips, and then assembling them into some sort of narrative, and I do it all for free. And your entire argument is an enormous waste of time and space anyway, because my football coverage of Cal's opponents IS unbiased. I've been generally pretty spot on when discussing the talent levels of various players, and you can go through any of my old articles and see that they hold up pretty well (I can tell you off the top of my head, my only real misses were Luke Falk and Gardner Minshew). And because I'm writing for a Cal audience, I may occasionally take some cheap shots at Stanford or UCLA or whoever else, and that's my prerogative. So again, if you don't like it: Leave.
It seems like a stat that should exist in some advanced metrics somewhere (PFF?), like average yards before first contact, and I'd bet anything that Charbonnet gets way more of them than Ott, through no fault of his own. Even still, it wouldn't be a perfect metric, because it wouldn't quantify times when defenders were in the Cal backfield and didn't make contact with Ott because Ott made them miss. And it also wouldn't quantify the downfield blocks Charbonnet gets that Ott doesn't.
I'm not knocking Charbonnet at all, I think he's a fantastic running back, the 2nd best in the conference, and one of the top RBs in the FBS. But Ott, even as a true freshman, is a more complete back. I hope Cal is able to upgrade the offensive line in the off-season so that Ott can start getting the national respect commensurate with his talent.
I think your talking about the old pitch and student body left, student body right rushing offense. It works great if the O-line blocks. Not only Simpson but also figures like Charles White and Marcus Allen at SC were known for that. My first year of attending Cal games Marcus Allen ran for over 200 yards against the Bears at Memorial on his way to 2342 yards for the season.