DISQUS

I see that most of the games are losses, but shouldn't there be some sort of negative correlation here if our theory is that as the heat index goes up, we should lose by more points? Upon cursory visual inspection, there does appear to be somewhat of a negative correlation but extremely weak. I don't remember how to find regression lines (if that's what it's even called).

I'm liking Ohio State dropping like a rock. Also, where would you rank Cal outside of the top 25? around 30ish? 40ish? lower?

Good post. Insightful.

Thanks for clarifying your seeding process. Although, let's remember that the 2002 team would have made a bowl if we weren't on probation.

Entertaining posts, Avinash. I'm looking forward to the rest of them. I'm a bit perplexed to the seeding of the different years. I think I would have seeded differently, but that's just me ('07 really a #5 seed? '05 really a #3 seed?).

One question I do have though: are you using opening day rosters or end of the year rosters? Obviously this question is more determinative of the 2003 season (Robertson or Rodgers?) and the 2005 season (Longshore or Ayoob?).

Also, how does whatifsports determine the team's performance? By using the statistics for that year? That can be sort of mis-leading due to the variable strength of schedule from year to year as well as the team just underperforming in many areas despite us knowing that they were a lot better (2007 for example).

Well, obviously the 2004 team easy to like considering they were so dominant. But I sort of liked the 2002 "virgin" experience, and the 2006 team. The 2002 team was so fun to watch because that was my first year, and because it became very obvious that Tedford was special. The hope of the team's 70 point opener win and the upset of Michigan State set the tone of the team for the next 2 years. And the 2006 team, while not as dominant as the 2004 team, came extremely close to the Rose Bowl. Desean Jackson was a thrill to watch when he returned punts and BEAST MODE was incredible.

Well, you can't "pick" (basketball definition) in football. You can "pick" in a football meaning you sort of "accidentally" get in the way of the defender without completely obstructing his path to the ball or receiver.

It'd be interesting to see how often UCLA played a cover 4 on 3rd and mediums against base personnel. I sure as hell wouldn't expect UCLA to play a cover 4 against a 3rd and 6 with base personnel. While I'm not Tedford, I think Tedford would be too smart to call a play attacking a cover 4 in a situation where I would think most defenses would not play a cover 4.

Longshore sometimes does stare down his receivers. But what is also very ironic is how people never criticize QBs who complete passes to a receiver that they stared down. If we're going to start making this a rule that the QB can't throw to his first read (a receiver who he is staring down by not reading the other WRs), then we have to criticize QBs for completed passes to the first read. But it seems odd to criticize a QB for a completed pass to his first read if the first read is open. My point: I think that criticism of a QB because he doesn't go through his progressions must be tempered and cautiously distributed. Sometimes the first read is the open guy, and sometimes the defense just makes a great play.

I've already told all my friends that if they get married on the same day as a home Cal Football game that they shouldn't expect me to be at their wedding. I have priorities - and watching one of my friends make the biggest mistake of their life isn't one of them.

As for opening up practices, do we really need to do that just so fans can truly understand how hard the players work? Do you really need to see it for yourself? Just knowing that the players have a greater fall workload than any other Cal student on campus isn't enough? Must you get a copy of their fall daily schedule to see how many hours per day they devote to football until you can believe that they truly work hard?

As for the whole USC and Florida running open practices argument. The flaw with that argument is that those teams are USC and Florida. They are powerhouses. They are stocked with 4 and 5 star talent. Their second stringers could probably destroy the bottom half of teams in the NCAA. My point: they don't have to worry as much with their opponents knowing what they are doing because they are talented enough to get by with the other team knowing. For teams that are less talented, secrecy truly is valued more.

Wonderfully designed play. So intelligently thought out on so many levels. I think the fact that UCLA was probably more focused on stopping the run throughout the game played right into the double playaction. Definitely one of my favorite plays just by its design alone. Even if it didn't result in a touchdown I still have to give it an A+ for sheer genius.

You picked a very good play. This is one of those plays that Tedford likes to run out of different formations. In fact, I'm working on a bowl game analysis and a play that I picked is this same play. I think you are right in your conclusion that JT called this play knowing that the UCLA defense was probably going to be in a cover 2. The play works perfectly. The defenders responded to the offense just as the offense intended them to respond. I wouldn't be surprised if Longshore knew it was going to be a Craig Stevens touchdown prior to the snap.

I tried to leave a comment here this morning. Did it get lost in cyberspace?

Good stuff. I've been wondering when you were going to run another one of these. I just have a few comments.

(1) Indeed, UCLA appears to be playing a cover 2. But they have shifted their LBs over towards the twin WRs (visible in the first picture). The two LBs in the second picture are the MLB (between the Cal LG & LT) and the SLB (between the C and RG).

(2) UCLA player #14 is actually SS Chris Horton.
http://uclabruins.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/...
I suppose it appears as if he's the MLB since he's between the other two LBs and he's somewhat in the box (playing about 9 yards off the LOS).

(3) UCLA does play a lot of Cover 2, and the TV guy even notes that after the touchdown. He says that the way to beat the Cover 2 is to go right down the middle (splitting the safeties). He's right, but that's not what happened in this case. In this case the touchdown is a product of (i) a QB half roll left; (ii) in conjunction with all the receiver routes going left; and (iii) Longshore moving the safeties with his eyes. Watching the play on DVR, it's a more obvious (than from the pictures) that Longshore looks off the safeties (primarily #14) by purposely staring down the WRs on his half roll. This causes #14 to turn his body towards the WRs, step towards the WRs, commit to them, and thus turn his back to Stevens on a seam route behind him. The UCLA CB isn't playing Stevens that tight probably because he thought he had safety help. Indeed he should have but #14 UCLA SS Horton bites on Longshore's veteran moving-the-safeties skill.

IMO, the worst call against Cal last season was the incomplete backwards pass by the UW QB.

The numbers do suggest Cal has trouble on grass, but honestly I think it's just more coincidence that (1) Cal has dropped a few winnable games that were played on grass, and (2) we play USC on grass for away games. And as post #3 points out, Cal plays on turf twice as much as grass because of our home games. And then you have to consider that of course a team is more likely to win at home due to the home field advantage. So in reality, it really only seems fair to look at how Cal does on grass, instead of comparing how Cal does on grass versus turf. So just looking at Cal's record on grass, it's very inconclusive. Now, Avinash, you do provide great Longshore stats for grass versus turf, but I think those stats are again skewed and mere coincidence that (1) we sucked hard on grass for a few games we should have won, and (2) we play USC on grass. So while this is interesting, I personally am not ready to yet buy the argument that grass is somehow significantly affecting the Cal Football team.