DISQUS

DISQUS Hello! Bears Necessity is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.

Community Page

Bears Necessity

Discussion of all things Cal.
Jump to original thread »
Author

Tedford Tournament of Champions: Cal 2003 vs. Cal 2007

Started by Avinash · 10 months ago

Time doesn’t allow us to do everything we want. But the Internet allows us to manipulate space and time and come with all sorts of fanciful solutions for that.
Whatifsports.com is one of the best and worst sites in the world. On one hand it’s a virtual goldmine for settl ... Continue reading »

8 comments

  • HydroTech

    1 year ago

    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).
    reply
  • ho

    1 year ago

    great post man
    reply
  • Avinash

    1 year ago

    Hydro; it uses the statistics from that year, but also uses the depth charts and takes into account stamina and regular ratings. Because Rodgers and Ayoob took the majority of the snaps, they were the starting quarterbacks for those team.

    As for underperforming...well, the 2007 team just swept the 2003 team. So I'm guessing the variable strength of schedule is only a small issue.
    reply
  • Avinash

    1 year ago

    2007 Cal was a 5 seed solely based on its performance during their respective season (7-6 is the worst record overall, although I put them above the 2002 squad because they made it to a bowl). It really doesn't matter too much in the overall picture I think.
    reply
  • HydroTech

    1 year ago

    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.
    reply
  • Avinash

    1 year ago

    Briefly debated that. But I wasn't too concerned considering I knew who the top two teams were, by a wide margin.
    reply
  • bearswithfangs

    1 year ago

    Hmm. The 07 squad was far more talented (by a pretty wide margin), but I'm not sure you factored in their "Callapse" ability enough. Especially in a best of seven series.

    Maybe we'll see that come in more deeper into the tournament.

    Oh, and Longshore getting sacked four times? I can see the two picks, but when was the last time he was sacked that much in a game?
    reply
  • Avinash

    1 year ago

    I didn't factor in anything. I just ran that simulator. They're cold and ruthless. But the 2007 team has tougher games ahead.
    reply

Add New Comment

Returning? Login