[Editor's note: This series presents teams in order of the value each team would add to a conference hypothetical near the boarder of the criteria used by the BCS to determine future automatic qualifications. It is not a predictive measure of the 2010 season.]

Today's look at the California Golden Bears is provided by Kodiak and NorCalNick from California Golden Blogs.

What is going right in the California Golden Bear's camp this off season?

Kodiak: The guys are working their hearts out. Last year was a huge disappointment. From the blowout losses to 'sc, Oregon, and UW, to the loss in the Poinsettia Bowl, this team showed execution errors and mental weakness that have simply been uncharacteristic of the Tedford era. More disturbing than the losses themselves were the way we lost - the wheels came off. We looked outcoached, outprepared, outconditioned, and overmatched. I'm sure all of the guys are working hard, but the spotlight is on Riley and the WR's. He needs to improve his accuracy, consistency, and rapport with his receivers. The incumbent receivers need to focus on precise route-running if they want to fend off the talented and speedy newcomers. If Riley, the Oline, and receivers have a breakthrough year, it will go a long way towards beating expectations.

What problems remain, as the media days come to a close?

Kodiak: The Oline was inconsistent last year. It is unknown whether this was an issue with injury, inexperience, a new position coach, or all of the above. We should have better depth and an improved comfort level this year. Getting a solid rotation 5 + 2-3 experienced guys developed will automatically make our passing game a lot better and help prevent other teams from simply stacking the box.

We also have big questions in our secondary and LB corp. We lost our best DB, and it's unknown whether any of the young guys are ready to step up. Ideally, we have a senior, Hagan, who has all-league potential - but he's struggled with injuries and lost confidence. Besides Mohammed, we had a revolving door at LB last year with guys switching positions and going in/out of the lineup all year. For a 3-4, that ain't good. We don't have any proven pass-rushing threats, and our LB's were generally horrible at pass coverage last year. There's supposedly an emphasis on getting after the QB this year. It's simply unknown how the new DC will assign positions and schemes.

And last, our special teams have been a hit/miss prospect for years. We finally have new coach. It would be great to get at least average/competent play out of this phase of the game.

Do you feel, based on the past three years, that a ranking of 36 is fair? How about a 2010 schedule strength of 55?

Kodiak: Sure. I don't pay much attention to pre-season rankings. I'd rather be under the radar to start. You could make a fair case that we've under-achieved. We certainly haven't done anything to deserve higher rankings.

NorCalNick: 55 sounds about right for schedule strength, though that's tough to project. A weak non-conference, but a deeper-than-usual Pac-10 to make up for it. Since 8 Pac-10 teams have legitimate reasons to expect a bowl I'm anticipating a brutal final Pac-10 round-robin.

As for 37th best in the nation? I feel like Cal could easily exceed those expectations. And easily fall short of them. There are at least 6 Pac-10 opponents that Cal could very conceivably win or lose to, so there's lots of potential volatility to Cal's final record. A few key injuries and bad luck and Cal could perhaps struggle around .500. But if a few unlikely players step up nobody would question that Cal has the talent to compete at the top of the conference.

So that's a long winded way of saying that 37 seems fine by me. But I wouldn't want to be the guy that has to place them.

What do you expect to see in 2010?

Kodiak: A lot of pre-season magazines are picking us in the bottom half of the conference. I like that. We're going to have a chip on our shoulder all year. The glass half-empty says that we still have an inconsistent QB, lack play-makers at WR, made the wrong choice for an O-line coach, and big holes at DB and LB. The glass half-full says that this is the year Riley puts it together. In year 2 of the same O-coordinator and line-coach, we'll see improved execution from the line and passing game. Our new defensive coordinator is an inspired hire who will let the guys play fast and confident. Our special teams will finally be stop being the bane of our existence. Worst-case has us around 6th/7th like the magazines say. Best-case could have us at 8-10 wins and possibly 2nd/3rd in the conference. I'd just like to see us compete on a consistent basis this year. I don't expect us to win every game. But I would like us to look competitive, well-coached, and show some fire.

If you HAD to chose between USC and UCLA to play every year, which would you pick?

Kodiak:  'sc.  To be the best, we need to play and beat the best. Losing to them doesn't really hurt us.  But a win goes a long way towards end of the year rankings and a good bowl.

NorCalNick:  Asking a Cal fan to choose between playing USC and UCLA is like asking a father to choose between a son and a daughter. . .that the father despises.  If you held a gun to my head I'd rather play UCLA because of the common bond of being public schools within the state's flagship university system.  But I wouldn't be happy about it.

Thank you Kodiak and NorCalNick for you insight! For more on the upcoming California season please visit California Golden Blogs.

Head Coach: Jeff Tedford (Ninth Year)
Offensive Coordinator: Andy Ludwig (Second Year)
Defensive Coordinator: Clancy Pendergast (First year)

BCS numbers:

California keeps inching closer to those final top 25 spots (pre-bowls). If this trend continues, this may be the year it happens.

Schedule: Strength #55

I see five likely wins and no clear losses. That looks like another 8-4 or 9-3 season, plus a bowl.