LOUD NOISES!
ESPN Pac-10 Blogger Ted Miller apparently got a fair amount of mail from Cal fans after Saturday's loss to Arizona.
Frank from Redding, Calif., writes: Do you think Jeff Tedford will be on the hot seat this year as once again we are failing to meet expectations? Cal has the talent, but seems to be outcoached and outplayed by inferior teams.
Brett from Washington DC, writes: Ted, Why do you think Cal never lives up to its potential? I mean, 2004 looked like the breakout season for the Tedford era, where we would finally compete regularly with U$C, but each subsequent season has been a disappointment in one way or another. Last year obviously being the biggest. Why can't we go from a team that belongs on other teams Upset Alert list to an elite team in the country?
Jay from Berkeley writes: How detrimental do you think Jeff Tedford is to Cal football? He receives so much praise, yet his teams never seem to achieve to the level of their talent... What do you think of his decision to start Nate Longshore over Kevin Riley with Riley coming off of a 42-7 win, and then staying with Longshore after he characteristically caused the offense to sputter in the 2nd half 2 weeks ago against Arizona State? Wasn't his meager performance against Arizona this week predictable?
Seriously? Seriously???
Cal failing to meet expectations? Cal never living up to potential? Tedford is detrimental to Cal?
SERIOUSLY???

Here's what Ted Miller had to say in response:
Ted Miller: Gahhhhhh!
Who stole Berkeley and made it into Clemson?
I just don't get this stuff. "Hot seat" for Tedford? "Never lives up to its potential?" Tedford as "detrimental?"
If you guys keep writing this stuff, I'm going to climb a tree outside your window and refuse to leave. And I'll play sitar music. Endlessly.
Hey, Washington fans, are you listening? Looks like a program wants to commit hari kari -- any interest in this lousy coach Jeff Tedford?
Has Cal had some bad moments with Tedford over the past few years? Yes. Have there been moments when he's opened himself up to fair criticism? Sure. Is his handling of the QB situation debatable? Without a doubt.
He's not perfect. But he's perfect for Cal.
Go to the bathroom. Flush the toilet.
That's my sound effect for the Bears if you run Tedford off.
I really hope the majority of Cal fans don't actually think Tedford is detrimental to Cal.
I know last season was tough for Cal fans, and the 2008 loss to Arizona was tough to stomach but let's be serious here. None of us should be talking about firing Tedford.
Nevertheless, let's talk through the concerns brought up by some of us.
Cal Fans' Concerns #1: Cal is failing to meet expectations.
Has Cal failed to meet expectations this year? No. We're 4-2. Most of us predicted us having an 8 or 9 win season. Right now, we seem to be on track for an 8 win season, and if lucky, perhaps a 9 win season.
Venerable Cal blogger Ken Crawford predicted an 8 win season (with losses to Arizona, Oregon, USC, and Oregon State). Level headed and respectable Cal blogger SDGldnBear predicted a loss to Arizona. But yet, some of us are dissatisfied with our season thus far?
I understand losses are hard to stomach for some of us, but losing to a solid Maryland team and a good Arizona team means Cal has failed expectations? So we were expecting to beat Maryland and Arizona? As well as everyone else on our schedule too? Including USC? So we were expecting to go 12-0 this season?
I understand that living in the Pac-10 is tough since USC represents everything we want to become but aren't. But are we letting our hopes to become as good as USC raise our expectations prematurely? I think so.
We're not USC. We're probably not going to have 11 wins every season until we can start pulling more top recruits, we have better facilities and our fan base truly gets behind the program (such as Nebraska or Texas fans). Nevertheless, it seems like some of us think we should be having 10 and 11 win seasons left and right. We have to set reasonable expectations. Right now, half way through the 2008 season, Cal has met expectations for the season so far. Let's finish out this season and see if we truly meet par for the course in 2008 before we really start talking about whether Cal failed to meet expectations in 2008.
Cal Fans' Concerns #2: Cal is getting outcoached and outplayed by inferior teams.
Yeah, shit happens. Get used to it.
Look, even though Cal may be (allegedly) superior to most teams it faces in 2008, we're not heads and shoulders superior than our competition - not like USC is above everyone they face.
So just because we are (allegedly) superior to most teams on our schedule doesn't mean we should automatically expect to win those games. As we all know, sometimes superior teams play below their capabilities and concurrently, sometimes inferior teams play above and beyond their capabilities.
Getting outcoached and outplayed by inferior teams sucks. I'm not arguing against that. But let's be serious here. It happens.
Just ask Pete Carroll when USC lost to Stanfurd in 2007. Just ask Pete Carroll when USC lost to Oregon State in 2008.
USC is the perfect example. If a team as dominant and talented as USC can lose to teams that are across the board pretty much inferior to them (and at home!), then isn't it logical to conclude that Cal, a team not nearly as talented as USC, will be more likely to get upset by inferior teams? The answer is yes.
Do Cal fans really understand how hard it is to just win a game? I mean seriously. Aside from playing Washington State, just winning a game is hard enough as it is. With all the scouting of teams nowadays, and balancing of talent across the board due to scholarship limitations, it's hard to win games nowadays.
Winning 9+ games a season is hard, especially when we're the Pac-10 and we don't load up three to four cupcake opponents each year like our SEC and Terp friends.
Even the best coaches in the NCAA lose to inferior teams and get outcoached on occasion.
Cal and Tedford is no different.
Cal Fans' Concerns #3: Since 2004, Cal has never lives up to its potential.
Let's see...
In 2005 our starting QB got injured half way through the first game of the season. Our backup QB wasn't quite as good as we all thought and hoped.
In 2006 we logged a 9-3 regular season with losses to a good Tennessee team in one of the most hostile environments in college football, and lost close games to Arizona and Goliath USC. In the bowl game, we destroyed Texas A&M. We failed to meet expectations this season? Maybe a little considering we started out ranked so high - but we all know that preseason rankings are nothing more than educated guesses and mere speculation. In the end, most Cal fans still considered the season a marginal success considering we won the bowl game and achieved a 10 win season.
In 2007 we were doing just fine until Longshore got injured. Basically, an injury to our starting QB derailed our season. Much has been made of the season post-injury, but even if Kevin Riley had started every game out after Oregon last year, we still would have probably lost our fair share of Cal games. The losses might not have been as emotionally brutal, but fans would still have considered it a disappointment.
So for the past three years, only one season hasn't been derailed by significant injuries. What'd Cal do in that one season? Share the Pac-10 title, crush its Big-12 bowl opponent, and have a 10 win season. Outside of perennial powerhouses, very few teams in the NCAA would call that a disappointing season.
Cal Fans' Concerns #4: How detrimental do you think Jeff Tedford is to Cal football? He receives so much praise, yet his teams never seem to achieve to the level of their talent... What do you think of his decision to start Nate Longshore over Kevin Riley with Riley coming off of a 42-7 win, and then staying with Longshore after he characteristically caused the offense to sputter in the 2nd half 2 weeks ago against Arizona State?
Let's start with the last sentence. Yes, Longshore is solely responsible for the offense bogging down in the 2nd half against Arizona State. If only Longshore was better at run blocking then he could have opened up some holes for the RBs and we would have gotten first downs. Look, Longshore didn't make some throws in the 2nd half of the ASU game. Nobody is denying that. But there are multiple factors for why the offense bogged down against ASU. QB play is only one factor of many reasons.
Now, let's examine the notion that Tedford is "detrimental" to Cal Football.
Jeff Tedford is not detrimental to Cal Football. Tedford is beneficial to Cal Football.
Let me put that in italics.
Jeff Tedford is not detrimental to Cal Football. Tedford is beneficial to Cal Football.
No. Actually, let me put that in italics and bold.
Jeff Tedford is not detrimental to Cal Football. Tedford is beneficial to Cal Football.
Now, let me put that in italics and bold and block quote and put a photo of Karl Dorrell in a mustache below it:
Jeff Tedford is not detrimental to Cal Football. Tedford is beneficial to Cal Football.
We are lucky to have Tedford. We are lucky that Tedford has stuck around considering our fan base is so fair-weather. We're lucky Tedford has stuck around considering our stadium and its facilities are hardly as extravagant and appealing as the teams we recruit against. We're lucky that Tedford stuck around for two years as a lawsuit delayed our stadium renovations. We're lucky that Tedford is willing to limit the pool of talent he can recruit from because of Cal's higher academic standards. We're lucky that Tedford is willing to recruit with what he's given when many other schools spend many times as much money on recruiting than we do. We're lucky that Tedford hasn't ditched his air mattress in his tiny office which sits on the frickin Hayward fault for a head coaching job at another school with some posh maple wood office with a gold and electronically heated toilet seat (TwistNHook Note: To be fair, HydroTech did spend a lot of his days personally heating Tedford's toilet, so it not ALL roughntumble for Coach).
We're lucky Tedford hasn't ditched Cal Football for a program with a more supportive fan base considering he gets so many emails and phone calls from Cal fans telling him what he's doing wrong and that they can do his job better than him.
We're lucky that our own whiny I-know-more-than-Coach fan base hasn't run him off yet.
Few coaches would willingly stay at Cal considering the circumstances. Even fewer coaches could do as good of a job as Tedford, with what little Tedford has had to work with, and not have been plucked away by schools with more appealing head coaching jobs.
If anyone is going to claim that Tedford is truly "detrimental" to Cal Football, then that person must be a masochist or just needs to do a serious reality check. If Tedford leaves Cal, Cal Football could quickly return to the dark ages of the Holmoe-caust and once again become the perennial Pac-10 doormat.
Final Thoughts:
In the words of Ted Miller: "[Tedford is] not perfect. But he's perfect for Cal."
TwistNHook Addendum:
Clearly, great minds think alike. HydroTech and I started work on similar posts without knowing it. Hydro's was clearly better, but I just wanted to add my thoughts here. Let's say Cal goes 8-4 this year, reaches the Holiday Bowl and loses in a close game to Oklahoma. Would that be a good season or a bad season? 8-4 translates to a .66 win percentage. That's 106 games won in baseball. Or 6 more games won than the Anaheim Angels of Anaheim in 2008.
That's 54 games won in basketball. Or the exact number of games won by the New Orleans Hornets, a premier team, last year.
That's 10 wins in the NFL. The exact number of wins the Superbowl Champion New York Giants won last year.
Look, these aren't perfect comparisons here. But it just shows that peoples conceptions of a "successful" season seems a bit off. Let's take the Dodgers this year. They won 84 games for a .51 winning percentage. Then, they lost in the NLCS. Many of their fans thought the season had been a success even though they didn't win it all!
Because the journey was amazing to them. That's what it is about. The journey. Unfortunately, we get so wrapped up on the Rose Bowl, which seems painfully unattainable these past 5 decades. In college football, more so than the NFL or the NBA or MLB, the margin for error is slim. Lose one or two games and the NC game is off the table. Lose one Pac10 game these days and the Rose Bowl is off the table. When the margin for error is that slim, you only set yourself up for disappointment.
Yes, it sucks that the Cal Golden Era happens to coincide with one of the greatest dynasties in college football history. I hate it as much as you do. But you can either accept that and try to enjoy college football for what it is or reject that reality and continuously court disappointment.
Let's try to focus on the journey here instead of the eventual destination. And let's Go Bears!
Ragnarok Addendum:
Way to suck, guys. I wrote about this last year.
Glenn Dickey Addendum:
[I guess Dickey is also getting lots of emails from Cal fans too. Here's what he has to say...]
JEFF TEDFORD has faced a number of problems as Cal’s football coach but none so perplexing as the criticism he gets from those who are supposedly supporters of the program.
Here are some of the criticisms I’ve heard from readers:
--His teams are inconsistent. Hello! This is college football, where teams go up and down every week. There isn’t a weekend that goes by without upsets that are truly mind-boggling.
Sometimes, I think we forget that these players are barely out of their teens, and some are still in them. They’re going to have wide emotional swings and, at some schools (including Cal), they have the added complication of having to go to class.
The very best teams sometimes have enough depth of talent to avoid the wild ups-and-downs, but even USC, which certainly is in that category, has lost in consecutive seasons to Stanford and Oregon State, two teams they should have beaten by four touchdowns.
Cal has never had that depth of talent. Tedford and his assistants have done a good job of recruiting but they can’t equal USC. Cal does not have the same rich football tradition, it is not in the middle of the area richest in prep prospects and it has had the worst athletic facilities of any school in the conference. My older readers especially don’t understand how that affects recruiting because they remember the spare facilities of their youth, but believe me, it’s of paramount importance to young athletes.
--His career path is following that of Ben Braun. Not at all. The signs were there early with Braun, who had a losing record in his second season and was below .500 in conference play in three of his first four seasons. In contrast, Tedford has NEVER had a losing season, and two of his teams have won 10 games. His teams have gone to five straight bowl games, and only the fact that Cal was on NCAA suspension for code violations in the Tom Holmoe era kept his first team from a bowl.
There is also a matter of style. Braun’s failure was due to his insistence that his assistants agree with him, so he got no real input. Tedford has continually tried to refine his style, even bringing in Mike Dunbar to coordinate aspects of the spread offense with his concepts one year. That didn’t work well, but he’s not closing off any avenues.
--The offensive game plans haven’t been as imaginative as when Tedford first came to Cal.
That often happens to coaches who take over a moribund program, as Tedford did. I still remember the first play from scrimmage in his first game, the pitchout and running back pass for a long touchdown against Baylor.
Other teams catch up to that style of play and defend it, so Tedford’s game plans have had to account for that. Much of the criticism I hear from readers, though, is silly. One reader will accuse him of being pass-happy, another will criticize him for running the ball too much. In fact, Tedford’s offenses have always been well balanced between run and pass. I’ve found that readers’ criticisms are often based on the fact that particular plays didn’t work. In other words, dammit, call something that works!
--He’s never gotten a team to a BCS bowl. Much of that is because of the Pac-10’s terrible bowl lineup, with only the Rose Bowl (for the conference champion or runnerup on the years USC is in the national championship game) is a BCS bowl. In fact, as we all know, Cal hasn’t been to the Rose Bowl since the 1958 season. There have been nine coaches in between Pete Elliott, the 1958 coach, and Tedford. So, he’s got a lot of company.
I have my issues with Tedford on his current quarterbacks, because I think Kevin Riley should be starting, but that doesn’t blind me to the fact that he’s the best Cal coach in the 53 seasons I’ve been watching closely. It shouldn’t blind you, either.
HydroTech Addendum:
Repeat after me: Jeff Tedford is not detrimental to Cal Football. Tedford is beneficial to Cal Football.
Read Related
Comments
Woah woah woah, slow down there egghead.
Karl Dorrel is wearing a mustache?!?! Is that a detriment to Cal Football?
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Oct 22, 2008 2:59 PM PDT 0 recs
Completely agree with you guys
Where do these knuckleheads come from? Tedford is learning from his mistakes each year, and let’s not forget, THIS IS STILL HIS FIRST HEAD COACHING JOB EVER! He’s going to make mistakes and experience some growing pains. Other than what I perceive to be a bit of a stubborness for Longshore, Tedford continues to do great things for Cal football and I have confidence he will lead our team to the Rose Bowl in the near future.
Speaking of Tedford’s insistence on Longshore, just read a great article that basically says, stick with one QB only!
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2008/10/21/cal-football-time-to-bench-longshore-and-commit-to-riley-what-more-does-tedford-need-to-see/
by SonofCalifornia on Oct 22, 2008 3:14 PM PDT 0 recs
Jeff Tedford is not detrimental to Cal Football. Tedford is beneficial to Cal Football.
by CalBandGreat on Oct 22, 2008 3:36 PM PDT 0 recs
That’d be a great “Bart writing on the chalk board” saying. Or tagline for this site.
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on
Oct 22, 2008 3:36 PM PDT
up
0 recs
The sad part is I’m sure a substantial number of fairweather Cal fans would trade Les Miles for Tedford.
Fairweather calculus: Les 1 title and 2 BCS wins, Tedford 0, ergo Les>>>>Tedford!
by BearsNecessity on
Oct 22, 2008 3:42 PM PDT
up
0 recs
nutters.
after we go 1-10, talk about not meeting expectations.
any bowl is meeting cal expectations. Selling 60,000 seats a week WWWWWWWWWaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy exceeds expectations.
could we be better, sure. and I know that many fans frustrations are because we are so so so so close to being one of the top 5-10 teams in the country each year of the past 3 or 4.
Go Bears Go
by Rocksanddirt on Oct 22, 2008 3:44 PM PDT 0 recs
What is particularly confounding and frustrating is the lack of acknowledgment from these douchebags that Tedford is the sole reason that they have unrealistic national expectations. We were in WSU’s shoes soooo recently, now we compete strong in top half of the Pac-10 and it’s 100% because of Tedford. I fucking hate us. Well, some of us. I definitely hate Frank, Brett, Jay, their families, and their friends. Thankfully they don’t speak for the fans that I know.
by zoonews on
Oct 22, 2008 4:10 PM PDT
up
0 recs
douchebags douchenozzle.
Please conform to the new slang
Hope is dangerous, but Glory is addictive.
by AndBears on
Oct 22, 2008 5:00 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Amazing
Wow. People actually believe this year’s team is not living up to expectations? These “fans” need to be punched in the back of their heads.
I mean, yeah, losing to Zona is frustrating, but come on! This isn’t a star-studded team. We have no really proven game changing players on offense, and have at best a competent defense.
I think maybe Tedford may need to borrow Dorrell’s stache. That will change everything!
Go Bears!
by SoCal Oski on Oct 22, 2008 3:55 PM PDT 0 recs
Anyone calling out for a coaching change should be forced to immediately name their pick for successor so we can laugh at them. Something like, “Tedford had his chance, Cal should grab Mike Nolan!”
Bwa ha ha ha!
by zoonews on Oct 22, 2008 3:59 PM PDT 0 recs
Man you totally just copied my fanpost (Letter to the “Lunatic Fringe”. Copycats. But seriously it is ridiculous that some people are criticizing Tedford for these things.
by HyphyBearsFan on Oct 22, 2008 4:10 PM PDT 0 recs
I assure you we only started work on this post after we saw your FanPost!
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on
Oct 22, 2008 4:16 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I had citations in my story. But we went with Hydro’s citation-less story and now look where we are.
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on
Oct 22, 2008 4:19 PM PDT
up
0 recs
oh wow
I’m sorry, HyphyBear. I didn’t even notice your fanpost when I posted this. I do assure you though, that this post was already made last night and I wasn’t just copying you. But even if I did copy you, I wouldn’t cite you and would give you no credit. Just bein’ honest. ;-)
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on
Oct 22, 2008 4:40 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Nah I don’t actually care, I’m glad you guys had the same thoughts as me. I’m just as frustrated by people saying these ridiculous anti-Tedford things and I’m glad you took the time to write a long post about it for the front page. I still think it’s just a small part of the fanbase, so as long as we can stop it from spreading, we’ll be alright.
by HyphyBearsFan on
Oct 22, 2008 4:42 PM PDT
up
0 recs
yes, yes!
I like this post!
I guess Miller isn’t a big fan of ’furd’s Maisel.
Thank you Tedford for making Cal a great program! Keep up the good work!
Two-thirds of the earth is covered by water, the other third is covered by Kotsay...in his prime...like 3 years ago.
by carp on Oct 22, 2008 4:12 PM PDT 0 recs
Huh?
Who are these people criticizing Tedford? He’s just an awesome coach in too many ways to count. Cal is lucky to have him.
Remember when Cal got screwed out of the Rose Bowl by Texas? I’d rather have Tedford than a Rose Bowl bid, and I want a Rose Bowl bid in the worst way.
Tedford represents long term respectability for Cal Football.
Just to be clear, Tedford isn’t beyond criticism. No one is. But people should temper their criticisms, not for reasons of censorship, but for reasons of reality. Anyone wanting Tedford’s scalp is simply delusional.
Stanfurd Delendum Est.
by Olsonist on Oct 22, 2008 4:37 PM PDT 0 recs
I'm going to go kill myself now
because I think you and I actually agreed on something.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on
Oct 22, 2008 4:38 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Olsonist also hates me. So, you agree with him on ANOTHER thing!
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on
Oct 22, 2008 4:39 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Hydro, if you are going to kill yourself anyways, can you do me a favor? Strap on an explosives belt, invite yourself out to lunch with Twisted, and give him a good bear hug and then pull the trigger. There’s 50 virgins in it for you.
Stanfurd Delendum Est.
by Olsonist on
Oct 22, 2008 4:50 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Which one is me and which one is 33SwisherSweet?
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on
Oct 22, 2008 5:09 PM PDT
up
0 recs

Indeed, this is a time of discovery for us. It’s going to be a little awkward but ultimately it will be very pleasurable and fulfilling for everyone involved. Excuse me for being a bit forward, but you have perfect breasts.
by zoonews on
Oct 22, 2008 5:12 PM PDT
up
2 recs
Ok, I know which one is 33SwisherSweet in that one!
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on
Oct 22, 2008 5:21 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Can someone start one of those online petitions
that just says “We Love Tedford”?
I’m pretty sure we could get a lot of signatures. Then we can link Ted Miller to that.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 22, 2008 4:49 PM PDT 0 recs
About being, "outcoached and outplayed by inferior teams."
Did these guys stop to think about how good Arizona and Maryland are this year?
We were unfortunate to get Maryland right when they woke up, but I knew Arizona would be a tough nut to crack, seeing how they’re hotter than a red hot poking iron.
Contrary to belief, we’re a good team, but there are teams that hit random hot spots and have good weeks all the time in college football.
These “fans” sound like normal NFL fans that happen to check out college football on the side once in a while.
by Swamphunter on Oct 22, 2008 5:15 PM PDT 0 recs
I'm A Fair Weather Cal Fan
And I think even Al Davis wouldn’t fire Tedford.
Whenever I read a “fire Tedford” rant, I think to myself, “you, sir, are a numbnut.”
Plus I met Tedford twice so we are pretty much best buds.
That being said, if Cal football ever loses its entertainment appeal, I’ll drop it like 5th period French. Just like I did to the 49ers, Giants, and Kings.
by Fair Weather Cal Fan on Oct 22, 2008 5:41 PM PDT 0 recs
now, as a former cal band member, i'm surely biased
if Cal football ever loses its entertainment appeal…
I kinda feel like that’s what the band, and the dance team, and oski, and the card stunts and such are all for. plus the tailgating with friends and yelling cheers in unison and rolling people up when we score touchdowns. i kinda feel like cal football will always be fun, even if we’re not winning. just less so.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on
Oct 22, 2008 6:11 PM PDT
up
0 recs
The Louisiana Hot Links are worth the price of admission by themselves.
Stanfurd Delendum Est.
by Olsonist on
Oct 22, 2008 6:38 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I went to school during the Holmoe era
so for me it’s: Tedford is Cal Football.
I totally understand what you mean about everything else drawing your attention after watching the Holmoe teams for 4 long years. Going to games was still fun but I just didn’t care so much about winning.
Maybe the guys who wrote to Miller started following Cal in 2004, so everything since then has been “disappointing” for them?
by calbearz24 on
Oct 22, 2008 6:52 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I’m going to assume that every single person who actually is dissatisfied with Tedford became a fan of Cal during the 10-2 screwed-out-of-the-Rose-Bowl year. God knows nobody who has been a Cal fan before that year would ever ever EVER want to get rid of the most successful coach we’ve had since….when? Pappy Waldorf?
by norcalnick on Oct 22, 2008 6:52 PM PDT 0 recs
Not true. I’m fairly satisfied with what Tedford has wrought, even though that was my freshman year. It’s surprising that with every disappointing year for the fairweathers that passes along how satisfied I am with him, despite his obvious flaws.
by BearsNecessity on
Oct 22, 2008 9:20 PM PDT
up
0 recs
I certainly would not want to imply that all new Cal fans are dissatisfied – merely that those who experienced pre-Tedford are perhaps less likely to be upset.
by norcalnick on
Oct 22, 2008 10:58 PM PDT
up
0 recs
My Concerns
My sense from talking to my father, is that he and his friends, almost all of whom have been Bear Backers and season ticket holders since the early 1970’s, are universally disappointed with the way that Tedford has handled Longshore and Riley. I share their sentiments. There’s no sense in rehashing the arguments for the 1,000 time, but I think this piece represents the current Rilerian view.
My sense from reading this blog, is that many of the Cal fans who became fans during the Holmoe/Tedford era feel that any criticism of Tedford is unwarranted because Cal was a place where winning was impossible prior to Tedford. I disagree.
Some Cal history:
Bruce Snyder arrived at Cal in 1987. I was only four years old at the time, but from what I’ve been told, Cal really was a place where no one was expected to win. Snyder went 3-6-2 that year, 5-5-1 in 1988, and 4-7 in 1989. In 1990, Cal went 7-4 and made its first bowl game, the Copper Bowl, since the Garden Bowl in 1979. I still vividly remember my dad describing the importance of finally being in a bowl game again. Not only that, it was a New Year’s Eve bowl game, tantalizingly close to a coveted New Year’s Day game. Also, I think the Copper Bowl was sponsored by Domino’s which I thought was pretty cool at the time.
The 1991 season was an amazing year for the Bears. The team came, as I recall, an incomplete pass into the end zone away from beating Washington. Despite the loss to Stanford, had the Bears won the Washington game they would have gone to the Rose Bowl. I remember, quite ominously, seeing and smelling the smoke of what would become the Oakland Hills fire storm during the game. It was a rough weekend as a football fan and as an Oakland resident. Still, the Bears went on to kill Clemson in the Citrus Bowl on New Year’s Day and finished 8th in the AP poll. With Snyder at the helm, it seemed like Cal was on the verge of establishing itself as the best program in the Pac-10. Tragically, due to a conflict with the athletic director, Arizona St. was able to hire away Snyder. Snyder would go on to lead Arizona St. to the Rose Bowl in 1996 and was arguably a win away from a national title. It sucks to be a Cal fan.
After the Snyder era, Keith Gilbertson showed signs of promise, but ultimately destroyed all that Snyder had built at Cal. Amazingly, Steve Mariucci was able to come in and turn the program around in his first year leading Cal to a 6-6 record in 1996. Similarly to the 2007 season, the Bears started out 5-0 including a win over a top 25 USC team. In The Bears came very close to going 6-0. They had the ball inside the Washington St. 5-yard line late in the game and were looking to either kick a field goal for the tie or go into the end zone for a win, Pat Barnes fumbled the ball and the game away. Cal went 1-5 down the stretch including a loss to Navy in Aloha Bowl which cost me a five dollar outright bet with a middle school classmate. Oddly enough, the Niners were so impressed with what Mariucci had done at Cal that they hired him away from the Bears. Then He Who Shall Not Be Named arrived.
To conclude:
-Tedford did not orchestrate a miracle by turning around the program. It had been done twice before in the previous ten or so years.
-Snyder equaled Tedford’s 10-2 record, and arguably accomplished more by winning a New Year’s Day bowl game and reaching an AP Top 8 ranking, which was much more difficult to do in 1991 because of the scholarship rules which favored powerhouse programs.
-At this point I think it’s fair to criticize Tedford. It’s also appropriate to discuss whether he’s the right choice for Cal if he continues to stick with Longshore. I think Tedford deserves at least two more seasons, but to pretend the program owes him tenure is ridiculous.
-While Tedford has attracted the most high profile recruits probably since Russell White (I can’t remember if Delta O’Neal was high profile) this has not resulted in a Rose Bowl. Being an NFL factory is not a bad thing, but you don’t need a team of NFL prospects to win a Rose Bowl. Character is just as important (see Jackson, DeSean).
-Tedford has done great things at Cal and I still believe he can do greater things.
by The Hombre on Oct 22, 2008 6:54 PM PDT 0 recs
Great post, The Hombre. You bring up some great points and thank you for being very reasonable about it.
I hav a few comments.
1. I don’t think anybody is saying Tedford is beyond criticism. Clearly, the honeymoon is over. But there is a reasonable way and an unreasonable way to criticize him. We only hope that people will criticize him reasonably and keep the conversation civil.
2. Tedford has made 5 bowls in 5 years, winning 4. I realize that given the explosion of bowl games in recent years, it is not fair to compare this stat to other Cal eras. Nonetheless, I think this, in and of itself, is a remarkable stat. So, yes, there have been previous levels of success at Cal, like with Snyder, but it was brief and ultimately unsatisfying.
Not only has Tedford been here for 6 years with nearly unrivaled success (for Cal), he is building something at Cal. Many people seem to view this as the middle or the end of Tedford’s time here. I hope/feel that this is just the start.
3. Yes, we have had great recruits. And it is unfortunate that we haven’t made a Rose Bowl with them. But for the love of everything holy, what other Pac10 team has? We are going up against one of hte greatest football dynasties ever. Period. It sucks. A lot. But it is what it is. And with the start of the SAHPC, we should see increased recruiting. This is just the start. Not the middle. And hopefully (hopefully!) not the end.
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on
Oct 22, 2008 7:04 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Great points Twist and I can’t really disagree with you on any of them. The one thing I will add is that I don’t think Tedford deserves any criticism for his performances against USC (not that you implied the contrary). While Tedford is 1-5 against the Trojans, we can all agree that Tedford could easily be 5-1 against Carroll. 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2007 were all winnable games. Tedford knows how to beat Pete Carroll better than anyone else in the country. Regardless of what happens in the next two games, I’m fairly confident that this year’s game will be close.
by The Hombre on
Oct 22, 2008 8:49 PM PDT
up
0 recs
One problem I’ve always seen with USC is this. USC holds Cal in high regards. They see Cal as one of the top programs in the Pac-10. Always a nice compliment. Unfortunately, it also means USC is ready to play Cal. We’ve seen year-in and year-out what a motivated USC team is capable of, and the upsets seem to occur when they don’t expect a competitive game.
If you followed Maryland at all this year, they’ve seemed to be the same way. Before the season, the coaches/players talked about circling the Cal game on the calender in the spring time. After expecting to walk over Mid Tenn St, they came out ready to play against Cal. Same with their game vs. Clemson, and Wake Forest. That UVA game was another one they weren’t motivated for. Cal can’t sneak up on anyone anymore.
by HyphyBearsFan on
Oct 22, 2008 9:35 PM PDT
up
0 recs
To add to Twist’s points, would you say the same hype surrounding the Cal program existed when Snyder was coach? We semi-regularly sellout Memorial, and get 60k+ on a regular basis. That did not happen in ’91.
I don’t think anyone thinks, at this point, that Tedford is above criticism like he might have been from 2002-2004. But to call for his ousting? Crazy!
by Spazzy Mcgee on
Oct 22, 2008 7:17 PM PDT
up
0 recs
My sense from talking to my father, is that he and his friends, almost all of whom have been Bear Backers and season ticket holders since the early 1970’s, are universally disappointed with the way that Tedford has handled Longshore and Riley. I share their sentiments. There’s no sense in rehashing the arguments for the 1,000 time, but I think this piece represents the current Rilerian view.
I’m not terribly happy with how the QB situation has been handled either. I think both guys are kinda getting jerked around, and from the quotes I’ve read in the newspaper and elsewhere, I get a bit of a sense that Tedford doesn’t really have any answers; he’s out of his comfort zone on this one, and he’s kind of making it up as he goes along.
My sense from reading this blog, is that many of the Cal fans who became fans during the Holmoe/Tedford era feel that any criticism of Tedford is unwarranted because Cal was a place where winning was impossible prior to Tedford. I disagree.
It has never been our position that criticism of Tedford is unwarranted. We certainly think any talk of replacing him is crazy, not because we “owe” him, but because we think he’s proven that he’s a very good coach, and besides all of the expense of replacing a coach and the negative effects of coaching turnover, I personally don’t think Cal has a shot at getting a much better coach.
Criticizing Tedford, though, is absolutely warranted, as it is with the other coaches and players. Still, we ask that, on this blog, we keep criticism reasoned and civil, as you have done. Thank you for that.
It’s also appropriate to discuss whether he’s the right choice for Cal if he continues to stick with Longshore.
I find this to be a strange position, inasmuch as I don’t think Tedford’s job security should hinge entirely on his quarterback choice. There’s a lot else going on with this program, and there are other issues this team has that need correcting. Not only is quarterback just one of those issues, but I don’t even think it’s the biggest one. Why did our running game falter in Arizona? Why did Arizona have such an easy time running the ball? Why, after half the season, can’t just one of our receivers reliably catch the ball?
Personally, I don’t find the quarterback issue to be that compelling. Longshore or Riley, Cal isn’t going to win very many games with a fearsome aerial attack. Cal is going to win when it plays tough defense and when it runs the ball consistently. Those are the strengths of this team, but Cal didn’t do either of those things on Saturday night.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on
Oct 22, 2008 7:21 PM PDT
up
0 recs
It’s also appropriate to discuss whether he’s the right choice for Cal if he continues to stick with Longshore
I heartily disagree with this statement. First of all, this statement seems to be premised on the idea that either (i) Riley is better than Longshore; or (ii) Riley should start over Longshore because Riley needs development time. Frankly, there are valid arguments why Tedford should and shouldn’t stick with Longshore. The Longshore/Riley debate is hardly a clear cut case with a clear answer. In all honesty, there may be no right or wrong answer. So, in my humble opinion, to criticize Tedford for such a gray area decision is confusing – It’s being unfairly critical of him for making the wrong decision when there is no right decision.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on
Oct 22, 2008 9:16 PM PDT
up
0 recs
There is the argument that getting Riley prepared with valuable PT would get him ready for next season, when we have a more complete offensive squad and he’d be ready to lead us for 1-2 years. Although I think it’s a little overrated, there’s no doubt Aaron Rodgers’s growing pains in 2003 led to his near-Heisman campaign in 2004.
If neither quarterback has stepped up (and so far it doesn’t look like either has), then the fact that Longshore won’t be here next year but Riley will be tilts the discussion in Kevin’s favor. This is the argument civil Riley-backers would make.
by BearsNecessity on
Oct 22, 2008 9:25 PM PDT
up
0 recs
correct, I agree with your analysis.
But the contrary argument is this:
Riley starts slow. A team can lose a game in 1 quarter (UA in 2008). Imagine what could happen in 2-3 quarters of slow play (Maryland 2008). Plus, slow starts are even more detrimental to losing teams b/c of the new clock rules. Teams need more time to make comebacks and if the team doesn’t wake up until the 4th quarter, it can be too late.
On the other hand, Longshore starts the team faster and plays well for about 3 quarters until things go south. But by the time things go south, Cal might have enough of a lead to eek out a win. Or at least Cal can be more “in the game” rather than trying to make a huge comeback.
I agree with you, Avi. I see both sides of the argument, but I feel like people are overweighing the “Riley needs development time” argument. Sacrificing this season to develop Riley is risky considering we aren’t really sure he’s going to be that good. I mean, clearly Longshore has regressed from his pre-2007 injury self. And yet Riley can’t beat out Longshore. Are we really so sure that Riley will get us to the Rose Bowl instead of Longshore? Aside from MSU this year, Riley doesn’t look as good as last year. To develop Riley now banks a lot on next year when the trend is showing Riley isn’t improving as much as we’d hoped.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on
Oct 22, 2008 9:33 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Well I think many of these people have already considered 2008 lost, at least in terms of the Rose Bowl. USC is too far ahead and we have tough games ahead. If our receivers can’t catch balls consistently or our o-line can’t protect or get the run game going, we’re going to lose a few more games unless the defense and special teams step up big. So Riley should start to give the team a clear vibe of who will be playing in the pocket. Jerking both Nate and Kevin around every week and not announcing a starter until before the game is tough on everyone. At least that’s the sense I’m getting from Cal fans.
I’m increasingly disgruntled with our OC/QB coach though, who has done our quarterbacks no favors with his selection of playcalls. Really Frank? Throw a flat pattern to the corner? How well has that gone for Nate in the past? Oh, here’s another wide receiver screen on 2nd and 10. I enjoyed that -4 yard gain. Damn it all.
by BearsNecessity on
Oct 22, 2008 10:11 PM PDT
up
0 recs
To develop Riley now banks a lot on next year when the trend is showing Riley isn’t improving as much as we’d hoped.
The counterargument is this is that Longshore isn’t as good as you think he is and Riley isn’t as green as you’re making him out to be. Longshore’s performance in the UofA game was not an anomaly; we’d seen it before.
So if you think that “clearly Longshore has regressed from his pre-2007 injury self” then with the meat of the PAC-10 schedule coming up, we’d be insane to put Longshore out on the field. At some point, you just have to give up on him.
I had a roommate once who was a musician. He had played for Santana but at the time he was a studio musician. I’m certain that you’ve heard him play since he’s played with everyone. He did his scales. Everyday. Every single day. He’d say that if he didn’t practice his scales everyday that after a few days he’d notice. After a week, other musicians would notice. After a month, the crowd would notice.
Well, if you notice that Longshore has “clearly Longshore has regressed from his pre-2007 injury self” then imagine what the team notices.
Stanfurd Delendum Est.
by Olsonist on
Oct 23, 2008 9:18 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Two points from an Old Blue almost old enough to be The Hombre's father
1. Bruce Snyder was not Jeff Tedford. Yes, Snyder enjoyed more success than his predecessors, at least in his last two seasons. Yes, his 1991 squad remains arguably the greatest of the post-Pappy Waldorf era—better than Roth and Muncie’s ‘75 team, better than the 2004 and 2006 Tedford-coached teams. But over the course of five years, his teams were really quite mediocre, and he inherited a program from Joe Kapp that wasn’t anywhere near as bad as what Tedford inherited from Holmoe. I, for one, was not surprised to see Snyder flame out in Tempe after having that one (ONE!) great season, and it’s presumptuous to think that Snyder’s success would have continued had he stayed at Cal after ’91. By all accounts, Snyder is a really good man, and he was a very solid, better-than-average football coach, who twice in his career was both competent and fortunate enough to have truly phenomenal college quarterbacks lead his teams to unprecedented heights, in Mike Pawlawski and Jake Plummer. But losing Pawlawski to graduation was a far bigger problem for the 1992 Bears than losing Snyder.
2. Forget the “Play Riley because he’s not a senior” argument, at least until Cal loses a second Pac-10 game. Look, I don’t expect the Bears to win the conference this year, and like most of us, I’m already dreaming about “next year”—like all good Bears fans are conditioned to do in late October. But until they truly are out of the running, I want every decision Tedford makes to be based on THIS YEAR. He owes it to his seniors to maximize their chances of achieving Rose Bowl glory, and it is still premature to pull the plug on 2008 and began planning ahead for 2009. Now, maybe you think Riley should nonetheless be the starting QB, but that’s only a reasonable argument in my book—at this point in the season—if you sincerely believe Riley gives the Bears a better chance to win. NOW.
OK, I lied. I have a couple more small points to make. No, Deltha O’Neal was not a particularly high-profile recruit. He was a reasonably well regarded (but by no means “blue chip”) recruit…at running back! And Mariucci was a joke. His team got progressively worse as the season wore on—even when it was still winning games—and the egg they laid in the Aloha Bowl was epic. Please don’t suggest he “turned around” the Cal program in any way that even begins to resemble the job Tedford has done.
JT is the man. He will lead Cal to the Promised Land. People just need to be patient. (And while you’re all waiting, why don’t you spend your time looking up how long it took Tom Osborne to lead Nebraska to the National Championship, or Don James at Washington, or Dean Smith—in a different sport, I know—at North Carolina. And guess how many National Championships the legendary Bo Schembechler won at Michigan. ZERO!)
Go Bears!
by California Pete on
Oct 22, 2008 11:18 PM PDT
up
0 recs




