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.
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
0 recs
hahahahahahaha
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on
Oct 22, 2008 4:51 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
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
reply
actions
0 recs
I’m already dreaming about "next year"—like all good Bears fans are conditioned to do in late October.
awwwwwwww. True.
Hope is dangerous, but Glory is addictive.
by AndBears on
Oct 23, 2008 10:49 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Who are these people
that speak hate against Sancto Tedford? We must get medieval on their asses.
Sancto Tedford
by monolake on
Oct 22, 2008 8:16 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Age and experience
Tedford is comparatively young when compared to other successful college football coaches. There are some others near his age; Urban Meyer comes to mind. But there are none younger, and many have been coaching for over a decade longer than Tedford.
Pete Caroll started coaching 15 years before Tedford even did- Tedford was still in middle school!
When it comes to sports, you need two things- you need raw talent, and you need the experience to know how to use that talent.
Tedford clearly has talent- just look at how quickly he was able to turn Cal around.
Tedford also has serious experience now, but it’s comparatively little compared to a lot of little coaches. As long as he’s making improvements to his style every year, he has a lot of room to get better. He’s anything but over the hill when it comes to coaching experience.
And so with that thought, let’s wait and see- not one year, but something more like 3-4 years.
by kluge on
Oct 22, 2008 8:34 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
you need raw talent … Tedford clearly has talent
I’m not sure if we do have talent. What do you consider talent? Do we need 25% of our team to be four or five star recruits before we have “talent?” We’re clearly a much better team now than we were in 2002. But I’m not sure if we’re truly “talented” – whatever that means. We’re certainly not USC with 66% 5 star recruits.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on
Oct 22, 2008 9:18 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Hydro, kluge meant that Tedford himself has raw coaching talent. Which is true.
Stanfurd Delendum Est.
by Olsonist on
Oct 23, 2008 8:48 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
yeah i was referring to coaching talent
as far as player talent, i agree…we need to do a better job at recruiting, and here’s praying that all those trees didn’t die in vain
by kluge on
Oct 25, 2008 2:38 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
“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.”
These are the types of scary comments that slip into civil conversations about how Tedford has handled the QB situation. The QB situation obviously hasn’t been optimal, but for all the criticism, when Riley got his chance he hasn’t exactly lit the world on fire. And he has twice as much experience with the offense this year as he did last year (negating his redshirt year). People were upset Tedford stuck with Longshore last year, but based on what you’ve seen so far this year, can you really say things would have turned out much differently with? Maybe, maybe not. It’s a fair argument to have. But when you start to talk about Tedford not being the right person for this program…..wow. Scary stuff.
Look, Cal isn’t turning into USC anytime soon. Face it, top recruits just aren’t going to go to Cal as often as they will a program like USC or LSU. In the Tedford era, Cal has had 1 top 10 recruiting class (according to rivals.com), and finished ranked in the top 10…once. With good QB play, Cal has the talent to be a team like the 2004 Cal team. But expecting that every year out of Tedford is unrealistic. It isn’t easy finding QB’s as good as Rodgers. There will be some losses, some disappointments. It happens. When it does, you can discuss things you think Tedford may have made a mistake on. But please, can the “Tedford may not be the right coach for the program” talk.
by HyphyBearsFan on
Oct 22, 2008 8:50 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I think you and Rags are making the same point about the qb controversy. I see where you’re both coming from, but after watching the Arizona game it’s very difficult for me to understand why Tedford has failed to recognize the pattern with Longshore. The TD to INT ratio in the 4th quarter says it all. I’m sure Tedford has his reasons, but what those reasons are is beyond me.
by The Hombre on
Oct 22, 2008 8:56 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I actually happen to agree with you on the QB situation. Whether Riley plays better/worse/same as Longshore, I’d like to see him play the rest of the season because he can get better for the future. However, I try to hold off on the Tedford criticism since he watches all the practices, film of the game, and has a much better knowledge of how each QB is performing than we do. As a fan, I enjoy discussing my opinions, but lately I am frustrated because a small minority of fans seems to be reacting too far. Many fans do not like how the QB situation has been handled – understandable. What frustrates me is that small minority that turns that into questioning whether Tedford should be on the “Hot Seat”, or calling Cal an underachieving team. Cal was ranked #2 in the nation at one point last year, before a QB injury helped lead to a collapse. This year, Cal has lost to two teams that seem to be very capable teams when they play well right now. LSU won the national championship and lost to Arkansas and Kentucky last year, and Cal doesn’t get the talent of LSU/USC level programs. Losses like that happen to every program. Cal certainly hasn’t lived up to our HOPES, but that doesn’t mean they are necessarily underachieving and we need to find a new coach. We still have half the season left. If we learned anything from last year, it should be this team is capable of going undefeated in the second half. Or going 2-4. Most likely, this team will be 8-4 going into a bowl, not too shabby, especially considering they should be better next year.
by HyphyBearsFan on
Oct 22, 2008 9:24 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
But, Hombre, look at the alternative (Riley). With Riley, we seem to have slow starts which last for 3 quarters. A football team can lose a game in a quarter (UA 2008, for example). Imagine what can happen in 3 quarters. With Longshore, we seem to get 2-3 good quarters out of him before things go south. But before things go south, we might have enough of a lead to win a game – whereas if we sit out a game for 3 quarters, we might not have enough time to make the comeback (Maryland). It’s even harder nowadays to make comebacks with the new clock rule.
Thus, it’s more than logical to go with a guy who starts faster, than a guy who starts slower. At least with the guy who starts faster, you’re in the game earlier on and the clock isn’t working against you as much.
I’m not really advocating Longshore in this post. I’m just playing Devil’s Advocate. You seem pretty intent on the belief that Riley should start, but I really don’t think there is a clear cut answer – hence why Tedford is flip-flopping with the QBs.
We need one of the QBs to separate himself from the other – whether it be from horrible play or good play. Neither has done so yet. Which is unfortunate, because in the mean time people are criticizing Tedford for (i) apparently not choosing one QB and sticking with that QB; (ii) and for something which is really out of his control (neither QB separating himself from the other).
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on
Oct 22, 2008 9:25 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don't have much to add to this discussion
Other than that I pretty much agree. And while I’m sure that some of the detractors are old-timers, I would bet that a large majority of them are fans who started watching after Tedford was already coaching.
By the way, I’ve never seen a non-Tedford team (not a Cal student yet) but thanks to the glories of the internet/ability to look up simply history, I am, on the whole, very grateful to be a Cal football game right now/
by Mister Pie on
Oct 22, 2008 9:32 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
A couple of things that made me cringe...
Hydro, I’m very glad you wrote this but 2 things you said made me cringe:
“I understand that living in the Pac-10 is tough since USC represents everything we want to become but aren’t.”
Ugghh. I pray Cal will NEVER be anything like $C. In deference to Twist, $C just ain’t kosher. There’s a whole lot of money changin’ hands. ‘SC boosters are really, REALLY frightening folks (kinda’ the Sarah Palin crowd). Academics are meaningless there for athletes. They’re essentially the NY Yankees of college football — the best team that money can buy; honestly, I don’t see how it would be fun at all to back those guys, and that’s definitely NOT what I want for Cal.
“We are lucky that Tedford has stuck around considering our fan base is so fair-weather.”
Ouch. I sho ain’t fair-weather. The guys I go to games with ain’t fair-weather (maybe a little pessimistic, but not fair-weather). I suspect the folks you go to games with aren’t fair-weather, either. I suspect a lot of the people jumping on Tedford are somewhat new to Cal football, and don’t have much historical perspective on the team. But the rest of us sat through losses in the rain against $C, made the journey to Knoxville only to have folks from the heartland apologize for how hard it must be that they don’t play “real” football in the Pac-10, and had to come up with justifications for our wives/girlfriends as to why it is so important that we catch any of the 2 or 3 televised games for a 1-11 Holmoe team.
Some of the criticism of Tedford is fair. For a college quarterback guru, the position has been a big disappointment following Bohler (sp?) and Rodgers. Tedford was absolutely dominant as a play caller at Oregon (he embarassed an insanely good Colorado team the last time he coached in a BCS bowl); he hasn’t consistently duplicated that as a play caller at Cal (when he was calling the offensive plays).
That being said, Tedford is absolutely the right guy for Cal, and he’s getting the right kids for Cal. He’s the best coach in Berkeley since Pappy Waldorf. I think (more like pray) he will finally get the Bears to a Rose Bowl. I sure hope he doesn’t leave our ungrateful arses.
by RickySanchez on
Oct 22, 2008 10:32 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
fair concerns
My remark regarding USC was in regards to their consistent winning season and endless BCS bowl appearances, not so much in regards to their whole program. I suppose I should have been more specific.
As for the fair-weather fan comment… I know we have die-hard fans and not all of us are fair-weather. Most of us reading this are probably die-hard fans. But there are fair-weather fans. They are the ones that won’t go to a game because it’s drizzling a little bit. They are the ones that won’t go to the C-level OOC game because it’s just not that intriguing (excluding legitimate reasons such as distance or lack of funds). The ones that will hide their Cal pride should the Bears have less than 7 wins in a season. The ones that claim to be fans but do things that are harmful to the program (booing players, cussing out players as they go to the locker room, creating a negative environment for visiting recruits).
If Cal truly wants to turn the corner on being an elite program, having a great fan base is crucial. Our fans should be knowledgeable, supportive of the program, enthusiastic, and proud. We need to sell out crowds all the time no matter how poor our record or how bad the opponent we’re playing. We need to show up to games hours before they start and create a vibrant CFB environment for other fans, recruits, and players. The whole Cal Football Saturday needs to be a huge experience. Maybe this is asking too much though since football isn’t King as in the South. But if our fan base was as dedicated as some of the Big-12 teams and SEC teams, it would vastly help with recruiting and the Cal Football image. Of course, the easiest way to do this is to win. And nowadays, winning is getting harder and harder.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on
Oct 23, 2008 12:28 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Tedford is God.
The only reason we’re even having the discussion about expectations for Cal is because of Tedford. When the personnel aligned well for an extended period in 2004, he almost took us all the way—a tiny, tiny chance of that happening only a couple of years after the team went 1 and 10. I still think if Pete’s Carroll’s cheaters at USC didn’t tackle Chase Lyman’s knee and injure him, the SC game would have likely been ours. If we have the right personnel mix in the future (which is more likely now than it was back then), Tedford is the right man for the job; he will put us in contention. Give Tedford lots of love and loyalty if you want Cal to even maintain a discussion of expectations.
I don't care about losing all the money. It's losing all the stuff.
by Strang! on
Oct 23, 2008 10:14 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I appreciate the discussion, really I do.
…especially from the wide-ranging and very articulate fan-base. Go Bears, beating illiteracy everyday.
But we have to keep in mind that this exercise is about as useful to affect the game on the field as walking under ladders and rubbing your lucky Oski bobble-head. And while we’re enjoying our mental masturbation, we must remember that the Cal Bear’s football team is not democracy — we do not get a vote. At a big stretch, we might be able to call it a representative democracy but that’s assuming that Tedford’s job is to please US – the fans. One might hope that his loyalty would be to the players on the field, giving them the best training and chance for an amazing season as possible.
My point is that Tedford is God. We hope his team is based on a meritocracy, but really, it’s his team. Assuming that we don’t chuck him out for this, he’s making his choices and running his organization. I believe the original point of this post was to calm the fanatics to keep from doing anything rash. The discussion is good, but lets not get too carried away. This is just an exercise.
Hope is dangerous, but Glory is addictive.
by AndBears on
Oct 23, 2008 11:15 AM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
If I have no control over on-field action, how come I haven’t showered my “Cal underoos” since the MSU game? Answer me that, AndBears!
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on
Oct 23, 2008 11:25 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Ripping on 20 year olds
Hey Cal Fans,
Just wanted to share one of my frustrations, not at Tedford but at the Cal Fan Base. I know this whole Longshore, Riley this is controversial but we should consider two things.
1) Longshore vs. Riley – Tedford’s Knowledge
We need to remember that Tedford knows a bit more of football than we do. In fact, this is a guy who sleeps in his office during the week just to prepare for future games. Yes Longshores throws some detrimental picks, but Riley has also been very inconsistent. Both have not been playing well. I actually blame a lot of that on our young inconsistent WR (come on catch something and run your routes right so the qb isn’t cornered!) but that is beside the point. The point is, Tedford has a much bigger understanding of the situation than we do so let’s not unreasonably bash or cut him down.
2) Our Players are 18-22 Years Old..
Cal Fans in the last couple years have gotten used to winning to the point that when a player performs poorly we bash the kid like no other. Ayoob and Longshore come to mind. It is one thing if these are players paid millions of dollars to do this professionally because hey they are being paid to endure this, but college players are kids between 18-22 year old with let’s face it, fragile emotions. The types of jeers, hate talk both verbally and all over their social web pages, across the web, is incredibly hard for these young kids to bear. I heard how some of these players would cry after making one mistake because of the type of treatment they get on campus. Longshore walks into games probably scared out of his wit of making a bad throw because he knows so many people hate him and will yell to yank him after one bad throw. It gets worse in tight situations. How is a young man supposed to perform in these conditions? Constructive criticism is one thing, but the incredible level of complete ripping of young 20 year olds is just too much. It really affects performance.
—
side note: tanking a season for the sake of next season is not black and white. A poor season especially losing to fellow in-state recruiting competitors in the pac10 can hurt our recruiting process. Let’s hope we get some good WR next year…
get off me bandwagoners!
http://blog.cleancutmedia.com
by cleancutmedia on
Oct 23, 2008 2:12 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
riddle me this
Why did Tedford play Longshore every single down from the OSU loss to the 2nd quarter of the AF Bowl?
Side note: tanking a season for the sake of undue loyalty to a senior QB isn’t black and white. It’s just dumb.
Stanfurd Delendum Est.
by Olsonist on
Oct 23, 2008 2:23 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
“Tanking a season for the sake of undue loyalty to a senior QB” is a baseless assumption. That Tedford thought Longshore gave the team the best chance to win is the likely reason, so the debate should really start (and stay) there.
by zoonews on
Oct 23, 2008 2:49 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
zooey
I meant tanking this season for the sake of undue loyalty to a senior QB. Last year, Longshore was a junior. This season I’m hoping (against hope) that Tedford won’t make the same mistake again. But at some point, you have to stick a fork in him.
Last season, that Tedford thought Longshore gave the team the best chance to win might explain his starting Longshore. It however does not explain playing him every single down from the OSU loss to the 2nd quarter of the AF Bowl.
I like Tedford. I think he’s a great coach and obviously he knows more than I do. But I disagree with him about Longshore. He hasn’t convinced me with what he’s said and certainly not with what Longshore has done. Hydro disagrees with Cignetti on the playcalling in the UofA game. Does Cignetti know more than Hydro. I sure hope so.
Disagreement does not mean disrespect.
Stanfurd Delendum Est.
by Olsonist on
Oct 23, 2008 3:15 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
We all know you disagree with him on this one, as do many others, my only point is that many, like you here, are repeatedly assuming his reasoning and it takes the conversation out of reality and into baseless supposition. Yeah, I guess if he stuck with Longshore out of ego when Riley would have been so much better then y’all might have a point. So… prove it. Do you have a foundation to the oft-repeated notion that he stuck with Longshore out of pride, stubbornness, loyalty, whatever? Cleancutmedia’s first point, that he knows a lot more about the situation than we do, is a fact. Riley’s averaging performance this year is good evidence that sticking with Longshore might have actually been based in football, not ego. Can you at least acknowledge this?
by zoonews on
Oct 23, 2008 3:41 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I readily acknowledge that Tedford pisses away more football knowledge each morning than I will accumulate in a lifetime.
Do you have a foundation to the oft-repeated notion that he stuck with Longshore out of pride, stubbornness, loyalty, whatever?
Yes. Tedford likes Longshore. At every opportunity he compliments him. He’s said that having Longshore out there is like having an extra coach on the field since Longshore has such a command of Tedford’s complex offense. Furthermore, after going with Riley for the opener, Tedford went out of his way to compliment how Longshore took it. It’s clear that Tedford likes Longshore in a way that I have not seen him demonstrate towards Riley. Can you at least acknowledge that?
Stanfurd Delendum Est.
by Olsonist on
Oct 23, 2008 4:02 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Please. Representing the players he works with to the media is a big part of college coaching but it’s hardly the sum total of the coach’s opinion on the matter. Recognize it for what it is, a spin that he has to make for the fans that will also be heard by the team. If the different treatment between L and R that you see actually exists, it is much more likely to be indicitive of what motivates the players involved than some sort of tell of T’s hidden agenda.
by zoonews on
Oct 23, 2008 4:12 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
So you would have me show blind unquestioning allegiance? I didn’t go to the University of Alabama.
Yes, I know that Tedford doesn’t say everything and that everything that Tedford says has to be put through a Tedford filter. But if you correlate what Tedford actually says with what others say and with what happens, you’re a better fan for it.
Or you can be a Twisted.
Stanfurd Delendum Est.
by Olsonist on
Oct 23, 2008 4:24 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That’s not true, Olsonist. Zoo News could never achieve enough awesomeness to be me!
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on
Oct 23, 2008 4:37 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It’s not blind allegiance. The press conferences tell part of the story, the performance on the field tells part of the story, the embedded reporters put their spin on what they know, and then there is the huge area of things in college ball that are rightfully hidden. A lot of fans are prefectly happy to wildly guess about this stuff but intelligent people, like we Cal fans, should caveat opinion as such. Saying things like "This season I’m hoping (against hope) that Tedford won’t make the same mistake again " assumes a mistake was made and goes from there… I don’t make that assumption and Riley’s performance this year affirms that to some extent. You might disagree with the last point, but THAT’S what we should be talking about, not supposed man/boy crushes and the secret plans of petty coaches who are otherwise awesome. Because the latter, frankly, does not compute.
by zoonews on
Oct 23, 2008 4:44 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yes, I do think it was a mistake to play Longshore every single down from OSU to the AF Bowl game. I’ve even said that I thought it was detrimental to Longshore. And I don’t believe in papal infallibility either.
Stanfurd Delendum Est.
by Olsonist on
Oct 23, 2008 5:05 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Well now we’re getting somewhere! Based on what we all saw together, it certainly seemed odd. The main difference between us is that I give the coaches the benefit of the doubt on things I don’t know, meaning that I don’t have any reason to not believe them that playing Longshore through the injury was, unfortunately, the best we had to offer at the time. This view shifts the coaching failure, if we’re naming one, from choosing the starter to running so many damn plays that the team was clearly incapable of executing properly. A much more complicated (and interesting) topic! Also, clearly beyond the scope of my knowledge. Go Bears!
by zoonews on
Oct 23, 2008 5:35 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Did you expect Coach to say “Damn, Longshore is taking it like a little bitch and he totes sucked dick out there.”
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on
Oct 23, 2008 4:19 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
This one is just too easy and I have standards and a reputation to live up to.
But if anyone else wants it, have at it.
Stanfurd Delendum Est.
by Olsonist on
Oct 23, 2008 5:07 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That’s a yes, isn’t it?
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on
Oct 23, 2008 5:12 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Perhaps JT is complimenting Longshore more than Riley. But perhaps it’s not because Tedford likes Longshore better. Perhaps it’s because so many people straight up hate Longshore and think he’s a shitty QB whereas Riley is the fan favorite. Tedford has to combat some of this silliness by complimenting what LOngshore does well, even if it’s things such as taking the news that Riley won the starting job after MSU.
I am not arguing that Tedford has dropped more compliments of Longshore than Riley. But I’m merely suggesting that perhaps the nature of the situation is the cause of it more so than mere preference for one QB.
Is that possible? I think so.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on
Oct 23, 2008 4:43 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Of course it’s possible. In fact, it’s another much more likely reason for a different spin than some unabashed love that he just can’t hide being the cause of all of our woes.
by zoonews on
Oct 23, 2008 4:46 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
oops
second paragraph should read:
I am not arguing that Tedford has not dropped more compliments of Longshore than Riley. But I’m merely suggesting that perhaps the nature of the situation is the cause of it more so than mere preference for one QB.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by HydroTech on
Oct 23, 2008 4:54 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The on-field coach quote was, as I recall, at the beginning of last season. It wasn’t in response to crowd criticism late in the season. Riley didn’t become a crowd favorite until the AF Bowl. I remember some people in Q cursing his name in the 2nd quarter of the OSU game and I was thinking this kid has got game.
It’s not wrong for Tedford to like Longshore. You devote five years to a kid, I sure hope he likes him. But when Longshore plays well, he plays the game in the perfect style that Tedford wants and it seems that Tedford is always hoping for that again. Riley is not a prototypical Tedford QB.
Note to Hydro: don’t you wish you had editing privileges?
Stanfurd Delendum Est.
by Olsonist on
Oct 23, 2008 5:01 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Tedford should be on the hot seat for not playing Brock Mansion yet. Plain and simple.
by BearsNecessity on
Oct 23, 2008 7:48 PM PDT
reply
actions
2 recs
“So you would have me show blind unquestioning allegiance?”
Yes. Cal fans should show blind unquestioning allegiance. This is why: Tedford is a good football coach and leads the program in a winning direction. Fans boo’ing and criticizing Tedford and Cal players will not change how he coaches the team, and there is no plausible way it has a positive effect on the team. However, it CAN have a negative effect on the team. You can shatter players confidence. You can turn off recruits visiting on gameday. You can create added pressure on players to perform. Look, we’re fans, and we want to discuss our opinions. There is nothing wrong with reasoned discussion. Lately, it just seems some fans are taking it too far.
On another note, this Tedford hurts the program by showing loyalty to Longshore stuff is ridiculous. Tedford wants to win. He coaches to win now, and in the future. He isn’t an idiot, he understands the pro-Longshore and pro-Riley arguments, and with all his football knowledge, he makes the decision he thinks will be most beneficial to the program. He may or may not be right, but it’s ridiculous to think he isn’t acting in the best interest of the Cal program.
by HyphyBearsFan on
Oct 23, 2008 9:40 PM PDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I prefer the approach that the pre-Columbian Mesoamericans, the Olmec and the Aztecs, had with a ballgame common in their cultures. The captain of the losing team was decapitated. I also think this could also be applied to bloggers. If the hit count on CGB goes below a certain level, decapitate one of the Fallible Five. I think you’ll find it extremely motivating and that content will improve rapidly.
Stanfurd Delendum Est.
by Olsonist on
Oct 23, 2008 10:15 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I apologize for all of our new and fresh content, delivered free each and every day.
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on
Oct 23, 2008 10:45 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
uh-oh
CBKWit, you’d better get your post rate up!
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on
Oct 24, 2008 9:30 AM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
If you want the ultimate, you’ve got to be willing to pay the ultimate price.
It’s not tragic to die doing what you love.
Stanfurd Delendum Est.
by Olsonist on
Oct 24, 2008 12:19 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Hey, Olsy, make it two!
I'm no The Maharg! But I try. Oh, how I try!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on
Oct 24, 2008 3:26 PM PDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs

















