Giving Tedford the Axe?

by slims on Nov 24, 2008 12:53 PM PST

The Contra Costa Times suggests it is a possibility for some unexplained reason, and feels the need to defend him.

One notable portion of the article:

[H]ave Tedford's results lived up to his mission statement? Let's revisit his acceptance speech from nearly seven years ago:

"I have a goal and a vision," he said, "that the University of California, through hard work and dedication, can get to where we are competing for the Pac-10 championship and at a national level."

That part of it remains open to interpretation. Cal has made two legitimate runs at the conference title in Tedford's seven seasons.

I'm a bit confused... we won a share of the Pac-10 Championship in 2006 for the first time since 1975 and were ranked as high as #2 as recently as 2007, but this is open for interpretation? Please. Tedford has done everything he said he was going to do at Cal - and then some. We went from bottom of the Pac-10 to an consistent challenger for the conference title. Our recruiting is up, our program prestige is up, game attendance and TV coverage is up... what more can we get out of this guy? Who else can we realistically expect to hire and do better?

The one thing I've always had against Tedford is his fairly rough road record, particularly in Los Angeles. But with recent wins in Eugene, Corvallis, Pullman, Seattle, Tuscon, and Tempe, where we've had trouble in the now-distant past, it seems that we may be close to getting over this hump.

PS - why didn't we go to the Rose Bowl in 1975? Anybody know?

The opinions expressed in a FanPost are not necessarily those of the California Golden Blogs or any of its authors. However, they are just as important as the opinions of any of the authors. And doubly so as compared to TwistNHook!

0 recs | Comment 7 comments | Add comment

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I think he was highlighting the good things Tedford's done...not suggest he should be fired

The last part of that article states:

That part of it remains open to interpretation. Cal has made two legitimate runs at the conference title in Tedford’s seven seasons. Nationally, three of his first six Cal teams finished in The Associated Press Top 25. That’s better than friends of the program had been conditioned to expect, but falls just short of the working definition of “perennial powerhouse.”

Then there’s the whole Rose Bowl thing, which we should probably save for our next session.

Tedford is low-key, well-mannered and hard-working. He understands football’s place in the Cal culture, and that understanding hasn’t chased him off. From a macro perspective, which we should probably employ more often than we do, he’s done about as much as could be reasonably expected given the parameters of this time and place.

In other words, if you want more from a football program than he’s delivering, you’re looking for something that doesn’t grow here. Medical marijuana pun not intended.

The media and most fans define the Pac-10 champion as the team that plays in the Rose Bowl.

I think a strong finish to this season will squash any “Tedford has peaked” talk.

Tedford’s accomplished many goals…and now expectations are starting to get raised. And they aren’t unfair, as Tedford has acknowledged and welcomed.

2008, with the bounce back from 3 road losses, the axe, and a positive ruling on the SHPC front, has to accomplish several major goals for the season. Winning the bowl game would be the last major goal, in my opinion.

The Maharg makes me look like an idiot.

by carp on Nov 24, 2008 1:13 PM PST reply reply 0 recs

oops

last sentence should have been:

The 2008 team…has accomplished

The Maharg makes me look like an idiot.

by carp on Nov 24, 2008 1:15 PM PST up reply reply 0 recs

1975

If I’m remembering my history correctly, CAL finished tied with UC-southern branch for the Pac-10 title and lost the head-to-head tiebreaker (having lost to the Bruins that year). I believe that if favored SC had beaten southern branch in the season finale, then CAL would have gone to the Rose Bowl by virtue of the CAL win over SC that season.

Realizing just how much Aaron Rodgers spoiled us.

by Ohio Bear on Nov 24, 2008 1:41 PM PST reply reply 0 recs

yes. and $c pissed away the game against 'la

else we would have won outright

Go Bears Go

by Rocksanddirt on Nov 24, 2008 3:23 PM PST up reply reply 0 recs

It’s okay, SC pissed away a game against UCLA in 2006, which gave us our next shared Pac-10 title.

by Rishi on Nov 24, 2008 3:40 PM PST up reply reply 0 recs

No, it's not okay...

because the result in both cases was the same: No Rose Bowl.

by calgbear on Nov 24, 2008 4:14 PM PST up reply reply 0 recs

Well, the no Rose Bowl was not a result of USC losing in 2006. It was because they lost to a vastly inferior UCLA team that we at least had a shared title.

by Rishi on Nov 24, 2008 4:18 PM PST up reply reply 0 recs