It's seems so long ago that Tedford shocked the Nate Longshore loving world that is CGB by naming Riley as the # 1 QB.  Most of us who were tired of Longshore's 4th quarter meltdowns last years welcomed the move, while you Longshore lovers were despondent.

Publicly Tedford came out and said that Riley was performing better in practices and earned the job.  Having not seen the practices, most of us do not know if this is true or not.  But could there have been other factors motivating Tedford's decision?  If so what other factors?

While Riley has had a couple decent games and one bad one, his overall numbers seem pedestrian to me.

In his first game against MSU Riley threw for 202 yards, on 17 - 24 passes with  2 TDs and no INTs.  We all know how Longshore did . . .

In his second game, Riley was flat out bad.  Riley was just 6 - 14 for a measley 51 yards and 1 TD.  His longest pass was a 14 yard gain as he consistently missed receivers  who were more than 10 yards away from him.

In his third game Riley amassed a HUGE amount of yards: 423 on 33 of 58, with 3TDs and 1 INT.  Although Riley began to play better in the second half, his pass completion rate was an uninspiring 56%, and his 423 yards were on 58 pass attempts and against a prevent defense..

So this post isn't an attempt to bash Riley.  Instead, I wonder whether there were other factors involved in Tedford's decision. Riley's three performances don't strike me as great or even that good.  I'd have to say so far Riley has been average and is still going through a lot of growing pains.  Obviously we don't know the playbook, we don't know if our inexperienced receivers ran the proper routes, and at least vs. Maryland we know the O-Line did not do a very good job of protecting Riley and at least some of his 5 sacks were coverage sacks.  We also don't know how Longshore would have performed, but I feel he is better at throwing the long ball than Riley is [notwithstanding his ugly line vs. MSU].  I have no insider knowledge and unlike our own Hydro, I haven't served as waterboy for the team.  So this is based on pure speculation.  However, I think Tedofrd chose Riley over Longford for one or two reasons other than "performance."

1.  Riley was chosen so this team could compete next year.

It's no secret that with a [largely] new crop of receivers, a new defensive scheme, and new off. coordinator, this Bear team was going to be in an ongoing state of learning.  No one expected our Bears to compete for a conf. championship and at best, everyone's most optimistic projection was to have Cal play in the Holiday Bowl.  So even though this last year of Longshore' eligibility would help his pro hopes, why not just get Riley in there this year so that he, the receivers and the off. coordinator have a year of experience under their belts.  This would make it easier to compete for loftier prizes next year and while this hurts Nate, in the long run it helps the team develop under Riley.

2.  Riley was chosen because the team needed new leadership and Tedford feared an "ASU Rudy Carpenter" rebellion.

The team's lack of leadership last year has been well chronicled by the players, coaches, and by CGB.  While this lack of leadership cannot be the fault of any one player, no one on the field epitomizes leadership like the QB.  I believe Tedford saw what we all did when Riley played against OSU and AirForce.  He saw Riley give the team a spark and referred to Riley's "playmaking ability" when discussing naming him the starter.  Naming Longshore the QB could have caused dissension in the ranks and a lack of confidence in the team. Perhaps Tedford felt that to turn things around he had to start with a new QB.

Personally I feel the first factor was the main factor in Tedford's decision.  If the team was not going to compete for a Rose Bowl or BCS Champ. this year, then why not prepare the team and Riley for one next year?  Your thoughts.