Golden Nuggets: "[A sense of urgency] was spotty all season long"
Dan Greenspan writes about Tepper's post-game comments.
"We’re not going to accept anything but victory," Tepper said.
"(Athletic director) Sandy (Barbour), Coach (Jeff Tedford), all the coaches and players, we all believe we can win a national championship. We just got to do it. As much as they hold us to that, why doesn’t our fan base as well? I like our fans. I think they’re great. They traveled pretty well, but people who don’t buy this as a bad season are incorrect."
The Bears have the talent to win. The players are there. Running back Jahvid Best was healthy when Oregon and USC pushed around Cal. Defensive lineman Tyson Alualu is a beast. Up and down the roster are the necessary athletes.
Many will put the blame on Tedford for a passive offensive game plan or defensive coordinator Bob Gregory for a secondary that missed tackles and assignments all night long or special teams coach Pete Alamar for a 61-yard kick return that put the Utes right back in the game after falling behind 14-0.
Wrong again, according to Tepper.
"If you’re getting paid as much as our coaches are, you’re going to have a good game plan. If you don’t, they are going to make adjustments on the sidelines and make it a good game plan," he said. "I think it is player execution.
"Once again, it was everyone taking turns. We missed protections. Kevin didn’t throw the ball fast enough on a protection. He overthrew a fullback. I missed a block on a run play. I know Mark Boskovich missed a block on a run play that if he would have hit, he would have separated and it would have been six points. We took turns making mistakes.
"This team has enough talent to beat Florida or Alabama or anything, I think it’s a sense of urgency on the players. It was spotty (all season long)."
...
Tedford is one of the highest paid employees in the state of California. The university is spending millions to upgrade Memorial Stadium.
If you don’t want to win it all, drop the program.
Otherwise, what’s the point?
That is Tepper’s point.
After the jump we look back at last night's loss to Utah as well as some of the questions Cal will face in the offseason. GN will take tomorrow off and return Sunday. Happy holidays!
Cal Football
- Besides saying guys are disappointed, Tedford doesn't say a whole lot in the post-game press conference. He praised Utah and said Wynn made some good plays and that their special teams played well.
- JO has quotes from the post-game press conference with Tedford, Riley, Mohamed, and Young and quotes from Gregory, Tepper, and Holley.
- The loss wasn't exactly how players and fans thought Cal would finish the season after starting the season #12 in the land. JO recaps the rest of the game. AP also has a recap of the game. SFGate also recaps the game.
- Ted Miller calls Cal's loss "supremely disappointing." Miller suggests dropping the nickle package, as it simply isn't working. His stat of the game sums up the woes on offense: six consecutive Cal drives gained a combined total of 18 yards.
- Tedford will likely have much to ask himself about how this season played out. Where was the consistency? Why were many of the losses so lopsided?
- With Cal and OSU's losses and academic issues plaguing USC, UCLA, and Oregon, the Pac-10 bowl season is off to a rough start.
- Ted Miller offers a Christmas present for Cal: a light bulb that keeps the locker room illuminated throughout the whole season, so Cal can be prepared for all twelve games.
73 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Rarely have I heard an argument given so succinctly that I instantly change my opinion. I’m doing that now. Mike Tepper is right. It’s time for people like me, who went through the bad old times, to demand more from the football team. This is a new era and this era demands results and 8-5 is not good enough in the 21st Century era of Cal football. Wow, I never thought I’d be one of those fans, but Tepper just made me into a demanding fan. If the players and coaches have high expectations, then we should too.
by BlackandOldGold on Dec 24, 2009 10:06 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
I’d be a demanding fan if I had any clue what the hell that means.
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
Tedford shouldn't start Riley next season
Its obvious that Riley doesn’t have the mental and physical requirements to succeed as a Pac 10 QB. If Tedford was a good coach, he would realize this and say “Sorry Kevin, but we need to go a different route next season. (Like he did with Ayoob after 05).”
If he starts Riley next season, its evidence to me that Tedford doesn’t think winning is the most important thing and that decision will eventually cost him his job- since Riley isn’t going to get any better (he’s too small, too weak, and doesn’t have the intangibles).
That said, it’s also up to the other quarterbacks to step up. You take the job away from the starter.
by BlackandOldGold on Dec 24, 2009 10:26 PM PST up reply actions
Well who really knows what goes on at practice since Tedford inexplicably closes them to the public and even the media (which is another stupid decision on his part).
by Bowlbasaur on Dec 24, 2009 10:30 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
totally agree
wtf dude. that was ridiculous…
"He's so fast, he can turn off the lights and be in bed before it gets dark!" -- Lee Corso on Jahvid Best in NCAA 10.
For one
Apparently Sweeney’s made strides and has overtaken Mansion. Maybe he’ll get even better and beat out Riley, but BlackandOldGold is right. It’s up to Sweeney or Mansion to step up.
by BleedinBlue on Dec 25, 2009 12:54 AM PST up reply actions
I agree. Sometimes it seems like the football operation thinks of the fans as an enemy to be defeated.
So what can you say?
by Spazzy Mcgee on Dec 25, 2009 2:23 AM PST up reply actions
We talkin' bout practice?
Practice?
I’m back! Yeah, that bowl game sucked.
Cal Football: Next Year.
Cal Football: I loved them once and they broke my heart. Let that be a lesson to you. Never love anything.
by CalBandGreat on Dec 27, 2009 4:24 PM PST up reply actions
Closed practices are perfecty acceptable...
The media can be a distraction, making stories where there are seemingly none, not to mention taking the players’ minds off of the tasks at hand and filling their heads with mindless hype. Yes, I know CGB is part of the media, but I don’t consider CGB to be a source of distraction – not ALL media outlets should be lumped together, but many are in the aforementioned category.
As for the fans, same thing. It’s just another factor that Tedford can’t fully control, and I’m sure he wants his practices to be as much under his control as possible – as they should be. It’s not like the football program owes us anything, or has any responsibility to be transparent to the public at large. Our love of the team and the incessant 24-hour-news-cycle may make us feel some larger sense of entitlement, but it simply isn’t there. We don’t need to know everything that goes on. We don’t need to know what the players had for lunch. Yeah, yeah, we buy tickets, we support the program, etc. etc. etc. – that’s all well and good, but that doesn’t give us the right to just poke our noses in wherever we like. I don’t see how fan attendance could possibly be of benefit to players. At best, we’re a nuisance. At worst, we create a scandal out of nothing. Any random picture that a fan snaps and posts online could be taken way out of context and start a hubbub over nothing. Without intimate knowledge of the practices and their inner workings(which none of us but giantfan5 possesses), any conclusion that fans may draw over what some random picture appears to depict is simply hogwash, and can only serve as distraction or fodder for unnecessary controversy.
The Cal Athletics Department is an entity that has our players’ best interests at heart, and Coach Tedford has shown himself to be someone who cares not just about winning, but also about the players as people. As this is the case, I don’t have a problem with closed practices. Tedford’s not trying to hide anything, he’s just trying to keep his players focused.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
by BearStage on Dec 26, 2009 12:08 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I agree
based on what I read from practice… it seemed like Jahvid wasn’t going to be ready for the season because all I read about was how he wasn’t participating in full contact practice. We all know that wasn’t the case.
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...
by Hey Bowles Hall! on Dec 26, 2009 11:28 AM PST up reply actions
I agree. We have the stupidest football coach in the nation. Bowlbasaur for coach!
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
U don’t have the intangibles to moderate, HydroTech!
Cal Football: I loved them once and they broke my heart. Let that be a lesson to you. Never love anything.
by CalBandGreat on Dec 27, 2009 4:27 PM PST up reply actions
If he starts Riley next season, its evidence to me that Tedford doesn’t think winning is the most important thing
The whole “Tedford secretly doesn’t want to win” thing is soooooooooooooooo 2007. Come back when you’ve got a new unreasonable and wholly unfounded criticism for 2010. I’m thinking “Tedford is part of the Illuminati and owns all the world’s media.” On no! All the world’s media?!!?
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I dunno, I believe that logic. I mean, it’s obvi you don’t want CGB to be a successful blog. Why else would you continue to comment?
Hiyo!
So good to be back home. I missed you guys.
Cal Football: I loved them once and they broke my heart. Let that be a lesson to you. Never love anything.
by CalBandGreat on Dec 27, 2009 4:30 PM PST up reply actions
What if, and I know this might be a difficult concept, Riley is the best quarterback we have? I know it must not have crossed your mind… it must be that all the people calling for Riley last year over Longshore had no idea what they were talking about. I’m sure that Tedford HATES winning, and Sweeney is the awesomest ever—even though we have never seen Sweeney play.
by paleodan on Dec 25, 2009 6:34 AM PST via mobile up reply actions 3 recs
You take you and your reason over there and just shut the hell up. Irrationality is the new sheriff in town and it does NOT like to be challenged! Party Yacht motherfuckers!
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Dec 26, 2009 12:13 AM PST up reply actions
awww c’mon, we need you on the ‘reason’ side – just until the bowl season calms down.
Can we count on your help?
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
But I just made this Gregory effigy!
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Dec 26, 2009 12:15 AM PST up reply actions
Turn it into a Mack Brown effigy!
That kinda thing is ALWAYS useful :-D
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
Any effigy + devil horns = Mack Brown effigy.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Dec 26, 2009 12:30 AM PST up reply actions
Man, Cal had
so much potential… but Tedford’s game plan was the weak link. That offense with that defense with that obvious lack of ‘a sense of urgency’ (read ‘lack of discipline’) was easy to predict and hard to watch by the end of the season.
What happened to the spell HB after Best’s injury? How did that become less valuable suddenly? Why did we not see DBo or Isi as the spell HB? I really think Cal’s offense was better with the spell back taking reps, and beyond that… when you have an anomaly such as the 6 series/18 yard production— why not try something new?
No edge rusher? No pain train? Rush four not three. It’s like they decided to stick with the 3-4 even when it was totally useless. Cal could not compete with a three man rush with that personnel. The 3-4 took a huge step back.
And it all ties in together. The weak pass rush left db’s exposed kept the defense on the field… the weak line didn’t protect Riley, Riley lacked the intangibles, the receivers lacked the intangibles, kept the defense on the field… the inexperienced and inexplicable lb core couldn’t decide who would play outside or inside, so they played confused, and they KEPT THE DEFENSE ON THE FIELD.
Special teams worked to keep the defense off the field— by insisting the opponent play on a shortened field. That worked.
Cal’s game-plan is over-exposed like more than one of Tiger’s hos. But, I digress.
"He's so fast, he can turn off the lights and be in bed before it gets dark!" -- Lee Corso on Jahvid Best in NCAA 10.
What happened to the spell HB after Best’s injury? How did that become less valuable suddenly? Why did we not see DBo or Isi as the spell HB? I really think Cal’s offense was better with the spell back taking reps, and beyond that… when you have an anomaly such as the 6 series/18 yard production— why not try something new?
Carries given to the spell HB is determined by Gould; if the workhorse looks tired, Gould puts the spell HB in. If Vereen doesn’t look tired, he’s not coming out.
And it all ties in together. The weak pass rush left db’s exposed kept the defense on the field… the weak line didn’t protect Riley, Riley lacked the intangibles, the receivers lacked the intangibles, kept the defense on the field… the inexperienced and inexplicable lb core couldn’t decide who would play outside or inside, so they played confused, and they KEPT THE DEFENSE ON THE FIELD.
You seem to be arguing that Cal would’ve won with a better game plan, but I’m not sure a good game plan would save a team with all the deficiencies and player weaknesses you just listed.
by BleedinBlue on Dec 25, 2009 12:51 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
No edge rusher? No pain train? Rush four not three. It’s like they decided to stick with the 3-4 even when it was totally useless. Cal could not compete with a three man rush with that personnel. The 3-4 took a huge step back.
What you’re getting at here is not so much a deficiency in coaching, but a shortcoming of our players. With Follett gone, we didn’t have anyone who could consistently terrorize opposing QBs. I’m not sure if you watched the bowl game, but Gregory was using a lot of 4:3. It still wasn’t getting pressure. And it seemed like every time we rushed five, pressure was still minimal. It’s tough to accept, but our D is a less talented, less cohesive group than it was last year. Gregory didn’t suddenly go from brilliant in 2008 to incompetent in 2009.
Whose domicile? OUR DOMICILE!
by Berkelium97 on Dec 25, 2009 10:25 AM PST up reply actions
Was it 4-3? Or a nickel formation with 4 down linemen with 2 linebackers and 5 dbacks? I don’t know if we ran 4-3 much this season…
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
by Avinash Kunnath on Dec 25, 2009 10:44 AM PST up reply actions
Hmm, I actually don’t remember counting the LBs as often as I was counting down linesmen. It very well may have been a 4:2:5. I thought I did see 4:3 a few times out there. Either way, lots of looks with 4 down linemen.
Whose domicile? OUR DOMICILE!
by Berkelium97 on Dec 25, 2009 11:05 AM PST up reply actions
You weren’t seeing things. We did run the 4-3 with 4 true DL and 3 true LBs a few times this year. We did use that specific personnel group during the bowl game.
Yikes
What’s truly terrifying about this situation (and even the usually idiotic commentators picked up on it) was our ability to rush only 3 and still manage to have single coverage (or less) down the field.
by The Wrecking Jew on Dec 25, 2009 7:46 PM PST up reply actions
That’s what your mom said. JUVENILE HUMOR!
by The Wrecking Jew on Dec 26, 2009 10:10 AM PST up reply actions
What if Tedford
‘lacked the intangibles’?
and yeah I watched the game. I also noticed a play Utah ran right over the top of our safeties for a bomb against a three man rush. It’s no mystery the 3-4 has been week ALL season. No more three man rushes… cue the Bob Greggory defense…
The comment about the spell back only coming out when Best looked ‘tired’ seems misguided. Vereen was the spell back, and they spelled him often and they’ve done this since ’08, and it made the system more effective IMO.
If all the kids are making mistakes, maybe it reflects the coach. Did Tedford recruit all these kids? He was a gracious stoic patron at fan appreciation day— but to what effect?
When we made the trip to Eugene and saw Cal ruin a chance to get back in to contention on a pass to Tucker, and watched him get flagged for taunting— the coaching bug was pretty obvious. That was such a fundamental flaw in the WR’s ‘approach’ to the game. It almost bit Cal against Minnesota. But, Tucker broke Cal fans’ hearts all season with his antics and he barely claimed a starting spot from Boateng IIRC. By the numbers, Tucker had a productive year. However, I believe Boateng could have started, and that it was almost a toss up. Who knows how things might have turned out if Cal went with the ‘possession’ receiver instead. Riley’s a great scapegoat, but the Cal receivers blew this year and we needed Nyan in there as a starter to develop a firmer and simpler ‘possession’ passing game. Remember, we win in Wahington, and none of these questions happen.
Next question: did Tedford underestimate the (Pac-10) competition?
"He's so fast, he can turn off the lights and be in bed before it gets dark!" -- Lee Corso on Jahvid Best in NCAA 10.
and yeah I watched the game. I also noticed a play Utah ran right over the top of our safeties for a bomb against a three man rush. It’s no mystery the 3-4 has been week ALL season. No more three man rushes… cue the Bob Greggory defense…
I recall this play. Utah sent 4 receivers out initially on this play and the RB released to his check down route when he saw there was no need for his extra blocking. 5 receivers vs 8 defenders in zone coverage. You would think the 8 defenders could cover the 5 receivers.
Gregory sent pressure early in the game with 4-5 guys with mixed success, but Utah continued running the ball to keep the D honest and started hitting screens, play action, shovel passes, and other quick passes that got the ball out of the QBs hands quickly and rendered our pass rush ineffective.
If your solution is to send 6 guys, which would leave 5 defenders to cover 4 receivers, and as a DC you don’t know if the pressure will get to the qb because the other team’s OC has been calling plays to get rid of the ball quickly, dropping 8 into coverage isn’t such a bad idea especially when you don’t know if Utah is going to run or pass from the 20. It’s playing it safe.
Did you notice that Utah receiver who caught this TD ran a route untouched nearly 20 yards downfield and put a double move on our safety? You should be asking yourself why that receiver got downfield through the linebacker coverage untouched rather than complaining about how rushing 3 is worse than cancer, hypertension, and kidney stones combined.
The weak pass rush left db’s exposed….
Well let’s see here. The more guys you blitz, the more exposed you leave your secondary. The less guys you rush, the more coverage and protected the secondary becomes. You can’t have it both ways.
I think you should get a new hobby other than armchair QBing. You’re not very good at it.
by Cali49a on Dec 26, 2009 2:30 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
gaaah
Come on, people, the 3-4 does NOT = 3 man rush. The 3-4 when well employed will rush LBs or safeties as well as the three down linemen. The advantage of it is the flexibility that comes from the offense not really knowing who the 4th rusher will be. Of course, when you have a Ron Rivera or a Zach Follett you might have a good idea who it most often will be, but then you don’t know where he’s coming from all the time either if he’s stunting. I’m no fan of the 3 man rush, but folks on this board should stop equating it with the 3-4.
You are only blaming the gameplan because players can’t be fired.
I know it is hard for some of you Cal grads to accept not being the best at everything (one of the best universities in the world, so many noble laureates, blah blah blah). I hate to break it to you, but this team really wasn’t that good. Some people are naturally better at things than others. Other teams were naturally better at football than we were this year. It sucks, I know, but its true. I guess it was hard to accept because of all the preseason hype. We can bitch and complain about it, and try to fuck shit up within the program; or we can accept that this team wasn’t as talented as we hoped and then we can focus on next year.
You win some and you lose some. Try not to go apeshit when we lose some.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Dec 26, 2009 12:26 AM PST up reply actions 5 recs
LONGSHOOOOORRRRRRREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cal Football: I loved them once and they broke my heart. Let that be a lesson to you. Never love anything.
by CalBandGreat on Dec 27, 2009 4:37 PM PST up reply actions
I think blaming the coaches for what happens in the game doesn’t necessarily mean it’s only their playcalling that’s at fault. For example, I don’t blame Gregory for only rushing 3 a lot of the time. However, when we’re in our last game of the season and we still find situations where dropping 8 provides far less than adequate coverage, questions have to be asked about how the players are being coached. I understand that maybe our players just aren’t that talented, but I have trouble believing that it’s all on them. At some point (particularly by the end of the season), it’s has to be up to the coaches to train away some of those little mistakes. I’m not advocating firing Gregory, or anyone else, per se. But I think it’s unfair to just give the coaches a pass by saying they’ve done the best they can with the players they have. Does anyone think that’s 100% true? I’m of the opinion that early-season mistakes are on the shoulders of the players. Those same mistakes late in the season have to fall at least a little on the coaching staff. Just my two cents.
by The Wrecking Jew on Dec 26, 2009 11:49 AM PST up reply actions
Spot on
Fans have always refrained from heavy criticism of players due to this erroneous belief that the coach is responsible for everything which happens good or bad. But in reality, the players play the game. The coaches can only do so much and then things are out of their hands and it’s up to the players. While this year’s team did have some great talent in Best, Thompson, and Alualu, it was also really bad in other places. Really bad.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
of course it would. simplify things and play to your advantages. Have you seen Texas play this year?
true or false:
Cal played a spread offense with a QB that had
a. minimal range
b. minimal wheels
c. minimal heart
d. all of the above
"He's so fast, he can turn off the lights and be in bed before it gets dark!" -- Lee Corso on Jahvid Best in NCAA 10.
D!
A quarterback with a debilitating heart condition that left him wheelchair bound, and in which the wheelchair is electric and only has a range of 7 feet before needing a recharge.
However I would like to raise an objection, as you have asked “true or false” of a clearly multiple choice question.
18 to Cheeseboard
by JrBear on Dec 25, 2009 1:52 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Tedford’s salary is too high for anyone to be happy with “settling” for an 8-5 season – that’s one more loss away from a 7-6 record – yes, that same painful record we had in the ’07 meltdown season.
By saying this, I’m not suggesting Tedford is overpaid; I’m just trying to argue that we should expect more from a coach being paid $1.8 million-plus per year. How much more we should expect is debatable. But 8-5, with a number of embarrassing blowout losses along the way, is definitely not cutting it.
i'm here to clean your pool but i don't have a pool *bowchica bowow*
Tedford’s salary is definitely more than $1.8 million. He’s the second highest paid coach in the Pac-10.
by BeareatsTacos on Dec 25, 2009 2:24 AM PST up reply actions
Keeping in mind that it is hard to determine exact numbers, since head coaches get money from all kinds of sources (performance bonuses, retention bonuses, corporate sponsorships, etc.) that are not always reported in full, most measures would have Tedford’s salary between 15th and 25th nationally. His overall winning percentage and average national ranking actually falls right about in the middle of that, so it’s a bit of a stretch to say that he’s being overpaid.
Having the 20th best record doesn’t mean that you finish ranked at #20 every year, of course — there are ups and downs, and this year was one of the downs.
I don't think any rational person is satisfied with (or "settling" for) an 8-5 season
Just because it’s what we ended up with doesn’t mean it’s what we expected or what we’re looking for next year. Personally, I want 10 wins to be attainable each year, and attained in some of those years, with a Rose Bowl in there SOMEWHERE before I die. Is THAT too much to ask? Don’t answer that…..
I'd like to smell the Roses before I die.
Isn’t Tedford’s salary not directly meted out from the UC? I heard that most of it was coming from private donations.
Lets put our offensive troubles in this perspective-
1) Predictable
2) Poor O-Line leads to few holes for RB
3) QB running for life, starts to get happy feet/trigger happy and locks in on receivers or overthrows them
4) WRs not stepping up
Correct, the vast majority of Tedford's salary does NOT come from university funding
…it comes from other sources, NOT state money.
Also, I’d like everyone to note that Coach Tedford is voluntarily participating in the UC’s systemwide pay reduction program. As coaches are basically independent contractors, they are not obligated to participate, yet Tedford and 33 other coaches are doing so of their own free will. While people will complain that Tedford’s pay reduction only amounts to $22,500, that amount is easily equal to someone’s annual salary – so that is no small gift.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
by BearStage on Dec 26, 2009 12:28 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Should we now call this the Tepper Doctrine: Cal football shall never accept mediocrity because of prior ineptitude.
by BlackandOldGold on Dec 26, 2009 3:27 PM PST reply actions
Another Cypress native flies off the handle...first Tiger, now Tepper.
Uh oh, another one of my Cypress homeboys is saying some interesting things…please forgive the rant below if it’s somewhat unfocused.
My issue with Tepper is that he seems to be blaming the fans for not demanding more, when in fact, Cal fans are, but in the end, the fans are not the ones who are on the field, the players are…
All of the screaming at each other we do, does nothing to improve the play of the team on the field. Only the team is capable of overcoming itself. For instance, there was a big difference in how the 2009 squad raised its game against the Furd compared to how the 2007 group did not. While there were questionable coaching decisions that have been discussed ad nauseum already, at no time did I get the impression while watching the game that the team didn’t give a damn about the end result. (It might well be that they, literally, given Vereen’s struggles and MSG’s concussion, and Syd’s owies that they left everything there…)
I felt the same thing watching the Arizona game the previous week. The players were rising above themselves to show some fight that had been missing at various times throughout the season. While fans desperately wanted Cal to win those games, our demands weren’t going to ensure victories against Zona or The Furd anymore than the yellow jerseys caused our loss to the Beavers.
It is also why, in retrospect, the final desperate minutes, in my mind, of the 2007 OSU game were so amazing, because Kevin Riley’s imitation of old-fashioned John Elway-ish gunslinger was something I don’t think I’ve ever seen compressed into such a small time period. Despite his painful flaws this year, and his lapse at the end that year, it’s hard to deny what a rush that experience was—-he was trying.
Tepper’s comment also makes little sense in that in demanding that a Cal fan demand a national championship flies in the face of the reality that we have no damn control, in the end, whether or not we go to the National title game. Mack Fuckin’ Brown should have taught every Cal fan and player that painful lesson.
It was sad to realize that our 2004 win against Southern Miss, which was an exciting a football game as I’ve ever seen, was somehow devalued because we didn’t blow that team out in the end, even though we had secured the victory and chose not to pile on. That experience taught me that the only way to fellate the poll voters was to hope that Cal went Wazzu on every team and destroy them 66-3 in order to get the attention needed to compete for the national title. And even then, it became a beauty contest that we could never win because our school has never belonged to the inner sanctum of football powers. That’s never, in reality, gonna happen in the Pac-10. Instead, I understand, and Tepper should too, that if Cal goes 12-0, we’ll win the Pac-10, and then, at that point, the chips will fall where they may, and, at worst, we finally get our ticket punched to Pasadena.
I’m sorry Mike, but seeing the Cal Band march down Colorado Boulevard on New Years Day on Channel 5 here in LA in addition to the game, is a memory any Cal fan would take happily and would remember more, IMHO, than a nameless event in some Sunbelt super stadium. Mind you, I’m not trying to devalue the experience of playing for the national title, but given the lack of control it takes to get there, it’s beyond a basic level of desire for the average Cal fan. It is, in a metaphorical sense, a sorority girl dressed up as a Playboy bunny flying into the bedroom of young teenage boy in “Animal House”…
But in the end, what Cal fans “want” is predicated on what Cal players can deliver. I am not going to be ashamed of myself if I see a Cal team lose a game, but I know that the team left nothing behind. On the other hand, I can understandably be frustrated over the Ducks’ loss, or the failure against $c this year, for how badly the team let itself down, much less the fans.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that I want every Cal player to be Artis Houston, the DB who single-handedly tried to save Cal’s bacon in the terrible final minutes of the 1993 Wazzu game. I could try to sum it up, but instead, I’ll quote from the New York Times game capsule of the game:
At California, it was an emotional week. Last week, the Golden Bears rallied from a 30-point deficit to beat Oregon, 42-41, in the biggest comeback in Pac-10 history. Saturday, they lost to a comeback when Damon Huard threw for two touchdowns in the final 2 minutes 6 seconds to rally Washington to a 24-23 victory from a 23-10 deficit.
California’s Artis Houston made an interception and a fumble recovery, and each time yelled out the name of his brother Cornell, 31, a member of an Army engineering unit who died on Wednesday of wounds in Somalia.
“He talked to my mother a week ago, and he told her to make sure that when we played Washington I did my very best,” Houston said.
(You can read about Artis’ brother in Mark Bowden’s “Blackhawk Down”…he was part of the relief convey that tried to rescue the trapped mission)
For my purposes, I guess I want to know that like Houston, every Cal player was out there doing their best—-and fuck all everything else. They, and we, can’t control it, not as long as Mack Browns of the world live and breathe, not while U$c can buy their guys houses or Hummers or hummers and not get sanctioned. “We do not want men who will lie down bravely to die, but men who will fight valiantly to live.” There’s a reason why that’s inscribed on the Andy Smith bench.
Ok, end rant. Sorry to have gone off…
"To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is
research."
by Auricursine on Dec 26, 2009 5:44 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs
my normal line
i showed up to the game and immediately started checking the sideline for msg; the bears are just a very different team with him in the game; he makes the o-line work and they can run behind him play after play. when i saw he wasn’t playing i just thought, well, this will be just like the msg-less massacres that usc, osu and uw were; can’t overemphasize how vital he is for everything in the 2k dime. in the furd game he was so rough that their lineman just started fighting him in frustration.
CAL Bears Football & Jeff Tedford's Performance
I think Tedford gets a “D”, his Defensive Coordinator gets an “F” and should be replaced in 2010 !!
Let’s start w/ the Offense – Kevin Riley (as was the case w/ Nate Longshore the previous couple of years) is not a PAC-10 starting QB PERIOD !! He simply cannot perform in the clutch let alone complete key passes in critical games !! He may be fine for mopping up WSU and others BUT when it comes to Oregon, SC & OSU, he is out of his league but is it Riley’s fault or does Tedford get the blame for ruining a couple of seasons by sticking w/ his starting QB’s when it is painfully obvious to everyone watching that they lack the skills to compete !! I blame Tedford as he is far too stubborn and shows no signs of changing his coaching styke to do what he needs to do to win games at Berkeley. Now if this is what Sandy Barbour, the Chancellor and the UC Nerkeley Administration want, then Tedford is their man. If they want a coach like Jim Harbaugh who gets great performance out of some average players, then it is time to look for someone new, as Tedford does not excel in preparing his players for critical (must win) games !! He has shown this repeatedly thruout his career.
As for defense, I am no Coach but if I see another flanker screen going for a first down, a big gain or a touchdown, I will vomit !! I am so goddam sick and tired of Bob Gregory and his woefully prepared defensive unit. In previous years, CAL’s defense would have tackled the receiver for a loss, knocked the ball down or intercepted it but not this season and THESE CLOWNS, Gregory/Tedford never made the adjustments thruout the entire season to show that they could defend against this one simple play, SO EVERY TEAM FROM THEN ON RAN IT OVER AND OVER FOR BIG GAINS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tyson Alaualau is getting double and triple teamed on virtually every down, and this obviously leaves someone unblocked or partially blocked, why is this lineman not pressuring the QB ? It is abundantly apparent that CAL has no pass-rush with four (4) DL, so why in God’s name do they go to a three man rush when they cannot get any pressure on the Passer w/ four men ??? Earlier said the Nickle Dfense must go and his absolutely right !!!!
TWIST, I MAY EXPLODE IF I’M NOT A INCREDIBLE DICK TO THIS GUY. PLEASEEEEE LIFT THE SARCASM BAN.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Dec 28, 2009 5:24 PM PST up reply actions
There's a sarcasm ban?
That’s it, I’m writing a letter to the Nerkeley Administration to ask if we can get Jim Harbaugh up in here.
by The Wrecking Jew on Dec 31, 2009 1:08 AM PST up reply actions

by 




















































