Question to Cal fans. I come in peace!
by The VD Special on Aug 2, 2009 1:10 PM PDT
218 comments
Hello fellow Pac10ites. Or is it Pac10ians? PacToneians? I digress.
A friend and I were discussing the upcoming college football season the other day, and we ended up on a topic that we were both stumped on, and I was hoping that you Golden Bears could offer your insight:
Why doesn't Jeff Tedford receive more heat from the fans and higher ups for supposed mediocrity? And what has to happen for there to be pressure on him?
Now, before you think I am coming in here and bad mouthing Jeff Tedford, I want to clarify myself. I think Jeff Tedford is an excellent coach. The numbers support him. Taking a team that in the previous year went 1-10 to 7-5 is an outsanding job, by any measure. To take a team that went 1-10 to 10-2 in three years is incredible. He has produced NFL talent by the numbers, and to just name a few that pop into my head, include Marshawn Lynch, JJ Arrington, Aaron Rodgers, Kyle Boller, Alex Mack, Justin Forsett, DeSean Jackson, and most certainly in the future Syd'Quan Thompson and Jahvid Best.
However, given all this talent, since that 2004 season Tedford has only managed to finish in the top 3 in the Pac10 just once, in 2006, with a share of the conference title. Then its been two 4th place finishes and a 7th place finish.
For say, Oregon State, Washington State, and Arizona, this succes under Tedford would be (and should be) commended. But for UC Berkeley, a school thats renowned academically, has a spot on location, and good facilities, 8-9 wins shouldn't be the standard.
Now, I could be way out of line. I'm sure many will point to the injuries in 2007 as the demise. I'm sure some will also point to the lack of presence that Cal had in football prior to Tedford's arrival during the Holmoe years. And maybe some will say that this year, given what the team has, should be a good measuring stick. A Heisman-esque talent in Jahvid Best, an experienced, talented (yet unproven) QB in Kevin Riley, and of course Syd'God Thompson.
I would like your thoughts on Jeff Tedford, and what your expectations of Cal football is. Sure, everyone wants to be National Champions year in and year out. But as an Oregon State fan, I know that's not going to be the case. While I'm not happy with 8-9 wins a year, it certainly beats the alternative. But I feel that for a school like Cal, 10+ wins should be the norm, and I'm curious as to your take on this.
The opinions expressed in a FanPost are, in every way, reflective of the opinions of every California Golden Blogs Marshawnthusiast. Moreover, they are reflective of every employee of SBNation, including Tyler "Blez" Bleszinski.
3 recs |
218 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Quick response
I can speak only for myself, but I think Tedford has enjoyed a very long honeymoon among Cal fans because of all the frustration that came before him. Not since Pappy Waldorf has there been anything remotely close to the level of success under JT—not on a consistent, multi-year basis. Moreover, while we share your thoughts that Cal should have a championship program, “good facilities” is not one of those reasons. Indeed, very, very bad facilities have held Cal football back for as long as we can remember.
But things are changing. The facilities are finally getting their long-overdue upgrade! And I think we are starting to lose our patience waiting for a Rose Bowl and conference championship. The Nate Longshore era is over, and while he’s received far too much blame for the struggles of the last few seasons, we look upon his tenure as a period of inconsistency at the QB position, be it due to injury, bad luck, poor coaching, or simply not enough talent. There are no more excuses, anymore. Aaron Rodgers is becoming a distant memory, and I think we’re all eager to see the next great Tedford-coached quarterback finally emerge. Riley? Mansion? Sweeney? Bridgford? Doesn’t matter who, but one of those guys has to seize the job and make it his.
I don’t think the Bears have to win the Pac-10 this year, or maybe even next, to keep Cal fans from turning on Tedford. But I do think grumblings among Cal faithful will grow much louder if there’s still no BCS appearance by, say, 2012.
Go Bears!
That's kind of what I was thinking too, in regards to the "honeymooning"
I have always felt that Cal is still running on emotions, particularly from the roller coaster season that was 2004. Out of nowhere, Cal exceeded all expectations to be in the hunt for a National Championship, Jeff Tedford was labled a savior, and here we are today.
I redact my statement about the facilities then. Cal is the only Pac10 campus I hadn’t visited, and I suppose I just assumed, given the academic and other athletic success, that the #1 sport football would have facilities to match. My fault indeed.
In regards to the measuring stick this year, I wasn’t saying they need to win the Pac10, but merely finish where they are expected. I feel that Cal has underachieved year in, and year out, and this year they need to prove they are worth the hype by finishing AT LEAST 3rd in the Pac10 (which, given the improvements around the conference, is a very respectable finish).
I support Takimoto in his effort to support Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
by The VD Special on Aug 2, 2009 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Article on Cal football's decrepit facilities
The mental image conjured up by my mind after reading that article, when juxtaposed against this YouTube video of Oregon’s facilities, makes me pretty damn grateful for Jeff Tedford.
Totally agree with California Pete
I know that after suffering through many many bad years, the fact that we have consistently fielded at least a competitive team during the Tedford era makes me happy. Do I want to win every game? Of course. Do I cry if we lose a few every year? No, except when we lose to U$c, just because those guys are such bastards about it.
I do have to say that I’m less confident in our QB corps this year than I was even last year… probably because Riley’s production seemed to slip last year, and the backup QBs are still relative unknowns in real game situations.
How can you not love a team that does this?
P.S.
Good question, VD. I’ve always respected your posts over here. I can remember the years of mediocrity or worse by the Beavers… can the question be turned on to OSU?
How can you not love a team that does this?
Well that's how the whole topic was brought up, actually
OSU suffered for many years as one of the worst programs of all time— a stigma that will no doubt be attached for an equally long time. And as great of a job as Mike Riley has done turning this program around, and while I would never “call for his head” if he continues this string of succes, I do find myself asking: what do I expect of this program? Is 8-9 wins a year enough? I don’t think its fair to expect BCS or bust like some programs, but I do want the occassional run to glory, something we came -this close- to last year.
I support Takimoto in his effort to support Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
by The VD Special on Aug 2, 2009 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Heres my thought. College football is a weird beast. The tightrope has no net, especially due to USC’s dominance. That’s what a lot of people LOVE about college football, because it makes each and every game SO important. You guys beat USC and it knocks USC out of NatChamp contention where in other sports, they prolly woulda still won (Am I the only one who thinks they woulda beaten Florida at the end of the year?).
So, due to this insane tightrope sitch, I tend to look at things more loosely. Yes, the Rose Bowl is our goal, yes the NC is our goal. But the chance of it is so much lower. So, to me, it’s more about the experience. Am I having fun? If the answer is yes, I’m good to go. Now, in 2007, I wasn’t having fun. 2005, too. But every other year has rocked, so I’m set.
I might be alone in this incredibly self-absorbed outlook.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Aug 2, 2009 5:04 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I couldn’t agree with you more. Its about enjoying yourself. But would you be enjoying yourself at 7-5 or 8-4 every year? Aren’t you the one always talking about the Cal anguish at losing to a supposedly inferior team? Should Cal football realistically be on the same level as OSU football? I don’t think so. I think Cal should be (reasons given above) at least a step ahead. For some reason, they haven’t been.
I support Takimoto in his effort to support Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
by The VD Special on Aug 2, 2009 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions
Honestly, it depends on where the losses are. We just had a season where we won all our home games and lost almost every road game (with the exception of the WSU game, which really, let’s be honest, there were like 40 fans in the stands, that might as well be a neutral field) and I look at it as a big successful year. To me, the home game experience is so important. So, winning all the home games is so huge! \
Ya, it sucks to be lose a road game, but sitting at home watching TV or being at the sports bar isnt the same as tailgating for 4 hours, then going to the game for another 3-4 and then losing. Again, I might be alone in this and ya, it sucks to lose all the road games and go to a lesser bowl, especially when the team I see at home is so dominant. I guess my expectations are just a bit different.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
with the exception of the WSU game, which really, let’s be honest, there were like 40 fans in the stands, that might as well be a neutral field
Uh, no. It is a small stadium by Pac-10 standards but it was by NO means empty. There were probably 40 Cal fans (well maybe 80 but literally that’s it) but there were many thousands of WSU fans – almost 28 thousand of them (max capacity 35k). They didn’t realize at the time how bad they sucked – they’d had a reasonably competitive game against a good Oklahoma State, it was only after the embarrassing loss to us and then losing badly at Baylor that the situation cleared up.
Fair enough. I clarify my statement as follows:
On the road we won only one game. It was against WSU. I repeat. It was against WSU. Washington State. University.
It was almost as if we lost all our games on the road.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Concur. Entirely. I went to every game last year – home and away, and the away games were almost entirely pain.
by tmoran3020 on Aug 2, 2009 10:10 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Taylor Tedford, then?
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Aug 3, 2009 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Tmoran3020 Tedford?
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Aug 3, 2009 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Rec'd all three
Just cause I can’t think of much better than being related to Tedford.
2002 – Success
2003 – Success
2004 – Success
2005 – Pass b/c starting QB got injured
2006 – Mild Success
2007 – Pass b/c starting QB got injured
2008 – Push
The thing is, I think you’re just looking at final season records. If you do that, sure Tedford’s statistics aren’t great. But you have to look past pure numbers and look at the situation itself (such as injuries).
In my opinion, Tedford has only had one year where he hasn’t really produced a team that I have expected to be better (2008). The two years where Cal finished low in the Pac-10 standings (2005 & 2007), are years that I consider as “passes” since our starting QB got injured those years and doomed us. I know some Cal fans might consider 2007 a “failure” year, and that’s perhaps a valid way of seeing it too. But overall, I think Tedford has pretty much met or exceeded fan expectations 4 out of his 8 years here, gotten two free “passes” and had one “eh” year. If you ignore the injury/“pass” years, Tedford has in my opinion met fan expectations 4 out of 5 years.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Honestly, I would count 2008 as a success. From my angle, we won every game I went to. That rocked.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
2008 was a success for me, too, both because I had fun (like Twist) but also because it was a nice bounce-back from the second-half collapse in 2007. Every season is unique, and ultimately judged according to particular circumstances (e.g., injuries, upsets, etc.), but I must admit that anything more than two losses this year will leave me disappointed—not calling for Tedford’s head (far from it), but disappointed nonetheless.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Aug 2, 2009 6:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Depends on the losses to me. If we beat USC and Oregon and then lose to Minnesota and UCLA, it’ll kinda suck a little, but the USC victory will dominate all. If we lose to UCLA, Oregon, and USC, then that’ll suck a lot!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I will be monumentally disappointed if we lose to fUCLA, UW, Stanford, WSU, EWU, UA or UM. If we lose 2-3 from the rest of the group I will be a lot less disappointed.
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Aug 2, 2009 11:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Tough call…that would suck a lot. I’m just saying there are certain teams which we REALLY should beat, a few teams which we probably should beat (ASU, Minny, OSU), and a couple teams (UO and SC) which are probably tossups considering the situations. The pain incurred from losing to a team we REALLY should beat will hurt more than losing to UO at Autzen…
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Aug 3, 2009 12:05 AM PDT up reply actions
I think it depends more on the context…if we lose to UA after we’ve already dropped a couple of games and have no shot at Pasadena, it’s not that bad…if we beat USC and UCLA, then choke against UW, it will be fucking brutal.
Yeah. The latter is more or less what I’m expecting. This way everything else will be a pleasant surprise!
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Aug 3, 2009 12:14 AM PDT up reply actions
Right now, my pre-season prediction is Cal goes 0-12. Here’s hoping for a “pleasant surprise” this season!
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Aug 3, 2009 7:56 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
My pre-season prediction is the trees get put back up and dumpster muffin becomes our head coach.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Congratulations
You just made 0-12 sound like a dream season.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Aug 3, 2009 9:39 PM PDT up reply actions
How is 2006 only a mild success? We shared the Pac-10 title, dominated our bowl game, and finished the year in the top 25.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
Another thing...
You’re looking at where the team finishes in the Pac-10 standings. The problem with that is that while finishing high is the ultimate goal, it often isn’t the realistic goal.
Consider: WSU is probably going to be either 9th or 10th in Pac-10 standings in 2009. However, if they finish at 7th or even 6th, then their season is a success – relatively.
That’s the problem with just looking at where a team finishes in Pac-10 standings – it doesn’t look at the realistic goal of the team. That’s why I stress why people need to look past pure numbers (such as wins/losses and placement in the Pac-10 standings) and consider whether the team surpassed expectations or not based on the talent they have on hand and as well as other factors such as injuries, etc.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Agreed that success is a relative term-- herego, why I mentioned a successful season at OSU v Cal
But that’s my point exactly, 4th and 7th place finishes shouldn’t be, in my humble opinion, considered a success for Cal (at this point in time). So my question then becomes, when does the heat start turning up on Tedford?
I support Takimoto in his effort to support Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
by The VD Special on Aug 2, 2009 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions
I don’t think the heat turns up on Tedford until he consistently underperforms with the talent and circumstances given to him. If there are multiple 2007 seasons, he will sustain heavy criticism. If it’s 2008 over and over, fans will probably grumble but not call for his head. With the talent and circumstances the 2008 team faced, I’d call it a successful year. For a team whose passing game varied from mediocre to abysmal, this team did pretty well. They managed to put together a solid defense and had a sufficiently varied offense to prevent the opposition from knowing exactly what we were going to do on every play.
Although Tedford has been here since the 2002 season, this is still a growing program. With the construction of the new athletic center and the consistent output of NFL talent, recruits are recognizing Cal as a great place to play. With the sort of talent we’re getting from recruits in the past year, it should be expected that this team will continue to rise. Defensive coordinator Bob Gregory has put together a fantastic system and despite high turnover on offensive coordinators, Tedford’s offense has been consistently good. If we ever start consistently going 8-5 or 9-4 with top-25 recruiting talent and consistently healthy teams, we can start calling for Tedford’s head. But this team is still growing and although we’re 16-10 in the last two years, it would be shocking if we duplicated that record with the talent and coaching this team currently has. Rarely is the rise to the top a straight line. It has its peaks and valleys, but as long as the team has indicators that it is still rising, Tedford should be safe. I’ll cut him some slack for the wave of injuries and mediocre qb play for the past two years.
Whose domicile? OUR DOMICILE!
by Berkelium97 on Aug 2, 2009 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Ok well then that brings up the question: 5 years from now.. What would Cal (and Tedford) have needed to accomplish by then to meet your expectations of success?
I support Takimoto in his effort to support Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
by The VD Special on Aug 2, 2009 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions
For me
There has to be at least one Pac-10 championship and the trip to the Rose Bowl (or BCS championship game) that goes with it. It’s time. Otherwise, I’m simply looking for Cal to maintain the sense that it’s moving forward, getting better, coming closer and closer to competing on a consistent basis with the USCs of the world.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Aug 2, 2009 6:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Overrated
As Hydro’s post suggests, our Beaver friend is seeing things differently from the outside. From the point of view of the media (and perhaps therefore the general public) CAL is the most overrated football program in the P X. We have consistently underperformed expectations and statistically from the media pre-polls we are the biggest failure.
BUT, from the fan base, we are still happy. We had a generation or two of lost football (or is it more? 1960 to late 80’s??). It takes a long time to recover from that from the fan point of view. Now I would guess new CAL fans are bit more impatient. I’m only a moderately old blue but even I am beginning to weary of the handling of the QB’s on the squad. Nevertheless I am and 8 on 1-10 scale of happiness where 10 is the NC of course.
I wasn’t trying to insinuate that the Bears are overrated, but rather they are underachieving.
I support Takimoto in his effort to support Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
by The VD Special on Aug 2, 2009 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree they’ve underachieved with respect to where they were at the end of 2004. But relative to where they started entering 2002, then I’d say they’re more or less where they should be—certainly where I hoped them to be when Tedford was hired.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Aug 2, 2009 6:26 PM PDT up reply actions
That’s Hillary Clinton with her daughter or something?
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Aug 2, 2009 8:35 PM PDT up reply actions
IIRC, its from the 2004 Democratic Convention. Jon Stewart was making a joke like “Ok, Democrats doing a great job of appealing to the common man, now just don’t have any imagery of the hoity toity elite enjoying the spoils of their power and……..OHLORDNO!”
Is it sad that I remember this?
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Something like that…
The best part is after they saw they were on camera, they tried to hide the drinks.
I have The Daily Show’s 2004 GOP and Democratic convention coverage on DVD.
"It’s spelled S-H-U-F-E-L-T-M-E-U-P"
This brings another question to my mind: historically, how strong has the Pac-10 been during Tedford’s tenure at Cal?
I don’t have a detailed perspective to go on, but I’m tempted to think that Tedford’s been swimming with sharks. His top 3 rivals, Carroll, Bellotti, and Riley certainly don’t look bad when compared to the top 3 coaches in any other conference, and the bit players in the Pac-10 (Erickson, Dorrell, Koetter, Stoops) have generally been competent and occasionally respectable. (I think Stoops is underrated! Feel free to disregard my opinions now.) Media/at large type perception of the conference is down because UCLA and Washington have sucked for most of the decade, but I think the Pac-10 overall has more depth than it’s given credit for.
Certainly if today’s Tedford were able to coach at Cal circa the end of the 90s, when the Pac 10 was so weak Tyrone Willingham could take Stanford to the Rose Bowl, he’d wreck shop considering the damage he did to other teams as Bellotti’s OC.
I dunno, I think part of Tedford’s lack of BCS-type success is just that he ended up coaching across from Pete Carroll every season.
I think part of Tedford’s lack of BCS-type success is just that he ended up coaching across from Pete Carroll every season.
Agreed. If Cal was in any other conference, I bet we’d have made a BCS game by now, with the possible exception of the SEC.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Certainly if today’s Tedford were able to coach at Cal circa the end of the 90s, when the Pac 10 was so weak Tyrone Willingham could take Stanford to the Rose Bowl
Interesting that you say that, because there is a common thought up north that the Pac10 has suffered the last few years, namely with USC’s rise to domination. They suck the talent out of California, and leave the other 9 teams to fight over scraps.
I support Takimoto in his effort to support Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
by The VD Special on Aug 2, 2009 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Whoops, only supposed to be quoting you
I support Takimoto in his effort to support Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
by The VD Special on Aug 2, 2009 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Don’t know about top-to-bottom, but I do think Cal has been very unlucky in its timing. The two best Cal teams I’ve seen were 1991 and 2004. Both of them were better, IMHO, than most Pac-10 representatives in the Rose Bowl. Unfortunately, those Cal teams shared a conference with two of the greatest teams in college football history: Washington 1991 and USC 2004. Doh!
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Aug 2, 2009 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions
I would agree with that
What is a reasonable benchmark against which to judge Tedford? Cal’s prior history? His coaching peers? The most successful coaches in Pac-10 history?
Given Cal’s lack of distinguished football history, at least relative to Washington, UCLA, and of course, USC, that is both the most logical benchmark, but also the least ambitious one. A .500 win pctg is probably enough to place him among Cal’s pantheon. Which is why I would say that ultimately Tedford should be measured relative to those coaches who retired on their own terms. In particular, Mike Bellotti, the most obvious and immediate comparison, both for his role as Tedford’s mentor and also his similar role in the arc of Oregon’s football development.
Given this standard, I think Tedford’s development thusfar puts him well in line with expectations, particularly with the upgrade in talent expected to follow the SAHPC. He’s close to surpassing Bellotti, and the next 7 years will tell us whether or not he’s in the class of Don James, et al.
Apologies for the format of the following table. This is maybe the most ghetto version way to present the table, but it will hopefully work. (If someone knows a more efficient way to present an Excel table than taking a screen shot, converting it to .jpeg, uploading it to the internet, and then linking it, I would definitely love to know it.)
I couldn’t find data on John Robinson’s conference record, but it’s reasonable to assume the trend demonstrated by the other coaches will hold.
My personal conclusion is that Tedford can write his own retirement ticket if he can win 65% of his games or more, which is averaging 8+ wins a season assuming a 13 game season.
Love the table, Nashville. I hadn’t really thought about before, but Tedford’s tenure (so far) does seem very Donahue- and Bellotti-esque. Given the acts that Tedford has followed, I can’t really complain.
That said, my dream would be to have Tedford move up a notch to the level of James and McKay—and in doing so, that would inevitably bring Carroll’s numbers a bit more back down to Earth.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Aug 3, 2009 9:44 PM PDT up reply actions
2nd to USC
If we consistently came in 2nd to a USC team that is heralded every year as a Nat. Champion contender then I think Tedford gets a pass. But to finish behind Oregon, OSU and/or the AZ schools will get old in the near future. Seems Arizona has caused us as much pain recently as most other schools with their timely defeats of us.
This year we’re picked second in the conference. If we are anywhere below third without significant injuries at key spots, the shine will start to fade.
I'd like to smell the Roses before I die.
First, I want to say, while I realize the perception is that Cal has underachieved, if you look factually back at Tedford’s tenure I think most people will realize the whole “underachieving” perception is overblown. My own opinion is that the 2007 season is the real reason people think Cal underachieves so badly. Also keep in mind, a program is more likely to fall short of high expectations than to exceed them simply because there’s almost no room to go up and a lot bigger chance of going down.
Second, people like to talk about what a coach should be doing with their perceived level of talent, without giving enough credit to the coaching staff for having that talent to begin with. Recruiting is part of Tedford’s job description, and under Tedford Cal seems to have done a very good job bringing the talent in, something that wasn’t true before Tedford. I think most fans are, rightfully so, worried that without Tedford it’s not a given that Cal would continue bringing in the same level of talent.
My next point is the most important one in my opinion. I think many Cal fans realize that the negative information on Tedford (the stats suggesting Cal has underachieved) is a small sample. I believe that Cal, on average, will generally perform better than they did those years (like 2007), and those seasons were flukes and not likely to happen again in the future. Rather, Tedford has set Cal up well for the future, and with a few lucky breaks, could do some special things.
Overall, Tedford has done a tremendous job, and in my mind should be given the chance to prove his teams underachieve. That is, he should be the coach of Cal for a long enough time that we can see a definitive trend in how his teams do. In the unlikely event that he consistently underachieves, he should be given enough chances that we know it wasn’t a one time fluke. He’s had enough success to earn that. I expect in a couple of years this won’t be an issue, as I see Cal contending for Pac-10 titles almost every year – eventually, things will work out and we’ll see Cal playing in the Rose Bowl, at which point Tedford will be back to untouchable.
This is a good point
2007 was a nightmare we’d all like to forget. And I think that the unceremonious fall from # 2 in the nation to the indignity of back to back losses to UW and stanfurd to end the regular season is the # 1 reason why the “underachieving” tag is even hinted at. But while I would agree that the 2007 team ultimately underachieved, I don’t view it as a mighty juggernaut that was on its way to greatness but for the epic collapse. The 2007 team was flawed, and signs were there even before the collapse, and even before the signature win of that year (at Oregon). We had trouble protecting the QB, we had trouble running on short yardage, we had trouble defending the pass, we had trouble rushing the passer, we had trouble in the kicking game, we had trouble putting teams away (see, e.g, Colorado State, Arizona). We somehow managed to go 5-0 and rise to # 2 because everyone else stumbled along the way and perhaps because of the “wow” factor we had from the Tennessee win. So yes, I agree 2007 was “underachieving” but not as epically as some might think it was.
If 2005 is a measure of “underachievment,” I would have to quibble with that. Yes, we had some returning talent (Marshawn, FTW!) and some impact freshmen (e.g., Tha1), but we weren’t going to do a damn thing that year without good QB play. Which we didn’t get. If there was any “expectation” in 2005, it was more a product of our 2004 success, I think. In other words, I don’t think 2005 warranted high expectations. Again, maybe the 8-4 (4-4 Pac-10) season was a slight underachievement. But it wasn’t to the degree that should cause rumblings about Tedford.
Praise be to Tedford!
by Ohio Bear on Aug 2, 2009 7:29 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I half agree about 2005, but that was also, arguably, the best defense of the Tedford era. I’m not sure a healthy Longshore (vintage 2006) would have been enough to beat ’SC that year, but it was a very frustrating season b/c I think it really did boil down to just a single position: QB. That, and special teams.
Go Bears!
by California Pete on Aug 2, 2009 7:59 PM PDT up reply actions
This is why he doesn't take heat from me
Before Tedford since my Cal fandom truly began:
2001: 1-10
2000: 3-8
1999: 4-7
1998: 5-6
1997: 3-8
1996: 6-6 (L in Aloha Bowl)
1995: 4-7
1994: 4-7
1993: 9-4 (W in Alamo Bowl)
1992: 4-7
1991: 10-2 (W in Citrus Bowl)
1990: 7-4-1 (W in Copper Bowl)
1989: 4-7
1988: 5-5-1
I didn’t do any research to give you all that. That’s off the top of my head, so forgive me for any errors. But you get the point: mostly crappy seasons seared into my memory.
If what we’ve had since 2002 is mediocre, then gimme some more mediocrity. It’s sure as hell better than having your head beat in year and after year. We have good teams, bowl appearances, and expectations. We actually think we can go to the Rose Bowl and it’s not just a pie in the sky dream: we can do it.
The fact that we’re accused of being “underachieving” is not something I relish, don’t get me wrong. But in many ways, that’s a testament to the success that Tedford has brought us in a relatively short period of time. We actually have expectations now. I can’t even begin to tell you what that feels like compared to the first 15 years of my fandom.
I also like to think we’re very lucky: there are very few coaches, in my opinion, who would could have come to Cal and not only do what Tedford has done, but also STAY this long. Hell, we lost Mooch after one 6-6 season that was equal parts maddening and glorious.
Tedford is doing fine by me. He has built a program. A good one.
Praise be to Tedford!
by Ohio Bear on Aug 2, 2009 7:12 PM PDT reply actions 7 recs
Ditto.
In fact, I have one less successful season to draw upon (I thought I’d be attending a football and basketball juggernaunt based off that ’91 team. Heisman Winner Russell White! Wooden Winner Jason Kidd! – reality is a cold cold cold cold bitch)
rec’d for knowing that off the top of your head…
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Aug 2, 2009 11:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Tedford is in no danger of a hot seat for many years to come. How long did we keep Braun for getting us to the tournament a couple times and winning the NIT and generally being a nice guy? Tedford has done way more than that and done it from a weaker position.
I think that Cal has a legacy of suckiness – not to the extent of the epic OSU suckiness, but just decades of bleh and brief glimpses of the better life. Well, those brief glimpses are now the state of the world, year in and year out, and we are loving our time in the sun. If Tedford averages 8-9 wins per season he can probably stay for a long long time. Add in the unprecedented dominance of USC and nobody will be calling for his head for the current state of affairs.
And if he breaks through to the Rose Bowl – even just once (and he’s already been very very close twice – 9 yards away in 2004, one loss to Arizona in 2006 – so this is a very reasonable thing even with zero improvement) – then he’ll have statues built to him and he can write his own ticket.
Overrated
My overrated statement is based on pre-season Pac-10 media picks versus actual finish. In that sense, Cal being the most overrated team of the past 5 years is a fact. Lets not mince words 2007 was a failure and the hangover from that season affected the next. By the way, the most underrated team (I’m sure I don’t have to tell those of you who read the pac-10 blog)….is the Beavs. We are overrated an avg of 2 spots, they are underrated by 2 spots.
That’s more a product of expectations than anything – Cal often is picked #2 in the media picks. Given that USC has a lock on #1, there’s been nowhere for Cal to go but down. OSU, on the other hand, has rarely been a trendy team and always has modest expectations that aren’t tough to beat. Cal has still been the better team (better average finish at the end of the year based), they’ve just had higher expectations to live up to. The perception is definitely that Cal is an underachiever and OSU and overachiever, so I don’t disagree with your take, I just think that’s not giving Cal enough credit for what they do on the field. They’re still the better team.
by Missing Barry on Aug 3, 2009 7:47 AM PDT up reply actions
Cal hasn't finished better than, nor beaten, OSU since 2005-2006
where is this “better team” coming from?
I support Takimoto in his effort to support Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
by The VD Special on Aug 3, 2009 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
Doesn't it come down to wins and loses?
Not how you win and lose?
I support Takimoto in his effort to support Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
by The VD Special on Aug 3, 2009 7:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Out-of-Conference Wins- 2nd
Out-of-Conference Winning Percentage- 2nd
OOC Wins against BCS Schools- 2nd
BCS Winning Percentage- 2nd
Home Wins- 2nd
Home Winning Percentage- 2nd
Conference Wins- 2nd
Bowl Game Wins- 2nd
Total Wins- 2nd
Winning Seasons- 1st
I think those covered that issue. :)
by Missing Barry on Aug 3, 2009 8:22 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I guess..
And I don’t completely disagree. But I’m referring to the past 4 years, OSU has been the better team— finished higher in the conference and beaten Cal head to head 3 of the last 4 years, including twice in Berkeley, where a lot of discussion has been how dominate Cal has been at home.
I support Takimoto in his effort to support Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
by The VD Special on Aug 4, 2009 5:22 PM PDT up reply actions
2008 has to get a pass; nearly all of us considered it a rebuilding year and the team met our expectations. Furthermore, stuck in 4th because 2 teams, both with one more win than you, tied for 2nd? There’s no third place! It looks bad but the reality of the situation is that Cal has only 1 more loss than the 2nd place teams, usually good enough for third.
Now, that leaves 05, 06, and 07. 2005’s mediocrity could be attributed to that darn Longshore getting injured for the rest of the season at the opener against Sac State. 06 we were Pac 10 co-champs, so I’ve got no complaints there. 07 would be that darn Longshore getting hurt again.
In my eyes, out of the past 4 years, we’ve had 2 disappointing seasons that could be attributed to freak injuries at QB, 1 mediocre (but expected) season, and one awesome season where Cal was the Pac-10 co-champ and nearly won the conference outright. I’m not exactly satisfied, but there’s not much you can do about those 2 lost seasons. Stuff happens, and the past 4 years have left me hungry for more Cal football.
Having said all that, those 4 seasons represent a rather small sample size to analyze; no significant conclusions should really be drawn from them. I’m not going to sweat it until that sample size gets bigger.
And I don’t completely disagree. But I’m referring to the past 4 years, OSU has been the better team— finished higher in the conference and beaten Cal head to head 3 of the last 4 years, including twice in Berkeley, where a lot of discussion has been how dominate Cal has been at home.
When I ever look at college football data, I either refer to 2002 (the Tedford Era) or use a five-year period as standard, meaning the 2004 season is included as well (because that’s the normal cycle of a recruiting class: redshirt + four years). In this regard…
Team – Overall Record
Cal – 44 & 19
Oregon – 41-21
Oregon State – 40-23
Arizona State – 38-24
During this period, the Beavers still have a 3-2 series advantage, although the scoring margin favors California – (plus)51 points. Curiously, even taking away the 2004 42-point Cal victory, Cal would still have a scoring margin lead.
The next year is critical for Cal (well, for me and my statistics) because the 2004 will no longer be accounted for and that’ll readjust any perceived “gaps” between most recent performance and relative strength of program.
OSU's modest expectations
If we had OSU’s “modest expectations that aren’t tough to beat”, we would not have done as well. We are averaging around 4th so those “easy” to beat expectations would have been right on target. OSU has been the better team as much as it pains me to say so.
I don’t think expectations change what a team will or won’t do in terms of winning. They just change the perception of what a team “should” have done. OSU is definitely up there in the top tier after USC in terms of performance for sure, not trying to take credit away from them. However, since Tedford has been at Cal, Cal has been better. Between final rankings and those stats of ttgiang’s I copied right above this, I don’t see an argument against it.
by Missing Barry on Aug 3, 2009 8:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Beware this post! It’s a Tarp!
I haven’t read all the responses yet (they’re not in bullet format), but here’s my personal response:
I spend a few hundred bucks a year for an entertaining football season and every year I get it under Tedford (void in 2007). Having lived and gone to college through so many years of mediocrity (plus never expecting to have my football team win the Champion of the Universe Award since I went to Cal for academics and totes not sports), I preesh the experience of having a team that can compete for the Pac 10 championship and actually win games.
I dunno, maybe I’m crazy, but it’s just football.
In no way does this mean I don’t care who coaches the team. I want a competitive team, but winning the national championship is not really a concern of mine. I just want a Rose Bowl before I die…
I’m on the same page. I love Cal football, and I want us to go to the Rose Bowl, but our not doing so doesn’t diminish my enjoyment of the games we DO win.
Also…it’s worth noting that Tedford has the third-best record of any Cal coach in the last century. Even if he never takes us to the Rose Bowl, he will have done more for Cal football than any coach in decades.
I'm All for Coach Tedford
So long as he remains a solid representative of the university and continues to emphasize the importance of academics and education to his scholarship athletes. At the end of the day, I would rather lose one (or several) football game(s) than to diminish the quality of my degree in favor of uneducated player-for-hires who run fast, jump high but not much else.
Plus, while Cal has had its share of embarrassing losses, relative to other programs, it really hasn’t been all that bad. I’ve posted this elsewhere before:
Program (since 2002, among BCS schools) – Blowout Losses (21 or more points)
Southern Cal – 0
California – 1
Alabama – 1
Texas – 1
Virginia Tech – 2
Florida – 3
Georgia – 3
Louisiana State – 3
Ohio State – 3
Oklahoma – 3
Penn State – 3
…
Oregon – 13
Arizona State – 13
UCLA – 14
Oregon State – 15
…
Washington – 19
…
Washington State – 21
…
Stanford – 30
And Cal has had its share of impressive victories:
Program (since 2002, among BCS schools) – Blowout Wins (21 or more points)
Southern California – 49
Texas – 48
Oklahoma – 45
Louisiana State – 40
Florida – 33
Texas Tech – 33
California – 32
Penn State – 32
West Virginia -32
Auburn – 31
Louisville – 31
Ohio State – 31
Virginia Tech – 31
…
Oregon – 27
…
Oregon State – 23
Arizona State – 22
…
Washington State – 17
…
Arizona – 12
UCLA – 12
…
Washington – 10
…
Stanford – 6
Tedford “conservatism” at its finest! So basically, there’s not much better that Cal can really achieve in regards to the two metrics above.
I’ve played around with Tedford Era data quite a bit, and have readily compared Cal against other BCS programs since 2002. The general conclusion seems to be that among teams that have not made it to a BCS bowl, both Cal and Texas Tech seem to have been the most accomplished of the have-nots. And when you consider USC in the Pac-10, and Oklahoma and Texas in the Big 12, it’s not really hard to see why this is the case, and my data tends to corroborate the notion that Cal should have made multiple BCS bowls by now were it in, say, the Big East or ACC, or if the Pac-10 did not have such a dominant team as USC.
by ttgiang15 on Aug 3, 2009 8:50 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Are those figures taken from a table somewhere?
Or do you just have the data on your computer?
I find that truly remarkable and would love to look around through those numbers some if it’s hosted on a site somewhere.
i compiled the data myself
i began working on perception metrics to see how Cal should be viewed to the general college football fan based solely on performance, all else being equal. What began as a Pac-10 project quickly grew into all of BCS (I have no desire to do all non-BCS). My results easily concluded that over Jeff Tedford’s tenure, Cal is easily the second-best team in the Pac-10. Easily. (Uh-oh, here come the Duckies.)
Cal Pac-10 Ranks
Out-of-Conference Wins- 2nd
Out-of-Conference Winning Percentage- 2nd
OOC Wins against BCS Schools- 2nd
BCS Winning Percentage- 2nd
Home Wins- 2nd
Home Winning Percentage- 2nd
Conference Wins- 2nd
Bowl Game Wins- 2nd
Bowl Game Winning Percentage (more than 1 game)- 2nd
Blowout Losses- 2nd
Blowout Wins- 2nd
Give Up 30 or More Points- 2nd
Give Up 40 or More Points- 2nd
Give Up 50 or More Points- 2nd
Total Wins- 2nd
Winning Seasons- 1st
In every category I measured, Cal either finished second or tied first. Of course, USC just happened to be #1 in every category, as well (the only team in their respective conference to do so).
At any rate, I’ll gladly pass on the Excel file if you would just PM your email address. I’ll clean up the file this afternoon (it’s barely legible as is) and send it out sooner than later. (And please don’t end up telling me that the data I worked on is readily available elsewhere, because I probably spent 30 hours just putting together that friggin’ document.)
by ttgiang15 on Aug 3, 2009 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions 6 recs
Incredible
I myself had looked only roughly at win pctgs and number of BCS conference opponents within the Pac-10 and the rest of the Big Six. This rises far above that!
I’m not really sure how to PM, but you can email it to me at Nashville921 at gmail dot com.
Thanks!
Away numbers?
Where are the Away wins and away win percentage. I don’t have the numbers, but I can only hope we are above .500 for away wins in the pac-10 lately. Cherry picking stats doesn’t impress. (I lie! I’m impressed with those numbers – GO BEARS!)
I briefly looked this up
But my impression is that within the P10, we are sub .500 on the road. A lot of that is due to 2007 and 2005. But, records are records.
Where are the Away wins and away win percentage. I don’t have the numbers, but I can only hope we are above .500 for away wins in the pac-10 lately. Cherry picking stats doesn’t impress. (I lie! I’m impressed with those numbers – GO BEARS!)
I spent a lot of time thinking about what to include and exclude based on the data that was available to me. Away games was a factor never seriously considered, because home games are more important to assess quality of a program over time because most teams played on the same field over that seven-year period, and because I also included total wins which matters more to the average fan than # of road victories (“California is coming off a successful 9-win season.”). Unless it’s not already apparent, factoring in away games in addition to both home and overall performance would be redundant, since it’s captured by the latter.
FWIW, there were three other factors I wanted to include but decided not to or could not because of different reasons. One was BCS games played, but for the Pac-10, that would mean 8 teams tied for either 3rd place or 10th place, depending on how one wants to present it. Just seemed awkward to include that type of data. Another was performance against ranked opponents, but ESPN’s data did not include ranking for years (off the top of my head) 2004-2007 so this was not doable. Lastly, I looked into counting number of games against D-II opponents, but that’s not really a representation of program strength so decided not to pursue it any further.
Thank you for not including road record at all in there.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Amazing
To consider that only 3 teams even have a positive point differential on road games.
The other thing that’s remarkable is that Cal has scored almost 300 points more than their opponents on the road but is 1 game under .500, whereas Oregon has only scored 89 more road points but is 5 games over .500. What might account for that discrepancy? Special teams? Or is this partially the result of the blowout win/loss factor that you mention below? That all of Cal’s losses have been very close – one or two possessions – while most of their wins have come with very comfortable margins. I suppose that’s what you capture in the “at least we’re competitive rank” table.
This
The other thing that’s remarkable is that Cal has scored almost 300 points more than their opponents on the road but is 1 game under .500, whereas Oregon has only scored 89 more road points but is 5 games over .500. What might account for that discrepancy? Special teams? Or is this partially the result of the blowout win/loss factor that you mention below? That all of Cal’s losses have been very close – one or two possessions – while most of their wins have come with very comfortable margins. I suppose that’s what you capture in the "at least we’re competitive rank" table.
% of Losses by 10 or more points: Cal – 40% Oregon – 81%
% of Losses by 20 or more points: Cal – 0% Oregon – 50%
Scoring Margin in Wins: Cal, (plus)470 Oregon, (plus)385
Scoring Margin in Losses: Cal, (minus)176 Oregon, (minus)296
Five Best Games:
Cal: WSU’08 +63, OSU’04 +42, AF’04 +42, UW’05 +39, UA’04 +38
Oregon: WSU’08 +49, UA’03 +38, ASU’06 +35, ASU’08 +34, MICH’07 +32
Five Worst Games:
Cal: TENN’06 -17, UA’08 -15, SC’06 -14, UW’07 -14, SC’08 -14
Oregon: ASU’03 -45, SC’08 -34, UW’03 -32, OSU’04 -29, SC’06 -25
Blowout losses
Since only one is listed, it has to be the 35-10 loss to USC in 2005. But this stat really feels like we should have two: the at Tennessee loss in 2006 was a blowout by any objective way of looking at it. That the final score was “only” 35-18 doesn’t change that.
Praise be to Tedford!
Even if it is 2, I still think that is a remarkable number. Better than Florida, right?
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Good point
And Cal has played USC year-in and year-out since 2002.
Urban only was coach for one of those blowouts (though really Michigan should’ve been a second one in 2007, 2 fumbles by Mike Hart inside the 3 and a pick on the goaline), the 31-3 loss to Alabama in 2005.
I’m sure most other teams have at least one of these that didn’t get counted, too, so it’s ok…
by Missing Barry on Aug 3, 2009 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Since only one is listed, it has to be the 35-10 loss to USC in 2005. But this stat really feels like we should have two: the at Tennessee loss in 2006 was a blowout by any objective way of looking at it. That the final score was "only" 35-18 doesn’t change that.
I applied a standard, calculated the data, and sorted objectively by that standard, meaning a 17 end-result point differential cannot be objectively classified as a “blowout” by my 21-point standard. Because in the end, it really doesn’t matter since I’m sure other schools suffer near-21 point lopsided affairs, but those aren’t counted against them as well. For example, Florida lost a 20-point game to Iowa in a bowl game, and 2 17-point games to in-state rivals Miami and Florida State. If we were to adopt a 17-point standard, then Cal would have 2 but Florida would have 6.
FWIW, I’ve been doing some similar (though by no means as extensive) number crunching, and I’ve been cutting off blowout wins at 17, precisely because 16 points is still (technically) a two-score game.
Another measure of blowout wins might look at the score with about 10-15 minutes to go, which effectively discounts garbage time scores by either team. Any way you do it, however, you’d have some borderline games that some would consider blowouts and others not.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
The very reason I started the project was because I was fascinated by a post on the Oregon Scout board that used the 21-point rule. The output is a reflection of that inspiration, though I would agree that 17 points is a better metric.
I would absolutely LOVE data that breaks down score margin by quarter.
I’m working on something that might give me scads of such data in a short amount of time, but it’s still a work in progress.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
Here’s the 17 points data….
Program – Blowout Losses (17 Points or Less)
Southern California – 0
California – 2
Alabama – 3
Ohio State – 3
Texas – 3
Penn State – 4
Virginia Tech – 4
Georgia – 5
Florida – 6
Florida State – 6
Michigan – 6
Oklahoma – 6
…
Oregon -14
…
Oregon State – 18
…
Arizona State – 20
UCLA – 20
…
Arizona -23
…
Washington State – 25
…
Washington – 30
…
Stanford – 32
by ttgiang15 on Aug 4, 2009 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm going to go ahead and quote myself
from a post I wrote in December 2007:
The standard response:
Given the (decidedly non-storied) history of Cal Football (at least over the last half-century, the only Cal Football those of us younger than Joe Paterno know), the standard source of perspective is to reach into the past. And we don’t have to go far back. Cal has been somewhere between mediocre and awful for most of my life (early ’90s excepted), bottoming out during the 1-10 season of 2001. When Tedford brought us winning football in 2002, 7-5 was a miracle. When Cal got to a bowl game in 2003, no one cared that the game didn’t have a proper name, merely a title sponsor that was an internet company no one had ever heard of. The standard argument here is that, given what came before, we should thank our lucky stars for everything Tedford has given us, even if this year, all he’s given us is a bid to a crappy bowl game in a city most of us have no desire to visit.
A counterargument:
However, I think the standard argument is selling Cal short. Given our location, resources, and international reputation, there’s no reason Cal shouldn’t excel in whatever endeavors it participates in, football included. Yes, football programs take time to build, but if your eventual goal isn’t to be the best, why are you even trying?
Something to consider:
Newnham also makes a very good point regarding Cal’s situation:
“But who would we get that is better?” countered a voice of sanity.
No one, that’s who. There’s no one out there who’s better than Tedford who would even consider taking this job. No one.
Want some effusive praise of Tedford? Here’s Bruins Nation’s own Nestor:
I can’t believe there are folks in Berkeley who are questioning Tedford. Jeff Tedford in my book is one of top-10 coaches in college football. Heck he may be in the top-5. If I were the UCLA athletic director, he would have been in my top-5 choice and would do whatever it took to get him down to Westwood. No doubt Tedford had a terrible season this year. However, it doesn’t take away from the fact what he has been able to build in Cal, and make that program truly relevant for the first time in decades.
Tedford would not only be good enough for UCLA. He’d be good enough for any elite program in America. Cal is lucky to have him. And I wish you luck in holding on to him.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
Tedford would not only be good enough for UCLA. He’d be good enough for any elite program in America. Cal is lucky to have him.
That’s a backhanded compliment if I ever read one…
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Aug 3, 2009 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions
I can think of at least one thing he can do right in Spazzy’s eyes!
by HolmoePhobe on Aug 3, 2009 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
OH MY GOD FLAGGED.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Aug 3, 2009 11:17 AM PDT up reply actions
HOW DID YOU KNOW I NEEDED VISINE ADMINISTERED BY A PRACTITIONER??!
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Aug 3, 2009 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Can Nestor do anything right in your eyes?!?
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Aug 3, 2009 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions
There are a few different things that make me happy so far with Tedford’s tenure at Cal. Most have already been covered in the other comments. But I think Tedford has a bunch of handicaps he has to overcome to be successful. If these handicaps go away, then I will start holding Tedford to a higher standard.
1) Cal was mediocre at football for around 40(?) years with a little success in the early 90’s.
—We’re winning now, but Tedford is still in his honeymoon period for me. Maybe in a couple years I will start to expect better.
2) I consider Cal a nerd school. Many in the campus (and local Berkeley) community actively dislike football as an excessively violent overly-masculine waste of time.
—Tedford (and Sandy) helped make athletics self-sustaining (so people can’t complain as much about the waste of money), and both have put an emphasis on the “student athlete.” Cal’s nerd community makes me think Cal is much more likely than other schools to celebrate smart football players like Alex Mack.
3) Terrible, old, and embarrasing football facilities.
—Getting new facilities soon, and we’ll see what happens when this is no longer an impediment for Tedford and Cal.
I think point number 2 is incredibly true. I believe Cal’s football team does not receive a similar amount of support from the student body because the student body is too busy with mid-terms, papers, and projects. In my time as a student, I felt the student body was only fully motivated when it was USC or Stanford.
Leave it to a nerd school
To come up with a way to permanently endow their entire athletic department.
It may be that the crowning achievement of the Tedford era is not his W/L record, Big Game, P10, or BCS championships won, but simply that he put a strong enough product on the field that people were willing to finance the $300 million Athletic Dept hedge fund and thereby turn Cal sports into a self-sustaining entity.
Tree Sitters
I can only imagine what would happen if D-Muffin & Co. tried pulling that crap off in Gainesville or Baton Rouge…or even South Central LA! Do you think they would even last a second in their tree lairs if Urban Meyer implied he was even slightly annoyed by the situation? How long do you think Les Miles would stand watching tree sitters from his office? More than an hour? Don’t you think the trees would be plowed under with the sitters still in them if Carroll started considering leaving for the NFL? Tedford has put up with so much BS not related to football while at Cal. Not only has he stayed, he has even said he’s bleeding blue and gold! I am in no hurry at all to see this man leave Cal. Have I been frustrated at times? Of course! But, overall, I can’t see anyone doing a better job while overcoming the same hurdles as Tedford. The football players also seem to be quality guys as well.
To answer your question, the tree-sitters most likely would have stayed up just as long in other situations. The fact that the trees were still there had nothing to do with the people living in them and everything to do with the Court injunction. The day after the injunction was lifted by the Appeals Court, Cal moved in.
And note that after Cal tried to remove the sitters once, the situation intensified greatly and became much more expensive to deal with. If they had tried to move in earlier, it would have only made the situation intensified and more expensive EARLIER.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Dumpster Muffin would have disappeared.
There is a reason there are no hippies in the South— they are killed. Or they move to Berkeley. Or Eugene.
I support Takimoto in his effort to support Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
by The VD Special on Aug 3, 2009 5:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Ah,as I am not a lawyer I obviously defer to your wisdom. So,maybe legally they would have been allowed to stay in the other places as well. But I have a hard time believing:
1) They wouldn’t have been shot by fans.
2) They would have been given food and water by campus police
2) The trees wouldn’t have been cut down by fans.
Honestly, I think Berkeley is the only place in the world the sitter situation could have played out like it did.
To add to your argument, Berkeley put up a fence at one point to essentially protect the tree-sitters from us crazzies. So, that might be more than in many other places.
But, honestly, I think they kinda looked at the various outcomes and took the safest and least expensive route. They knew that if something DID happen (like a football fan physically assaulted a tree-sitter) it could make the situation a lot worse. And, IIRC, the campus police only started feeding them late late late in the game when there were only like 4 left and they were not allowed anything from the ground troops. This was to ensure that nobody actually died or fainted from hunger, falling to the ground. If an injury occured, it would be bad bad bad bad BAD. So, they asked in the least risky manner possible. Perhaps not the most exciting and perhaps not in the way we woulda liked, but as a risk adverse person myself, I think their prudence is commendable.
People rarely commend the prudent, though.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
First time that’s ever been said about anything Berkeley-related.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Aug 3, 2009 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
I think Cal and the police handled the situation excellently. Agreed there. Maybe I picked a bad example, but I wanted to illustrate the situation of Berkeley with all of its unique challenges in building a football power. Like having a sacred mystic enchanted shamanic Indian burial ground tree grove just outside the stadium. I doubt other elite programs would have such difficulties building in better facilities. Yet Tedford never made threats. He expressed frustration, but he never said “Me or the trees”!
Publicly, I agree that Tedford acted incredibly well. It was never really in doubt, it just took FOREVER, because of all the stalling tactics.
The problem again was not the tree-sitters, but the fact that town-gown relations are so strained that anytime Cal tries to do something, it gets sued. Would Florida or Texas or USC have that problem? I doubt it, but do not know.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Pure speculation
But I think you’re right. I would guess Berkeley is somewhat unique in that situation due to the relative affluence of its surrounding community, though Austin is probably a close second, and likely more importantly, its geographic pressures.
USC’s surrounding neighborhoods just don’t have the same level of resources to commit to impeding development in the way Berkeley and the Panoramic Oaks organizations did. Gainesville and Austin both probably have the resources, but differ in having an almost civic pride in their university’s football team and no geographic constraints to speak of.
The City of Berkeley is historically known as a difficult place to build primarily because of the local residents. This is true whether the project involves the campus, football, roadwork, or private residences. The residents are idiots, resourceful, self-righteous, and have a thorough knowledge of how to create a beuaracratic mess.
Alameda county is also less friendly to builders/homeowners/land owners than most other places, and by most, I mean pretty much every other place in the country…
by Missing Barry on Aug 3, 2009 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Berkeley also has an overactive historical society that moves to deem everything historical, when in actual fact, nothing of importance occurred there, or the history being preserved is lame. This is how we end up with historic parking lots.
We have historic parking lots?
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
Oakland has at least one historic parking lot:
If you don’t know why this site is historic, consider yourself declared Sanchez.
(i’ll be extra nice and give you a hint: It’s on the northeast corner of 13th and Franklin in downtown Oakland.)
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
Sanchez’d but that took me a while to even find on Google! And WOW! We should all go there and have some kind of commemoration ceremony. What a random place…
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Aug 4, 2009 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions
Original site of the University of California. Or rather, the College of California.
by HolmoePhobe on Aug 4, 2009 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
California Historical Landmark #45
Original Site of the College of California
Well done sir!
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
I’m not going to claim that neighbors are always happy about SC’s expansion plans but 15 years of preferential hiring and contracting with people from the immediate neighborhood have gone a long way to change minds. And – it’s pathetic that I’d even cite this – the campus went untouched during the Rodney King Trial riots in 92, and it’s not like anyone could have have stopped it from being burned to the ground.
Dude, not every athletic facility needs a grand piano and a hundred jacuzzis/spas.
Contact me: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
Thoughts
As the Giants mount a playoff run despite seemingly insurmountable structural deficits, I"ve been thinking alot lately about the random element of sports.
Baseball is always (rightly) viewed as the most random of the major sports – A player can smoke a ball directly at the 2nd baseman and create two outs, or Barry Zito can throw his bat head at the ball and randomly knock the ball in a hole between infielders. Various statistics have been created trying to determine how good a player or team is regardless of luck, such as batting average on balls in play (BABIP) or Fielding independent pitching (FIP). Pythagorean runs scored will give you a predictive record based on how many more runs you’ve scored than your opponent, but each year a team wins a ton of 1 runs games and vastly outperforms their hypothetical record.
But in the end random variance over the course of 162 games almost always means that talent will win over luck, which is why they play so many damned games.
But in a way, football can be like that. ttgiang15’s epic collection of data indicates that Cal is a very very good team that is always in a football game. Yet over the last 5 years, when Cal has always been in the preseason discussion of potential conference champs, Cal has come up short. Is this a failure of Tedford? That’s possible. But I’m going to make the argument that Cal’s had a little bad luck, that perhaps Cal’s BABIP is at .260 instead of the league average .300
If Desean’s toe is one inch shorter, if Pete Alamar puts 10 men on the field, if Jonathan Makonnen doesn’t slip or Chase Lyman doesn’t blow out his knee, if Nate Longshore doesn’t roll his ankle against Oregon or if Kevin Riley throws the ball away against OSU. If USC ever truly faltered. All of these are individually very small but have huge impacts on a season. If a few of these games go the other way, how much different does Tedford’s Cal tenure seem?
Sure, in the end blame goes to Cal and credit goes to Cal’s opponents for succeeding in those moments because Cal failed. But I believe that, if given time, Cal will win more and more of their close games, will have less let-downs, will have a season where Cal gets the breaks in the biggest games and puts it all together. When you have that ability to blow teams out and stay close in every game, eventually the random luck (turnovers have been shown to be in large part random) then eventually things will go your way.
Have faith, blues both old and new.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
by norcalnick on Aug 3, 2009 10:03 PM PDT reply actions 5 recs
Super recommended. Awesome, awesome post.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Aug 3, 2009 10:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Much better version of what I was trying to say earlier…
by Missing Barry on Aug 4, 2009 7:50 AM PDT up reply actions
Hockey is roughly as luck-dependent as baseball is, FWIW
Most hockey goals are scored from shots that had maybe a 10-20% chance of going in and got a lucky bounce. (I say most because there are some scored on breakaways, easy putbacks during power plays, empty netters, etc.)
Since an individual game is as luck-dependent as baseball and they only play half as many, the end-of-season standings are actually a lot more about luck than they are in baseball. This is masked somewhat by the ridiculousness of the hockey playoffs, however, since every team that’s even remotely decent gets into the postseason.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
“Baseball is always (rightly) viewed as the most random of the major sports”
Key word….major. :)
by Missing Barry on Aug 4, 2009 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Lol I’m pretty sure hockey drew more fans than the NBA last year.
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Aug 4, 2009 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions
No idea if that’s true or not, but I’m sure the NBA destroyed the NHL in tv ratings. Anyways, I was just joking around, just to actually address PaulThomas’ point, the final standings in MLB aren’t about luck at all, even if each game depends largely on luck/randomness – 162 games takes care of that. I would say football standings are the most random, simply because they only play 16 games…
For an individual game, I would say the lowest scoring sports are the most random, while for a full season, it’s a combination of how random each game is and how many total games are played. It’s all about sample sizes…
by Missing Barry on Aug 4, 2009 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions
In most markets, the NBA slightly outdraws the NHL, and in some markets the NHL actually outdraws the NBA. But attendance-wise, the NHL has been steadily gaining while the NBA has been dropping.
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
We've discussed this before
But the main reason is that NHL tickets are dirt cheap, and many teams are located in smaller markets so the prices are even lower. The ticket prices for one Lakers playoff game probably aggregate to a sum bigger than an entire playoff series.
While less fans may be going to games, because of those huge bonuses from luxury boxes and front court high priced seats, the NBA is still in far less trouble financially than the NHL. And of course there’s the TV ratings thing, nationally and internationally.
I’m half-convinced Spazzy wrote this to annoy me.
Contact me: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
No, I didn’t…and NHL tickets are not dirt cheap. Using the Lakers as an example is disingenuous. I would bet you that when the Maple Leafs are in the Stanley Cup finals you would see insane ticket prices.
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
What about comparing like items. Dubs v. Sharks? Bulls v. Blackhawks? See what happens there.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I think the Warriors draw slightly more (like 15%) TV audience and have comparable ticket prices. I think the Sharks outdraw them in gross attendance, though.
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
Nope Warriors outdraw the Sharks, and don’t you dare question the Warriors again!
by Missing Barry on Aug 4, 2009 5:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Golden State:
Total attendance 776,660.
Average attendance 18,942
% CAPACITY 96.7
San Jose
Total attendance 717,023
Average 18,942
% CAPACITY 17,488
So the Sharks sell out all of their games. The Warriors don’t…
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
mother fucking edit god damn fucking button fuck
Golden State:
Total attendance 776,660.
Average attendance 18,942
% CAPACITY 96.7
San Jose
Total attendance 717,023
Average 17,488
% CAPACITY 100
So the Sharks sell out all of their games. The Warriors don’t…
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
Wouldn’t this actually be an argument in favor of NBA fans, seeing as the Warriors are a blight upon the earth while the Sharks are perennial Stanley Cup contenders?
I think what it really says is that Golden State has some of the best, most loyal fans in the world and the Warriors ownership doesn’t deserve them.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
The Sharks are Stanley Cup contenders in the same way that the University of Georgia is a perennial BCS Title contender.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Aug 4, 2009 8:39 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I like…don’t get it. They ARE Stanley Cup contenders….in fact comparing them to BCS game-winning Georgia is more of a compliment, really.
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
The Sharks sell out 100% of their games…..how can they possibly improve?!
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
I don’t think the Sharks can improve. They’re at the peak of their draw. The Warriors are not, but still almost sell out.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
True, but they’ve been a Bay Area franchise for decades longer than the Sharks with a larger population base to draw from. The Sharks are pretty much south-bay only.
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Aug 5, 2009 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions
Is that true? I’m pretty sure there are a lot of Sharks fans scattered around the Bay Area.
Contact me: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
Nah, I don’t think so…I’m pretty sure the W’s have a much wider net than they do.
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Aug 5, 2009 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions
Independent of the following, its certainly easier for people to get to Ws games. From CoCo County, Marin County, Alameda County, or SF County its fairly easy. To get down to a SJ Sharks game is tough unless you are in way south Alameda County and the Peninsula.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
zackly
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Aug 5, 2009 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions
but if they sell out 100% of their games, how can you say they’re not a major draw! Clearly, there are tons of Bay Area hockey fans, they wouldn’t sell out just from the South bay alone. Yes, it’s hard to get there, but apparently people do.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
Ah I just mean that anecdotally and from personal experience, I have met far far fewer people who are Sharks fans who live in the east bay/SF. Most have come from the South Bay.
Being a “big draw” can mean they draw TONS of people from San Jo, enough to fill up Fiorina Arena, but not necessarily have much following outside San Jose.
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
What were developers thinking when they made that building? This isn’t a dig against the Sharks, because they probably had nothing to do with it. They might as well name it Sore Thumb Pavilion.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
heh that isn’t its real name…it started out life as the San Jose Arena/Shark Tank, then the Compaq Center, then the HP Pavilion.
Radio people were joking that when HP bought the naming rights, would they then call it Fiorina Arena? (Fiorina being the CEO of HP at the time). Most people still call it The Tank, though.
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
I was referring to its lack of any attractiveness at all. Its a giant hunk of metal. Stadiums are rarely attractive, but honestly?
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
I don’t think it’s that bad compared to most modern arenas… what do you want, the Pompidou Centre?
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
It is creative, sure, but it is just a giant hunk of metal. I think they tried to go for something special, but tried too hard and came up with something subpar. It is a good stadium on the inside (nothing special, but is good in all areas and only flaw I can think of is its lack of food variety).
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
Well, San Jose is the largest city in the area, but isn’t density/population greater in the SF-Oakland-Hayward area? I think geographically if you were to pinpoint the population center of the whole bay area it would be somewhere in the middle of the San Mateo Bridge or thereabouts. There aren’t many people south of Parkway Lakes…
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
Which would certainly explain how the Sharks are able to fill their stadium even when they make it so hard to get there.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I dunno, takes like an hour and a half, prolly more. Its way the fuck down there.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah TwistNHook!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
You have never tried to go to a hockey game in Canada. I went to one hockey game in my 4 years in Canada. Want to know why? The super cheap seats at the top of the stadium went for $55 bucks each. Regular season. Against a shitty opponent. Want to know what i would be like to get playoff tickets? Back row of the entire stadium, first round, about $150. If the Canucks made the finals, back row tickets would cost probably around $300-$400 dollars. Imagine front row seats. I think you have to sell your organs on the black market to get them.
The most impressive part about all that is the fact that the Canucks still sell out every single game.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
Oh, I don’t pay attention to Canada. That’s not even a country.
Contact me: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
What's a canada?
I support Takimoto in his effort to support Roger Kieschnick in his quest to becoming the best Kieschnick ever to play professional baseball.
by The VD Special on Aug 4, 2009 6:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes but being in position to make those shots, and preventing your opponent from being in position to make those shots is what counts.
Some say his powerade gives you infrared vision...and that his sweat towels wipe away sin. All we know is he's called giantfan5.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Aug 4, 2009 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
