Where Have You Gone Jeff Tedford?
Technically, this space is supposed to be This Week In The Pac-12. But be honest - do you really want to read about how Stanford is one upset away from controlling their own National Title destiny? Do you really care that Oregon and Arizona St. blew out crummy teams? If anybody truly does miss it I'll write it up later, but for now there are more pressing issues on everybody's minds.
I remember chanting 'We love Tedford' at the Big Game bonfire rally, feebly hoping that the passion of the chant would help convince coach to never consider taking another job away from Berkeley.
I remember finding a Cal blog called 'Tedford is God' and not batting an eye or thinking that the title was stupid or hyperbolic.
I remember reading a Tedford profile on one of the most well-respected, intelligent team blogs on the internets. It was a profile on potential head coaches for their nationally prominent program. They referred to Tedford as 'ass kicking savior guy' and tentatively named him as their preference in the upcoming coaching search.
I remember when Jeff Tedford led easily the best stretch of Cal football in 50 years, was widely recognized as an offensive mastermind, and was the only person considered capable of competing with the USC juggernaut.
What happened to that coach? Since Cal's most recent no-show against USC, the same question keeps running through my head:
From 2002 until halfway through the 2007 season, Jeff Tedford compiled a record of 46-20, a win percentage of 70% (It went up to 75% from 2004-2006, after the rebuild was complete). His teams were confident and intelligent. They didn't make many mistakes. They typically got better both within games and within seasons. In those 66 games, there were only three games that could be considered blowouts (vs. a top 10 Kansas St. in 2003, vs. #1 USC in 2005, and at Tennessee in 2006).
From the 2nd half of 2007 up til now, Jeff Tedford has compiled a record of 28-26. Quarterback play has become erratic. Execution has gotten significantly worse. The team no longer improves within games or within seasons. Blowout losses have become common. The Bears frequently beat themselves.
Why? What happened? What changed? How can a coach so empirically awesome become so empirically mediocre, even bad? How does that make any sense?
I've tried to rack my brains for an example of a coach that performed so well for a 5 year span, only to have everything positive that characterized his teams suddenly change. Greg Schiano? Nah, he just had an 11-2 aberration from his usual 7-5, 8-4 meh Big East teams. Phil Fulmer? No, dude was just a victim of the cutthroat SEC - he went 10-4 in his second to last year! The closest example I can think of is Kirk Ferentz, who built Iowa into a back-to-back-to-back 10 win team in just four years, then regressed with three straight seasons of 6 or 7 wins, before winning 11 games two seasons ago. Still, few if any Cal fans feel like Tedford is on the cusp of a 10 or 11 win season.
If this sudden loss of coaching ability is as unusual as I think it is, I'm still left grasping for an explanation. For all of the criticisms Tedford has received over the last few years, I can't imagine Cal fans have an issue with his willingness to make changes. He's tried changing his role and focus as a head coach. He's parted ways with offensive coordinators, defensive coordinators, special teams coordinators and position coaches. He's changes the strength and conditioning coach, for God's sake. He's tried to shake up the practice schedule. Every year I feel like we read stories about how he's changing how the team tries to prepare from an emotional and mental standpoint.
And finally, this year, his solution was one that many Cal fans embraced: We're going to go back to doing things like we did them from 2002-2006. That meant bringing back two position coaches universally regarded as excellent coaches, and it meant a return to Tedford controlling the offense.
And yet the same results.
If you read the question I posed both in the title and body of this post, here is where I must disappoint you. I don't know why things have changed so radically. As I've learned more and more about football over the last few years I've always tried to analyze things logically and dispassionately. What little skills I've developed are failing me now. If any of you have a plausible theory I'd love to hear it. Barring a Michael Silver investigative novel we may never get a good explanation.
So now what? I personally have no desire to either publicly advocate for Tedford's termination, nor do I want to publicly go to bat for him. If Sandy Barbour decides that, for the good of Cal's athletic department, Cal needs a new coach, then I'll support that decision. If she decides that Tedford's performance warrants one more year then I'll be buying season tickets at new Memorial and showing up each week hoping and praying that 2002-2006 Tedford returns in all his awesomeness. I'm a fan of the Bears, I'll do my best to support this program and its players, and that won't change.
But mostly, I'll just be sad. Sad because the promise that I wholeheartedly believed in is gone. Sad because somebody who was instrumental in some of my best memories has become a punch line and a punching bag. Sad because a good man, someone who understands Berkeley, who ran every non-football aspect of the program almost exactly as I'd want, may be forced to leave, and not on his own terms.
Call me a sap, call me an idiot, call me a nostalgic fool - but there's still a part of me who believes that Tedford will recapture that magic that made all of us believers. Do you remember how we all felt in 2004? How could that have been wrong?!
If you're given the chance - please coach, prove that part of me right.
475 comments
|
28 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Rec'd
Fantastic post as it captures EXACTLY how I currently feel. Do I love Tedford for what he’s done for Cal? HELL YES.
I also don’t think it’ll be horrible for both parties to move on, but I also WANT Coach Tedford to succeed here. To finally benefit from all the work he’s put into rebuilding this program over the past 10 years.
Tony Gonzalez? University of California?
Oh boy, I can’t wait to read the comments to this post!
My own feeling is that Tedford’s decline (for lack of a better term) is directly tied to his choice to stop being a coach and start being a manager.
It’s bigger than just his going hands off. It has to do with the attitude change that accompanies it. Being a coach means getting in there and taking some risks, playing hunches, and listening to your gut. Being a manager means analyzing stats, siding with conventional wisdom and playing it safer in an attempt to ameliorate disaster.
The Coach Tedford would pull a QB who is clearly having a horrible day and undermining any chance the team has to win. The Manager Tedford leaves that QB in the game because he has had the most practice, and therefore gives the team “the best chance” to win.
After last year Tedford seemed to announce that he was retiring Manager Tedford and bringing back Coach Tedford. Perhaps it will take a bit more time for that guy to show up again.
Far from clamoring for his head or starting some stupid online movement to affect change, I think we give Coach Tedford a chance to fully return. Hopefully sooner than later.
Being an Old Blue means never accepting success.
But he’s still got a bed in his new SAHPC office…
by TheScientist019 on Oct 31, 2011 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions
i’m honestly concerned about his health
whose domicile? our domicile!
by hardtobecalfan on Oct 31, 2011 3:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Still, few if any Cal fans feel like Tedford is on the cusp of a 10 or 11 win season.
Maybe I’m suffering from PTSD, but favorable home schedule (UW, Oregon, Stanford) with moderate improvements to D and serviceable QB would put us on the cusp. Obviously we’d need a serviceable QB, but there’s gotta be at least one, out of the 4 on the bench. Right? Right?!?!!????!!
n.b. -- This comment does not constitute official chemistry advice.
I think firing Tedford before returning to Memorial Stadium, after he (with a lot of other people) worked hard to get the facilities updated, would be cruel. If this ends up Tedford’s second straight bowl-less season, fine. Three on the cusp of four, probably time to get things checked out, but he’s given Cal way more good years than bad, and I think much of this reaction is emotional because Cal’s badness is coinciding with a great Stanford team and USC not missing much of a beat despite sanctions.
Firing Tedford after this season
Would not only be cruel, it would lack institutional integrity. It’s also not practical from a financial standpoint, because he has no buyout clause.
But I think if he posts a losing record this year, and follows it with 6-6 or worse next year, fire him.
by ginfizzbear on Oct 31, 2011 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions
Yeah
I’m willing to give him 1-2 years to turn it around. Last year was really bad with Mansion, but this year… Ugh.
by puresilence on Oct 31, 2011 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions
that said, I hope he goes 4-0 to finish this season
by ginfizzbear on Oct 31, 2011 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Ruining the furd’s hopes at a high bowl bid would salvage the season no matter what the rest of the season would look like.
by puresilence on Oct 31, 2011 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
Agree with this completely
Had he not done what he’s done for the program over the years I would be on the fire Tedford camp without a doubt, but he’s just done so much to bring the program where it is that he really does deserves at least two more years, maybe even three I would say. It’s not just the facilities but more about the expectations for me. Tedford set the expectations of this program at a high level. We used to be a joke, not just the year before he got here, but for many, many, many years. The people who are calling for his head seem to keep bringing up his salary plus the fact that we’re not getting to the Rose Bowl with him (at this rate), but those expectations were never there before Tedford came to Cal and I think it’s important to repeat this point over and over again.
What I don’t like about the people calling for the firing of Tedford is the lack of discussion in what we do after we fire Tedford. What will be the expectations for the program? Will it be that any coach that does not get us to compete for the Rose Bowl will be reasons for them to get fired? Do we lower the coach’s salary and expect to be less competitive and settle for more losses? How many years do we give a new coach to get us to the Rose Bowl before getting fired? What will the measure of success be only wins and losses, regardless of running a clean program or not? (I’m not mentioning this as a reason to keep Tedford but only as an example of whether it’s ok or not for Cal Football to having a Chip Kelly kind of coach where wins will overlook other questionable situations of the program.)
It worries me because I think people think bringing in a new coach will instantly make us competitive again. We really might be competing for a Rose Bowl every year and we can pump sunshine every single week. Or we might end up with a shittier coach who brings our program back down to a level that is much worse than we are at now. We really aren’t at the lowest of lows like everyone makes it seem after every loss. It sure can get worse, and there are lots of programs where a coaching change took the program to a lower level than it was at before.
I’m a firm believer in the thought that winning cures all and I’m really rooting for Tedford even though he’s on the hot seat in my opinion and this recent run these past years are just not acceptable. I’m just seriously wondering what people’s expectations of this program are though if we really do let go of Tedford. The fact that we’re even discussing this demonstrates how dissatisfied a lot of fans are with Tedford.
by nickle on Oct 31, 2011 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 5 recs
What part of Chip Kelly at Oregon has been questionable?
You guys paid Willie Lyles, just like we did. So I’m assuming it’s not that.
Is it the rash of player transgressions off the field? Because those have been dealt with pretty harshly.
Cliff Harris has been suspended 2 games and counting this year for traffic tickets. Traffic f’ing tickets. He has barely managed to get on the field in games because the coaches want him to prepare better and practice better. He’s by faaaar our best CB still, so it’s not that he’s lacking in talent.
Our Rose Bowl QB was kicked off the team for what he did. What more do you want?
Last year he suspended a kid for the season because of a DUI.
Are you thinking of Blount? Because he was suspended for about 9/10 games of his SENIOR season and has been able to go on to have successful NFL career because of the way he was treated by Kelly and rehabilitated instead of being kicked to the curb or coddled.
Kelly can’t go out and hold every players hand while they are off the field, but if they screw up they are punished significantly harsher than just about any other school I’ve seen.
And also, be serious, it’s not that Chippy doesn’t discipline his players after they misbehave, it’s that they are misbehaving in a spectacular and frequent manner.
Most Cal fans would not be happy with that. Oregon fans? Well hard to say, some seem ok with it. Others, less so.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
I think I lose if I respond to this.
Oh look, I did lose. In typical Cal fashion.
by nickle on Oct 31, 2011 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
You offend me the Good.
Number one fan of Justin Bieber being the number one fan of the Dodgers, and not the [2010 World Series Champion] Giants.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 31, 2011 12:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Three Words, a Numeral And A Semi-Colon: RoboDuck II: Duck Harder
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
I don’t find the whole “we do it with integrity” thing that compelling. If we had to opportunity to pay the next $Cam Newton phenom out of a CC 180K to get us a shot at the national championship, then sign me up to pitch in the 50 cents I can afford to pitch in (2cents seemed to obvious).
Integrity and College Football do not go together and never have. Didn’t we even get caught fixing grades when we were really terrible! We’re just doing it all wrong (by which I mean doing it too right).
I suspect he isn't
The first commandment is to do nothing to embarrass the university, which is far bigger than the athletic department. In time the win at all costs mentality usually leads to disaster in other areas (business, politics, etc.) as well as in sports.
I'm not trying to pick on the guy
I’ve just noticed that non alums are much, much more likely to take this attitude than alumni are. And that makes sense, because our priorities are different than those who are simply Cal football fans.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Winning is not everything, and it is far better to play the game squarely and lose than win at the sacrifice of an ideal. — Andy Smith
I blame Twist.
by CalBear81 on Oct 31, 2011 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
“If winning isn’t everything, why do they keep score?"
― Vince Lombardi
Inspiring and completing since1997 since2010!
by Fire Starkey on Oct 31, 2011 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions
In the NFL winning is everything. In college, it should not be.
I blame Twist.
by CalBear81 on Oct 31, 2011 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I think that attitude ended for D1 football in approximately 1926
Inspiring and completing since1997 since2010!
by Fire Starkey on Oct 31, 2011 2:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Really? The only thing you care about in college football is the number of wins? There is absolutely nothing else that matters to you? The fact that a particular University is your alma mater, where you enjoyed some of the highlights of your youth? The prestige and good name of your University? The traditions, the desire to beat your rivals, no matter how good or bad either team’s season has been? Why do crowds of 70,000 plus show up for the Big Game in years when both teams have horrible losing records? I have had season tickets to Cal football since 1977, and I can assure you that if all the University of California and Cal football meant to me was winning games, I would have abandoned them at least 25 years ago. I have not. But if Cal ever became one of those places like Auburn, where the administration condoned open cheating for the sake of winning, I would abandon them both.
I blame Twist.
by CalBear81 on Oct 31, 2011 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
So the Mike White years didn’t put you off? The Todd Bozeman era and the laughable concept that Jason Kidd actually attended class? Other periods where Cal has blatantly cheated over the years? We’re no SEC school but please don’t pretend to think that Cal hasn’t done some dirty, dirty stuff over the years.
I was being somewhat sarcastic but to a point, I think my statement has some kernel of truth. College football (and basketball) has always been filthy and to think otherwise is impossible.
Inspiring and completing since1997 since2010!
by Fire Starkey on Oct 31, 2011 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions
And both were gotten rid of promptly. White was only at Cal my freshman year, and I was not really that aware of the situation at the time. But he was fired by Cal even though there was no pressure from the NCAA to do so. Bozeman was a disaster.. But he was only at Cal for two seasons before his firing. Yes he was a cheater and he was quickly fired. I don’t think these two cases over the space of 35 years demonstrates the that University has a practice of openly condoning cheating. I do think they show too much laxity by the University, and I think the University responded appropriately after the Bozeman fiasco.
In any event, Cal football will always mean more to me than how many wins we have. I would not otherwise have continued going to games during all the many 1-10, 2-9, and 3-8 seasons I have suffered through. If the traditions, memories and rivalries that make up so much of college football are not meaningful to a fan, then I can’t imagine why that fan would follow college football instead of the NFL, especially in an area where there are two local NFL teams.
I blame Twist.
by CalBear81 on Oct 31, 2011 3:18 PM PDT up reply actions 3 recs
I can’t imagine why that fan would follow college football instead of the NFL, especially in an area where there are two local NFL teams.
I think this bears far more attention, in general, than given.
Number one fan of Justin Bieber being the number one fan of the Dodgers, and not the [2010 World Series Champion] Giants.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 31, 2011 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions
my thoughts exactly
This seperates the real Cal fans from the johnny come lately’s, especially after 2002. Where was the fans during Holme’s last few years, 2000-2001? I was a transfer student -attending Cal from 1973-1975, then a season ticket holder since 1977, 34 consecutive years and counting. There’s the many excellent young men who wore the Cal uniform. The fantastic plays and Big Games – especially “The Play – 1982”. There’s the BG 1974 – Carol Doda leading the stanfurd band onto the Cal field. “G” rated of course. Standing in the Cal student section in 1975 watching the water ballons sailing overhead onto the field againest usc. Your seating neighbors – that shared the highs and lows of Cal football, and the different college teams appearing at Memorial Stadium. Big, bad Miami – 1990. Texas A&M was interesting. But most of all, witnessing Cal football tradition and history unfold each year.
Meh
Much ado about nothing.
Plenty of programs are successful without rampant cheating or compromising academics. It pains me to say it but see Stanfurd.
I’m not sure what you are saying. FS was saying that the only thing that matters for college football is winning and it would be okay if Cal openly cheated as long as we win. I was saying that I disagree.
I blame Twist.
I would rather have a clean 8-4 team than an 11-0 Rose bowl champ team…from this vantage point. But boy, would it be tempting…
I think (hope) the NCAA will be looking more deeply at teams, if at all possible, and the cheating stuff becomes more of a hindrance than a help. I doubt there will ever be complete parity in college football, however.
Yeah I saw
but it’s something of a false dilemma since it implies that we need to cheat to be good.
We don’t.
Of course it’s not worth cheating.
End of story IMO.
One coaching skill is not to get caught
especially when faking injuries…
I do, however, believe Tedford can put a hat in his cap for not having had any other issues. Until proven otherwise, I’ll believe that Cal Footblal (okay, the furd too) are class acts that don’t tolerate “filthiness”.
Can’t say the same for Holmoe.
Other than the alleged rampant steroid use*
*alleged by me.
"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
Absolutely well said CB81, I couldn’t agree more.
[Cal is] a fabulous university with a football program that typically has precious few and very fleeting brushes with success but a great many unions with failure.
--Monte Poole, Oakland Tribune, 11-30-2010
by SonofCalifornia on Nov 1, 2011 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions
nickle,
I respect your opinion, but I somewhat disagree. I think Tedford did an amazing job at Cal, such an amazing job that Cal as a football program is light years ahead of where it was pre-Tedford. We now have a university willing and able to fully support the football program. An alumni that has shown that they are willing to financially support the football program (if we win). And we have a new stadium and new facilities. All of this is thanks to Tedford, and for that, I am grateful to him.
But Tedford’s successes means that we should have higher expectations for the program. We don’t have the same built-in excuses that we used to. If Tedford were let go, our program is 1000% more appealing than it was after Holmoe was left go. There is zero reason why we can’t attract a highly qualified football coach to come to Cal. We have a new stadium, new facilities, new pac-12 money, a supportive AD and university, and Cal has already shown that its a recruiting destination. Why shouldn’t we be able to attract a head coach?
I also believe that if you don’t have higher expectations for the program from here on out, you’re completely defrauding all of the ESP donors. The ESP donors are paying a ridiculous amount of money. But with that money came the promise from the university that we are going to RAISE expectations with the football program. So yeah, speaking for the ESP donors, our expectations should be extremely high and we should have a coach who can live up to those expectations. If tedford can prove he’s that guy, then great. If not, you have to let him go, because again, we are NOT the same Cal anymore. Once you start charging astronomical ticket prices, you have to produce on the field.
I think the worry that because we are Cal, Tedford is the best we can get is flawed reasoning. That might have been true pre-Tedford, but we aren’t the same Cal anymore. Obviously there is always going to be a risk that the next coach will be shittier than Tedford, but such a risk is inherent with any new hire. I just don’t think that just because we are Cal, we shouldn’t expect to attract top notch candidates. Sometimes you have to take a risk. Just look at basketball, we could have gone years and years settling for mediocre basketball, but instead, we took a risk and hired a truly spectacular head coach.
I have a ton of respect for Tedford as a person and for what he has built. But, I think Tedford’s taken us as far as he can take us.
So to answer your question; considering the amount of money we have already spent on facilities/stadium upgrade and the huge increase in ticket prices, our expectations going forward should be higher. And we as a fan base should expect a championship level type of team each and every year. And if our coach can’t provide that, you keep looking for one who can.
by ryandrew on Oct 31, 2011 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions 4 recs
I agree, but I am fearful.
no bear, no care
by EchoOfSilence on Oct 31, 2011 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree with this completely
Also, Cal has shown that it is loyal to its head coach. Tedford has been given 10 seasons despite not getting Cal to a BCS bowl or winning an outright conference title. So as long as a coach can produce winning seasons and competitive teams he will have decent job security.
The facilities upgrade is what ultimately gives me hope that we can pull out of this tailspin, with or without Tedford. The administration HAS to put out a winning football team in order to pay for the facilities; there is no other choice. In a roundabout way, the school has forced itself into a corner where it can no longer be apathetic about football.
by sycasey on Oct 31, 2011 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
This is a great point-counterpoint. I think you’re both “correct” in the sense that you’re using evidence and analysis to back up your positions, and I think many people would agree with both of you.
/nosarcasm
Number one fan of Justin Bieber being the number one fan of the Dodgers, and not the [2010 World Series Champion] Giants.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 31, 2011 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions
can’t explain that!
Number one fan of Justin Bieber being the number one fan of the Dodgers, and not the [2010 World Series Champion] Giants.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 31, 2011 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree with you completely, except for one key point
There is zero reason why we can’t attract a highly qualified football coach to come to Cal. We have a new stadium, new facilities, new pac-12 money, a supportive AD and university, and Cal has already shown that its a recruiting destination. Why shouldn’t we be able to attract a head coach?
I agree with the point of your post, which is that Tedford has brought us to a level that wasn’t there before. The job is definitely attractive, and it really will be easy to attract a good coach.
Now here is where the problem is. The hiring of a “good coach” or a better coach than Tedford would be easy if we can just base it on numbers. Or the new coach’s success in previous programs. Or something that correlates to guaranteed future success.
But lots of football programs hire a “truly spectacular head coach” and get terrible results all the time. Previous success might be a good indicator for future success. Or it may not. New coaches can easily bring a program down further than where it was before they were hired. Nothing is guaranteed. I really don’t have time to think of all the examples of once highly respected “hot” coaches that came with super high expectations that failed miserably. There’s a ton out there. I’ll name only a few from recent years off the top of my head. Charlie Weis at Notre Dame. Rich Rodriguez at Michigan. Even within the Pac-10 there’s Slick Rick Neuheisel (w/ Norm Chow I might add, who many attributed to USC’s success during their Pete Carroll years). What about Tyrone Willingham at Washington?
(To be fair, there are plenty of other good coaches that were hired based on their potential to be great who did indeed go on to do great things. Urban Meyer comes to mind as THE example of a recent hot coach that really worked out well. My point is the same: you just don’t know how things will turn out.)
In the simple world, great coach hire = more football wins which = everyone being happy. It’s too bad this is not the case and this is my point. The hiring of a new coach, no matter how great the hire might be, really is a shot in the dark. And I don’t think most people get that. Sure, we can always hope things will be good and turn out for the best. But there should be equal realistic expectations that it can possibility get equally bad. In a perfect world we can just get the best coach out there and aggressively hire, go to the Rose Bowl and everything will be fine. It’s just not that simple and I just want to make the case that firing Tedford doesn’t magically make us more competitive. It might, or it might not.
This.
So much this.
Cal Football: I loved them once and they broke my heart. Let that be a lesson to you. Never love anything.
by CalBandGreat on Oct 31, 2011 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions
It’s just not that simple and I just want to make the case that firing Tedford doesn’t magically make us more competitive. It might, or it might not.
I totally agree with you on this point. It’s why you need to make SURE that your current coach doesn’t have it before you make a change. Just a few bad games won’t do it.
IMO, we’re at that point with Tedford.
Ron Zook. Steve Spurrier.
Number one fan of Justin Bieber being the number one fan of the Dodgers, and not the [2010 World Series Champion] Giants.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 31, 2011 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions
I know what you’re saying, but following your logic, you’d have to wait for a coach to go 1-10 before firing them. Of course there is risk. There is risk with everything. And I think there are several Cal fans who are absolutely willing to take that risk.
Bring forth a candidate and we’ve got a discussion. Sandy’s probably operating that way regardless of popular opinion; she has the ability to think a few moves ahead. Firing Tedford and then forming a search committee would be a brainless thing right now, but if someone wow becomes available we’d probably be pushing our numbers and doing some homework.
WE ARE ZOONEWS
AVAST BERKELEY

Number one fan of Justin Bieber being the number one fan of the Dodgers, and not the [2010 World Series Champion] Giants.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 31, 2011 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
reeeeeeeaaaallllllyyyyyyy bad fit for Berkeley
Inspiring and completing since1997 since2010!
by Fire Starkey on Oct 31, 2011 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
dude cmon….cmon….work with me here…
Number one fan of Justin Bieber being the number one fan of the Dodgers, and not the [2010 World Series Champion] Giants.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 31, 2011 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Too late. The bn kids covet the pirate, and they simply will not tolerate someone else taking their toys
Being an Old Blue means never accepting success.
if UCLA gets Mike Leach I will be really, really unhappy.
Number one fan of Justin Bieber being the number one fan of the Dodgers, and not the [2010 World Series Champion] Giants.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 31, 2011 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
It's OK, they won't.
For a number of reasons. Dan Guerrero already said “lol, no” to Leach in 2007, before he was embroiled in a very public scandal and lawsuit against his former employers. Plus Leach is legendary for not giving a flying fuck about the alumni/boosters, who UCLA need right now desperately.
"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
Needs more evidence behind argument before I rec you.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
I honestly don't get the attraction to a coach whose teams historically
don’t play defense. We’re going to need to succeed in all three phases to win the Pac-12, and I doubt Leach is going to be convinced that he needs to spend more time on defensive practice.
"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
eh
I don’t think that’s a fair point. People said that about Braun, and she got Monty. Nobody was talking about Monty, but she got him. Just because us CGB dickheads don’t know anything about a coaching search does not mean we shouldn’t fire Tedford, nor does it mean that there wouldn’t be a good replacement, even one completely off our radar.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by CBKWit on Oct 31, 2011 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Fair, shmair. We saying that Tedford isn’t gonna get fired this season unless there is a big plump candidate available for all to point at and say wtf Sandy. Or there’s a big fuck up off the field.
WE ARE ZOONEWS
I don’t think Tedford should be fired right now, and I think he’s probably safe if he can get to 6 wins (maybe even 5). But saying Cal shouldn’t fire him because WE don’t know who his replacement would be is a terrible argument, one that was disproved by the Braun firing/Monty hiring.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I think the point is not “we the fans don’t know”, the point is, whoever the replacement is, it’s also a risk-laden proposition, and not a guarantee of success or even improvement over Tedford.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Oct 31, 2011 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions
I also think THAT is a faulty argument
It’s akin to the leave Maynard in on Saturday argument – yes, his replacement could be worse, but when you throw 4INTs, it doesn’t really matter, because that person is not doing a competent job. Maybe our next coach will be “worse” than Tedford, but if we’re going to have another losing season, and if we accept that that performance is unacceptable, you have make a change regardless. You can’t just accept mediocrity and lack of achievement out of fear.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I don’t think we disagree. I’m not saying “never make a change”, I’m just saying that the risks that that change will not work out also need to be factored into the decision, that’s all. If you’re replacing 1-10 Holmoe, then sure, the next person almost certainly can’t be worse and that risk is low. Tedford is not Holmoe, and so the risk/reward proposition is different.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Oct 31, 2011 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions
yeah
but again, I think the premise should be, if the current coach/player/administrator/whatever is not meeting the current standards, you make a change. And if that person also does not meet certain standards, you make another change.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
alls I know is last year we went from maybe making a bowl with Riley to DEFINITELY NEVER MAKING A BOWL, MAYBE CANCEL THE TEAM with Mansion. We should be careful what we wish for.
Number one fan of Justin Bieber being the number one fan of the Dodgers, and not the [2010 World Series Champion] Giants.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 31, 2011 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Booya—>Levy
Robertson—>Rogers
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Both good points, but I think we can agree Rogers was a once in a lifetime talent, and the 2005 team surrounding Levy was STACKED….
Number one fan of Justin Bieber being the number one fan of the Dodgers, and not the [2010 World Series Champion] Giants.
It’s not the fans’ job to find out who is available, it’s the AD’s job. Part of that is because we as fans do not and cannot know who would be interested in the job, or at what kind of money.
Since we cannot know that, does it logically follow that we cannot ask that the current coach be replaced? No, it doesn’t.
1. ryanandrew: ~“there are cal fans willing to take that risk” (agree, and maybe we’re one of them)
2. zoonews: ~“bring forth a candidate and we’ve got a discussion” (in that now it would be interesting for many of us to discuss alternatives, not that it is a fucking requirement to any conversation)
3. zoonews: ~“sandy’s probably already operating that way” (as she should be as AD)
4. cbkwit & sycasey have braunian flashbacks.
WE ARE ZOONEWS
To this point, we are all kinds of disappointed with everything right now but things are just entering Braunian territory. Should be fired or shouldn’t be fired, interesting but it’s pretty much a given in our mind that he won’t be fired. We suspect next season will be the pivotal one: new home, that promise fulfilled, no excuses, what u got?
WE ARE ZOONEWS
I hate the comparison to Braun, in no way is this fair to what Tedford has accomplished. It really isn’t. Argue (not you, zoonews, but anyone) that Tedford should be fired, but can we quit this Braun business?
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
We’ll know we’ve entered the “Braun zone” where our players literally have no idea what to do on offense, and end up just standing around and staring at each other while someone sacks Zach Maynard.
Deposed (and recently graduated!) #1 Indian
by boomtho on Oct 31, 2011 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Eh, I don’t know. Even when we weren’t throwing interceptions our offense looked pretty bad. As Hydro pointed out, our offense didn’t drive past the 50 yard line until the 3rd quarter! We couldn’t really run the ball against ucla or sustain any drives.
Obviously, without the picks the game is closer but we weren’t doing much of anything on offense to make me believe we win the game without the picks.
Hard to drive when you’re turning the ball over before the drive gets going.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Oct 31, 2011 3:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Obviously it should be Pete Carroll when he fails out of the NFL. He’s already coaching so many Cal players already with Seattle.
Bob Ladouceur
De La Salle is basically an FCS college program and it’s time somebody promoted that guy.
Cal Football: I loved them once and they broke my heart. Let that be a lesson to you. Never love anything.
by CalBandGreat on Oct 31, 2011 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Hes turned down amny many many many many many many many offers. Would he accept Cal’s?
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Sandy got Monty. I believe she can be very persuasive.
Cal Football: I loved them once and they broke my heart. Let that be a lesson to you. Never love anything.
by CalBandGreat on Oct 31, 2011 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions
Won't happen
I played football there, Bob hated the recruiting process; his talent rests at the high school level. Plus, he teaches religion classes there, along with Eidson
Dang.
Oh well, I’m out of ideas then.
Cal Football: I loved them once and they broke my heart. Let that be a lesson to you. Never love anything.
by CalBandGreat on Oct 31, 2011 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Hiring high school coaches to lead college programs is like hiring NFL coaches
You’re very, very rarely going to regret you decision to not hire them. The success rate of hopping from one league to another is not even a little bit encouraging.
I think about this kind of thing all the time for reasons I can’t quite explain, but I like the idea of hiring a highly successful D1AA head coach. There’s precedent for that being a good decision (Paul Johnson, Brian Kelly, Jim Tressel), and you could probably find one with significant West Coast ties (which I assign not insignificant importance to).
Either that or hire Justin Wilcox. (We could convince him to make Tosh his DC and keep Ron Gould! Tedford coaching tree!)
"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
Or a good Military academy coach
If they can do well there…they certainly know how to work with constraints to the program, as well as compete with some bigger schools. And the academies are rarely a final stop, and I’ve never heard of an alum coaching there. Plus, I would think their salaries come from our tax dollars as well. TEA PARTY!
Troy Calhoun at Air Force is an AFA alumn.
I’m not big on the idea of a service academy coach because their situation is so unlike anything else in college football. Calhoun and Nuimatolo (I’m going to assume that’s how it’s spelled) have objectively succeeded at making the most of what they’ve been given, but it’s such a specialized niche that I’m not confident in how their success will translate.
Also despite my “no such thing as a gimmick offense” rant downthread, I don’t like the flexbone option as a base package in BCS football. Paul Johnson has had some great results, but when the offense isn’t working it just grinds to a complete halt (Also I’m not big on an offense that reduces that reduces the passing game to FUCK IT I’M GOING DEEP). Might just be bias on my part though.
"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
Jim Tressel can thank Ohio State’s cordial relations with the NCAA for the fact that he’s not going into the tOSU annals as the man who nuked their program with penalties. I mean, I know you all like to go on about how Pete Carrol was ethically challenged but to the best of my knowledge he didn’t conceal evidence from a federal investigation which would have shown that he knew they were ineligible all season.
Brian Kelly is such a superstar that he nearly had a player revolt on his hands last week. And he just got out coached by Kiffin.
Point being, you can find downsides to anyone, even if they look competent, clean, and cheap in FCS.
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea"
Point being, you can find downsides to anyone,
Coulda just stopped there. Obviously if/when Barbour decides to replace Tedford, she’ll have her own metric for deciding who is right for the job, but I just wanted to try to identify a possible high-percentage play.
(Oh yeah, add Harbaugh to the list of coaches who jumped from D1AA.)
"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
(Wilcox hasn't made any progress at Tennessee for the record, but that's the kind of thing I'm willing to overlook in my inane speculation.)
"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
Paul Johnson
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Dude hired Al Groh to be his defensive coordinator. Fuck. That. Shit.
Chip Kelly would eat him alive if he tried to bring that weak sauce to Autzen.
"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
If any of you have a plausible theory I’d love to hear it.
From the 2nd half of 2007 up til now, Jeff Tedford has compiled a record of 28-26.
This is cherry-picking a little, and related to my plausible theory, which is that injuries to a starting QB are pretty horrendous for most teams. Last year, for example, Cal wasn’t gonna be a NC contender, but the parting impression was also exacerbated by QB injuries.
As for why QB play is so erratic this year … I got nothing.
n.b. -- This comment does not constitute official chemistry advice.
Maynard was the best we had
but obviously had issues. He had a connection with Allen, which can’t be overlooked, but he had, like 15 interceptions in a weaker, slower conference. Mansion? Way too much work needed. Bridgford? Just had shoulder surgery; that could have a permanent impact, and he’s not as fast as Maynard. IF the OL line wasn’t looking as strong this year, go with the mobile guy and try and teach him about confusing coverages that he’s never seen before, but…nothing works as well as experience. Just ask Boller and Palmer.
I think in the past three weeks I’ve watched my teams QB’s throw at least thirteen interceptions.
Let's just use all of 2007
It still only makes us 33-26. Yeah, it’s not terrible, but it’s a far cry from the 43-20 from 2002 to 2006.
Well, there may be signs of internal strife
(or player frustration, at least)
CjAndersonRB9 C.J. Anderson
@DavidERod I feel you but if u knew the inside up here and the politics ull see y we be losing
If true, that would definitely be on Tedford one way or another. I didn’t think I was going to be able to get even sadder.
no bear, no care
oh boy, locker-room insurrection? sigh
by the federer express on Oct 31, 2011 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions
1. C.J. should be suspended for this.
2. Maynard should be benched for that.
3. Problems solved!
WE ARE PROBLEM SOLVER
WE ARE ZOONEWS
by zoonews on Oct 31, 2011 11:14 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
4. Profits!
Seriously though, this use of Twitter shouldn’t be tolerated by the coaches. Its conduct detrimental to the team.
Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!
by dballisloose on Oct 31, 2011 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions
It is, but he’s already sent a corrective tweet of sorts so maybe we’ll all learn something from this and win Big Game together lalalalalalalalaMUSHROOMS
WE ARE ZOONEWS
Corrective Tweet?
Not sure about that. I checked out that thread and it seems very shady. Not posting anything here because I don’t want to stir the pot, but the rumor of dissent seems to have some merit.
Being an Old Blue means never accepting success.
The last two tweets now deflect from Maynard and challenge tweetsters (presumably piling on Maynard) to criticize C.J.’s own play.
WE ARE ZOONEWS
I saw those. But even those don’t really do anything to asuage the thought of some sort of internal strife. Particularly when there is a comment about not being able to discuss it via twittering.
Ugh. Even if this is just an honest misunderstanding or a classic case of misinterpretation, it just isn’t good. Particularly now.
Being an Old Blue means never accepting success.
This sounds like 2007 when the team was divided. I have my suspicions which I won’t elaborate on but like I’ve posted in another thread, I think the psychology of this team is not healthy……something is amiss and I’m not sure if JT realizes it or is at the center of it; but if C.J. is concerned, I’m concerned.
Yuck. I hope this isn’t the case. But I fear that if the fans are questioning the coaching, the players may also be following the same suit.
I hope Tedford can nip this soon.
by slaphancock on Oct 31, 2011 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions
Another thread… on CGB? or elsewhere?
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Oct 31, 2011 4:17 PM PDT up reply actions
My cousin’s sister’s roommate’s housekeeper said the same thing!
Number one fan of Justin Bieber being the number one fan of the Dodgers, and not the [2010 World Series Champion] Giants.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 31, 2011 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions
There's nothing good about this tweet
If CJ is accurate, we have internal strife. Obviously not good. If CJ is not accurate, he’s displaying either poor judgment or lack of discipline. I don’t like either possibility.
Over/Under on number of hours before JT bans player Tweets: 24.5
Inspiring and completing since1997 since2010!
by Fire Starkey on Oct 31, 2011 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions
My thoughts exactly.
no bear, no care
by EchoOfSilence on Oct 31, 2011 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions
I"m going out on a limb here and everyone can disagree with me wholeheartedly but I think JT is playing favorites and many on the team don’t like it one bit….I’ll even venture to say that the North Carolina contingent is dividing the locker room, maybe not on purpose, but dividing it all the same. JT covets them and sides with them causing other players to look unfavorably upon other players and are losing confidence….JT has lost the team and is clueless because his self awareness is lacking and his intentions while understandable are bringing down the team….
This might sound harsh and yes, it is total speculation on my part so if I’m wrong, I’ll stand corrected. The reason I say this is that in 2007, a similar thing happened. Some thought it was all about DeSean, but from what I heard, it was a NorCal vs SoCal divide. I don’t mean to offend anyone with my opinion but it is what I feel….
Those perceptions of favoritism can wreak havoc – different school and situation, but that was true also during the last year or two that Carroll was at SC.
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea"
Really? Care to say more?
no bear, no care
by EchoOfSilence on Oct 31, 2011 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions
I don’t remember all of the soap-opera details, but Carroll’s insistence on using Barkley all the time even when he was struggling, and at the expense of getting game time for Mustain or… the kid who transferred to Richmond, who was thrown under the bus in a very unpleasant manner, comes to mind. Also the insistence on trying to turn Joe McKnight into the next Reggie Bush – the fact that McKnight has overcome persistent injury issues and apparently become a useful member on special teams for the Jets suggests that he was coachable into a role, assuming it was the right one.
Hell, for that matter, Carroll was completely open about using game plans to get Bush into Heisman contention in 2005. LenDale White may not have been as media-friendly, but if he had been the main back that season, he would have obliterated teams. (Mind you, White also came unstuck in the pros, so it’s not like Carroll didn’t have motivational skills.)
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea"
To be fair Aaron Corp got his shot and was terrible.
"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
Nor cal- So Cal?
Geez…whatever happened to West coast – East coast? I can live with that. I understand SoCal has issues, but that’s really only Orange county and the superficial snobs there. But the East coast is 3000 miles away, it’s cold and snowy, their small towns have inadequate sewage systems, and it’s hard to find hummus.
NorCal- SoCal? Good gawd, soon it will be East Bay-South Bay.
Central Valley!
Though I make fun of the NorCal and SoCal issue I really hope that this dissension is resolved soon.
by Anonymous IV at Mono Lake on Oct 31, 2011 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Soon, it will be Contra Costa County – Alameda County!
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Northside vs Southside!
Oh wait…
no bear, no care
by EchoOfSilence on Oct 31, 2011 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Not sure why you guys are making light of the dissension in the locker room in 2007. I was being honest about NorCal vs SoCal divide and competing locker room loyalties based on geography.. I was told this by the father whose son plays for Oregon and he knows all the staff at Cal since his son was recruited by us…..lots of people blamed DeSean and his dad for this but it went a lot further than that…..
I knew all those people from LA were bringing Cal down! DAMN THEM!
I will not tolerate a single LA reader on CGB! We must rid CGB of readers from LA! Unless they bring us Diddy Reise. Then, thats cool. Im down with that.
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Cash Rules Everything Around Me?
no bear, no care
by EchoOfSilence on Oct 31, 2011 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions
You in the red light district?
no bear, no care
by EchoOfSilence on Oct 31, 2011 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions
That was not the point Twist….the point was that JT has lost the locker room before, and it would not be impossible to think it can’t happen again. I know I’m being serious on this point but this kind of thing can snowball…..plus, I didn’t say it was L.A. people bringing Cal down, I said there were some geographical rivalries…..
Its always those LA people bringing us NorCal people down! They need to bring us down some delicious ice cream cookies!
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
ok….I get it..I’m trying to be somewhat serious here but looks like everyone else is in the comedy mood.. I’ll slink back to that other message board ………
Cal_Fan2, I’m sorry if I’ve upset you with some jokes. I wasn’t trying to.
You are probably right about the divide, but I genuinely have nothing of value to offer on the topic. It could be the case, it could not. I don’t know.
From the tweet here, it seems like something is brewing in the Cal locker room and its prolly bad.
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
I"m only serious because I’ve seen what this can do, especially if a cancer is brewing… it wasn’t just C.J. but Bridgford came out with some remarks about “not losing a game like that”.. . this kind of stuff is similar to what my Masters Thesis was about for I/O Psychology so it is probably more important to me than others…..the only thing that bugs me is I get called on speculating but half the posts on most threads are speculation
I think you misunderstood me… I wasn’t calling you out for speculation. Hell, the whole board is speculation! :)
My point was, there is nearly no evidence about this stuff… so it’s more difficult to talk about than say, “MAYNARD SUX!!”, where there seems to be a lot of evidence.
Deposed (and recently graduated!) #1 Indian
Noted.
So what’s the best way to fix/counteract the behavior?
no bear, no care
by EchoOfSilence on Oct 31, 2011 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions
i love buzzwords too!
/goes back to creating deck about synergies
Deposed (and recently graduated!) #1 Indian
You consider “leadership” and “communication” buzzwords?…or did you expect me to put an operational synopsis together?
dude, much like Twist, i am rarely serious. sorry to disappoint!
Deposed (and recently graduated!) #1 Indian
but to be serious… I’m somewhat one of those “stat geeks” that people claim are ruining the NBA. As such, I love to see stuff that can be quantified. Leadership/communication, however, really can’t be (as Missing Barry has said countless times). Which is why I don’t put too much stock in stuff like that, as long as our team isn’t out committing felonies en masse or brawling on the field
Deposed (and recently graduated!) #1 Indian
Actually leadership and communication can be quantified to the extent you can list the appropriate behaviors one demonstrates in that regard…the hard part is defining it according to the situation at hand and I certainly can’t quantify it on a blog……haha…. Look at accomplished military men and leadership is probably as important as tactics and strategy on the long run…
To be serious, concepts of “leadership” and “communication” are very important. But they very often are thrown around as little more than buzzwords.
I blame Twist.
…..and I wasn’t doing that (not saying you said I was)….I was merely answering a question about how to stop this type of locker room dissension and it usually come from the top…..players who know where they stand, and why they are there usually don’t dissent. Coupled with proper rewards AND punishment, this usually works… It usually doesn’t when you have a caner in the locker room like Terrell Owens who will ruin a team every time..(not saying we have one here)
It would be a better discussion if there was more than one tweet to discuss as “facts”.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
If you had read all my posts, I also included Bridgfords quotes to the press about “not losing games like this”….either way, as I mentioned before, I’m reading between the lines and looking at more behaviors on and off the field and looking for answers.. I don’t take a single aspect and form a conclusion….
I’m reading between the lines
Oh I know, I just don’t see this as a useful discussion. What can anyone intelligently say about this topic?
Nothing really.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
Mike_Calvin11 Micheal Calvin
by TheBridgman16
If your a cal fan then you have to always have our back. We don’t need doubters. We need your support
Old Toothwrangler
Did Michael Calvin misspell his own name, or is it actually “Micheal”?
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Oct 31, 2011 4:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Which?
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Oct 31, 2011 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Inexactly, actually.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Oct 31, 2011 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions
I understand….it is important to me…besides, half the posts here are pure joking with no intelligent discourse at all except to get laughs….
It’s actually somewhat interesting to me as a topic simply because I’m a small business owner who has read or listened to many, many hours of material on leadership.
Listening, accountability, fairness, consistency, and clear communication are all important.
I’m not sure how much you can run a football program like a business, but some of the principles do apply.
In this case, it might be a bit premature to speculate that there’s internal strife or some type of divide.
I suspect the media led Bridgford a little to stir up the QB controversy angle. CJ’s tweet is more concerning, definitely irresponsible, but could mean anything, everything, or nothing.
I guess we’ll see how the team responds next week.
Old Toothwrangler
Understood….I probably wouldn’t have brought it up except for the fact that it has happened before in this locker room….it is disconcerting nonetheless.
okay, fine, so, “fact.”
Number one fan of Justin Bieber being the number one fan of the Dodgers, and not the [2010 World Series Champion] Giants.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 31, 2011 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions
I wasnt calling you out for speculation. I was mostly just rambling about ice cream cookies.
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
so odd that someone taking this seriously would get frustrated by your repeated inanity!
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Hey, I shared a moment with Cal_Fan2 in the prior thread. We have a special bond now. You cant understand it!
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
I always thought I was special in your eyes, Cal_Fan2! We have a special relationship that’s totally different from everyone else’s!
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
We just showed CBKWit!
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
it’s a difficult thing to speculate about, because no one on this board has a clue about whether Tedford has lost the locker room. so why speculate?
Deposed (and recently graduated!) #1 Indian
People speculate on whether Bridgford is better than Maynard on this board all the time….and speculate on whether this team is better then that team…..since they have no clue either, should we ban speculation altogether or just on subjects that some don’t want to think about?
I don’t think discussion on the subject is being banned, it’s probably just to nip possible hearsay in the bud.
It’s all possible, and the saddening thing is that we’ll probably never really know what’s going on, if anything.
no bear, no care
by EchoOfSilence on Oct 31, 2011 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions
you can speculate on whatever you please, i just don’t think people have much to say about this subject.
with maynard/bridgeord, you at least have practice reports, maynard’s game performance, perceived strengths/weaknesses, etc. some amount of (circumstantial) evidence.
what evidence do you have for the locker room divide? 1 tweet?
or at least that’s why i feel no need to speculate.
Deposed (and recently graduated!) #1 Indian
more than one tweet….Bridgford had some words that could be construed similarly… when I start to see multiple behaviors around a core issue, it concerns me
The Bridgeford one could have been a poor choice of phrase, tho. It isn’t necessarily pointed. Is it?
WE ARE ZOONEWS
Seriously, I think CF2 has an idea here. I can’t get my head around the favoritism thing from Tedford because he is a better people manager than that (ergo a Head Coach). BUT, my own opinion is that this is misplaced loyalty or a doggedness to stick to earlier decisions. I’m sure we’ve been through all this with Longshore/Riley, but it feels like the same issue. I think Tedford is misconstruing his loyalty and commitment to a starter decision beyond what seems reasonable to the fans, and likely the team.
There is zero chance that Tedford starts (“favors”) Maynard over another player who is better at this position. (The key assumption being that Tedford has evaluated the QB talent in an honest manner in his head, which could be different than the team sees it. However, because its Tedfords honest evaluation, he is being true to his moral standards for deciding starters)
right
you hit on the assumption – that Tedford’s assessment is impartially correct. Obviously, Tedford knows a hell of a lot more than any of us about football. But that does not mean he is not incorrect from time to time, or perhaps quite frequently!
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
No, I stick by zero chance.
I’m saying zero chance that Tedford KNOWS someone else is better, but plays a favorite guy instead.
(this is different from zero chance that someone else IS better, because that is of course, not zero)
If Bridgford had made more of his meaningful snaps against Oregon, there might be something to this.
Considering that one guy has had a way disproproportionate amount of practice time
perhaps you should consider the possibility that with all the advantages of more practice time with the 1’s and being basically given the #1 spot on the depth chart from day one (and when else has that ever happened on a Tedford team, the fact that Bridgford looked at worst to be on par with Maynard as a passer says that perhaps Bridgford deserves a week practicing with the 1’s and a start to show what he has.
By the time Bridgford came in, he basically had to throw downfield on every down against flooded zones. I don’t know that it’s necessarily a fair judgment that he didn’t lead us to a bunch of scores given that handicap.
Not to mention he had at least 2 TD passes that were plain dropped by the receivers.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Nov 1, 2011 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions
And a few interceptions that were just plain dropped by the defensive backs.
"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
And I stick by my position that is he playing Maynard
for reasons other than because he thinks he’s the best QB we have
Cugel, you have to realize that between the time he spends on the grassy knoll, and all those trips to Roswell, Coach Tedford has no time to waste on things like evaluating quarterbacks.
I blame Twist.
You know Scut Farkus, right?
A Christmas Story, terroizes the other kids?

When you make posts like that, you are like the guy on the right.

Anyone who doesn’t at least open themselves up to the possibility that Maynard didn’t win the starting job on merit in spring camp when he had never practiced with the team before after the game action we’ve seen to this point is not paying a lot of attention to what’s going on.
Feel free to have the last word.
sadly, I agree with you again
not sure I buy your argument, but I think it’s unfair to just dismiss it out of hand.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
The topic has entered the memesphere because the locker room/DeSean thing got discussed to death back then, as did Longshore vs Riley lolz. No offense intended by anyone here, just absent new facts there isn’t much more to say that won’t spark a smelly old poop fight.
WE ARE ZOONEWS
I didn’t post that to bring up that point again…I posted it because JT lost the team, and he might be losing it again….
EchoOfSilence reporting from the ’hood, here. It is indeed all good.
Up the street on Telegraph, however…
no bear, no care
by EchoOfSilence on Oct 31, 2011 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Hey!
We’re not all superficial snobs from Orang County! See what you’re doing, you are creating a divide here at CGB!! Haha.
www.LosAngelesRams.org
CALIFORNIA ANGELS . . . ANAHEIM DUCKS . . . CALIFORNIA GOLDEN BEARS
1920 • 1921 • 1922 • 1923 • 1937 • 1947 • 1951 • 1957 • 1959 • 2002 • 2007
by AndyHogan14 on Oct 31, 2011 1:49 PM PDT via iPhone app up reply actions
Only if you surrender some Berkeley Dogs to the LA area!
no bear, no care
by EchoOfSilence on Oct 31, 2011 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Santa Barbara
Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!
by dballisloose on Oct 31, 2011 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Sigh – this seems like the kind of issue that best not to discuss, because it’s so nebulous, and even discussing it is corrosive.
And sounds a lot like speculation. Unless you’re a player on both this year’s team and 2007.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
yes, it is speculative but my info on the 2007 team came from the father of a player….and even if it is corrosive, C.J. Anderson tweeted what he tweeted and Bridgford stated “he would never lose a game”….like it or not, there seems to be some dissension and if it is not addressed, it will only get worse
ull see y we be losing
I’m more concerned about his terrible grammar.
Cal Football: I loved them once and they broke my heart. Let that be a lesson to you. Never love anything.
by CalBandGreat on Oct 31, 2011 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions
You’re a tweet!
Cal Football: I loved them once and they broke my heart. Let that be a lesson to you. Never love anything.
by CalBandGreat on Oct 31, 2011 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions
everyone's a tweet, tweet!
no bear, no care
by EchoOfSilence on Oct 31, 2011 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Nicely played.
Cal Football: I loved them once and they broke my heart. Let that be a lesson to you. Never love anything.
by CalBandGreat on Oct 31, 2011 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions
This.
Cal Football: I loved them once and they broke my heart. Let that be a lesson to you. Never love anything.
by CalBandGreat on Oct 31, 2011 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Corrected:
Ths.
Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!
by dballisloose on Oct 31, 2011 2:04 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
People used to use terrible grammar in their speech,
now they use terrible grammar in their speech and their writing. Not sure if this actually constitutes a substantive change.
"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
I know. I was half-joking, but it still kind of bugs me.
Cal Football: I loved them once and they broke my heart. Let that be a lesson to you. Never love anything.
by CalBandGreat on Oct 31, 2011 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions
I’m concerned that Maynard might be Dan Quayle.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Oct 31, 2011 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions
To paraphrase someone, at some time:
“This is all we fucking need.”
Being an Old Blue means never accepting success.
Or, put another way...

Cal Football: I loved them once and they broke my heart. Let that be a lesson to you. Never love anything.
by CalBandGreat on Oct 31, 2011 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions
Roy, is that you?
I nearly said to my wife that something was “boring and therefore sucks” this weekend – which wouldn’t have been too far out of character, but the rueful chuckling afterwards would have puzzled her.
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea"
Does your wife have any idea how much more time you spend with us than you do with her?
I blame Twist.
Gotta look at more?
Gotta look at the conference strength as well when comparisons are made…
And a lot of other coaches have had down years – including traditional powerhouses like Penn State, Georgia, and even the Dark Lord of the Southwest (texas).
We got lucky finding Rodgers, and that made a big difference – has Tedford thought “1st round pick” while watching the first film, about any of the other Cal QB’s? The QB position is huge. I spoke to Terry Edison of De La Salle (my alma mater) before this season, and the only thing he mentioned was “gotta find a QB”. I doesn’t seem like we’ve been able to get the best recruits at that position, even with Tedford’s history…it’s not like we didn’t go after Price and some others.
Gotta take the entire body of work into perspective – especially what Tedford’s done with the academics – and look at the cost of living, lack of facilities, rise of other schools in our conference, ect.
Pac 10-now 12 head coaches
have inproved drastically since JT’s early years. My apologies in advance for the spelling…
Harbaugh/Shaw > Harris
Kelly > Belotti
Wulf = ____
Erickson > Koetter
Mike RIley > _
Nuehaisel = Dorrell?
Kiffin < Carroll
Stoops = _
Sarkesian > Willingham
From my count, I see 5 schools improving their head coaches, 3 schools staying the same, and 1 school worsen.
To complete the blanks
Wulf > Doba, but < Price (WSU has had 3 coaches since Tedford’s been at Cal)
Mike Riley > or = Dennis Erickson (but Cal only faced Erickson-led OSU once during the Tedford era (2002))
Stoops > Mackovic (so UA did improve, just not by a whole heckuva lot)
…so far
[knock on wood]
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Oct 31, 2011 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions
Skippy is definitely < Dorrell at this point
There really is no evidence to the contrary.
Not a historian, but....
Pappy Waldorf went 29-28-4 after his three straight Rose Bowls. Even the most legendary can eventually fall.
Pappy Waldorf’s first five years (1948-1952): 44-8-1
Pappy Waldorf’s last four years (1953-1956): 14-23-3
One reason, though, is that the NCAA changed the rules in 1953 to ban unlimited player substitutions (and thus go back to the pre-World War II rules). This undermined Waldorf’s entire system.
I blame Twist.
I honestly don’t know why the NCAA changed the substitution rules so dramatically in 1953 to go back to the old, very limited substitution rules. It seems strange. And I’m sure it affected a lot of coaches. But a coach like Waldorf, who had figured out how to use unlimited substitutions to such great success, suffered more than most.
I blame Twist.
Great Post
I remember being in Sproul Plaza in 03 and people selling tye-die t-shirts that read “Tedhead” with a picture of Tedford and being so excited for the future and grateful to have Tedford as our HC.
I miss that sort of excitement around Cal football and Jeff Tedford.
Really? I haven’t seen those shirts in a long while. That or I have selective memory.
by puresilence on Oct 31, 2011 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions
Here and there and maybe only one- but I do see them.
"Fuck DOOOOOM. We prefer BOOOOOM!! - alpha1906
Ive seen them, too
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Senior Leadership?
Here’s a theory. . . could the down years be correlated with a lack of senior leadership? I posted this on another thread, but it doesn’t seem like there’s much leadership in our current crop (perhaps due to the fact that our best athletes tend to be younger players).
This has been an issue for many years. In addition to the QB situation in 2007, that was the same year that fans started calling out the players for lack of player leadership on and off the field.
Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!
by dballisloose on Oct 31, 2011 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions
Also see a developing bunker mentality?
No, I do not expect Tedford to dump on his players, and undermine their confidence in public. However one of the things we have always given him credit for, is his integity, and the integrity of our school. I could not help seeing this game in the context of the recent data on graduation rates that put us 11/12. Right after, I e-mailed the athletic department for an explanation, and so far nothing but silence both for me and in the release of something for public consumption. Maybe it does not make sense to most, but the performances of the last few years become even more intollerable if we are not at least maintaining our status as the World’s #1 Public University, even for its football players. We deserve a response on both issues, and although I will continue to support both the program and the University, a little openness would help me with my current sense of doom.
I always remember a comparison of Tedford to...
Utah’s Ron McBride. He took them so far, became their winningest coach, but then stepped aside for Urban Meyer.
Lawrence Ross
Tedford Quote
“I have no idea before the game if they (the team) are ready or not,” Tedford said. “I’ve given up on that because sometimes you think they are really ready and they’re not. And other times they’re quiet and you think, ‘These guys got to get ready!’ And they play great.”
Did Tedford always feel this way? Is this a really really bad quote to hear from your head coach, or does every coach actually feel this way before a game?
My friends and I used to start Tedford chants in the stands during ‘02, ’03, ’04…how far we’ve come.
As far as examples of coaches having early success only to regress I would add Ralph Fr
2001
10–2
2002
11–3
2003
10–3
2004
5–6
2005
5–6
2006
9–4
2007
6–7
2008
8–5
2009
2–10
2010
9–4
This was Ralph Friedgens record at Maryland
Like Tedford he had a lot of early success and then hit a slump but was able to somewhat right the ship before he was forced out.
I still think that there’s a natural ceiling for football at Maryland, and perhaps their Athletic Department will reach that conclusion eventually. It’s not that there aren’t decent players in what I’d call the “backyard” area – Maryland, DC, and northern VA – but that they have better choices not just in the ACC but further afield as well.
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea"
It's not you, it's me.
For all that Tedford says about changing things each year, we haven’t changed much. Sure, we have different position coaches and whatnot, but we still run a pro-style offense and a 3-4 defense (that may have been 4-3 in 2003-05; i can’t remember).
The Pac-12 and college football in general has changed. Look at the top of the conference. Back in 03-05, it was USC, running a pro-style offense with the best talent at each position. Now, it’s Oregon, running the spread to perfection with good, but not necessarily great, talent at each position. We ran a similar system to USC with good players and were able to compete. But we can’t compete with the spread and pistol and other gimmicky offenses.
I don’t think the scheme is the problem. You can win with a pro style if you play it well. The problem is that Tedford clearly isn’t getting his guys to play to that level anymore.
Mike Bellotti actually switched to the spread....
…..because (1) QB performance is essential to team success; and (2) since you don’t need a prototypical pro style quarterback to run it, the pool of QBs available to run it (i.e. those who run the spread really well but will never be an NFL QB) is very large in relation to the pool of pro-style QBs.
Still, with the QB reputation that Tedford had, I didn’t worry much about Cal’s ability to get and develop good pro style QBs. Turns out I was badly wrong.
by ososdeoro on Oct 31, 2011 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Insightful.
Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!
by dballisloose on Oct 31, 2011 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions
You can win with pro style
See Stanf*rd Cardinal.
See, also, Cal 2004.
Thing is, I think we CAN, theoretically, compete with “gimmicky” offenses. In fact, I have thought being a pro-style offense is a good recruiting tool.
no resemblance
between Stanfurd’s “pro-style” and Cal’s. When is the last time you saw 7 down linemen for Cal?
Furd plays straight-ahead run-oriented smashmouth. Cal plays a multiple-look interception-oriented mushmouth.
by slaphancock on Oct 31, 2011 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions
Do not forget
That we played that way before they did.
no bear, no care
by EchoOfSilence on Oct 31, 2011 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions
Regardless
The point isn’t whether our pro style is the same as theirs. I was just responding the point that we needed to go pistol or spread to succeed. I don’t think we do.
I see your point, and mine is only that we’ve already made the switch, or are somewhere in the middle of making it. We “incorporated” elements of the spread when Dunbar came. He left, yet we’ve still got a spread look. We’ve run the pistol several times this year.
I totally agree that we don’t need to go pistol or spread. In fact, I think that it is our half-hearted attempts to do so that have ruined what used to be a pro-style offense.
So what?
They do it better than we did. Lots of team played pro style before us – would they like a cookie for it?
Can I have a cookie?
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
WELL, THIS IS JUST GREAT!
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Cal plays a multiple-look interception-oriented mushmouth.
I LOL’d
Drinking the Kool-Aid. Pumping the sunshine. Livin' the dream. Go Bears!
by dballisloose on Oct 31, 2011 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions
We switched to 3-4 in 2008. It was a big deal and worked out great for us (I believe only 2 teams really scored against us: Mich St and OSU)
In other words, Go Bears!
Take out OSU (two ST touchdowns) and add Maryland and Arizona.
"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
Seriously in hindsight I am amazed that ALAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR didn't get fired for that OSU game.
"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
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GIMMICK OFFENSE.
Holy shit I hate that talking point. The I-formation was a gimmick offense 50 years ago, but hey, it’s all any of the sportswriters and pundits of today have ever known so everything else must be a gimmick huh!?
I am yet to hear or read a single convincing explanation as to why one offense is “gimmicky” and another is “traditional.”
"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
What about it?
"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
I think that’s what they mean when they say Traditional, gimmicky is everything else.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
I'm like, 99% certain Pappy Waldorf would look at any of this stuff and think to himself
“what the fuck is this shit?” So, you know, perspective.
"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
Garrett Cochran would be appalled at the spectacle of players throwing the ball forward. Quoth Coach Cochran: “WTF is that?!?!” The reply from Charles Pringle? “LOL.”
I blame Twist.
ANDY SMITH DOES NOT APPROVE OF THIS OFFENSIVE RECKLESSNESS
Besides, a real man can get to 70 points just by kicking and waiting for the breaks.
"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
Obviously you have to consider context
Yes, the forward pass was “gimmicky” at one point. And no, I’m not talking about what was conventional vs. gimmicky in 1949.
The context is "I have made an arbitrary decision that this offense is platonically ideal and this offense is a gimmick."
That’s the context.
Shit, I wonder how all those wishbone option teams of the 60s-80s won all those national championships with such gimmick offenses? Texas, Oklahoma, and Notre Dame fans must have been just ashamed to see their coaches reduced to such tricks.
"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
George Cortez?
He left after 2006, and he was the OC and QB coach.
Notice what problems we have had since then?
Not saying Tedford shouldn’t get any blame, he allowed everything to slide since then. But I’m just saying Tedford by himself maybe isn’t the offensive mastermind we all think he is when he has coordinators that don’t click, and it looks like we have not had one since at least Frank Cignetti in 2008, where we still did at least decent enough to get 8 regular season wins.
"Today's weather, excessively violent with a chance of dismemberment. Tune in later for our 5-day forecast!"
~ Three Dog - Fallout 3
The Cortez years
Tedford was also the primary (if not only) play caller during those years and was very hands-on with coaching the quarterbacks.
And here we are in 2011 with Tedford essentially by himself with the offense. Coach M should stay with just the o-line, because his coordination on offense has not improved anything.
"Today's weather, excessively violent with a chance of dismemberment. Tune in later for our 5-day forecast!"
~ Three Dog - Fallout 3
by Swamphunter on Oct 31, 2011 12:22 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Tedford is by himself? I thought it was more of a committee thing with Tedford, Kiesau, and Michalczik?
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Oct 31, 2011 4:51 PM PDT up reply actions
A “committee” makes it sound even worse.
"Today's weather, excessively violent with a chance of dismemberment. Tune in later for our 5-day forecast!"
~ Three Dog - Fallout 3
by Swamphunter on Oct 31, 2011 11:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Perhaps it is worse.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Nov 1, 2011 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions
No bowl game please
The feeling I had after the UCLA loss was pretty much how I felt after Washington last year. A decent performance…hell…even a mediocre performance at QB and we win easily. I had no stomach last year to go to the post-season and embarass ourselves. Last year our season ended with a quiet little disaster at Berkeley that nobody paid attention to. It spared us from getting blown out by Nebraska in the 2010 Holiday Bowl. So…lets say we barely beat both OSU and Wazzu (which is not even a greater than 50 percent change IMO), we go on to get shellacked by some team on national tv.
Though I am a bitter Tedford supporter, I suppose the fact that I don’t want to even be in a bowl speaks to something I can’t bear to acknowledge.
A bowl game means 15 extra practice days, something this team desperately needs for 2012.
Inspiring and completing since1997 since2010!
by Fire Starkey on Oct 31, 2011 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions
no bear, no care
by EchoOfSilence on Oct 31, 2011 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions
A low level bowl isn't going to earn Cal much additional money and
A low level bowl isn’t going to earn Cal much additional money, in fact it might end up costing Cal money.
A bowl game is a nice vacation/reward for the players, especially the seniors and additional practice for the younger guys.
Bowls are really important for practices and recruiting
Cal set up almost all of their recruiting visits during bowl practices
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I agree that it is important for practices
I didn’t think about the recruiting but you are right that Cal does set up recruiting visits during bowl practice.
I was just trying to make a point that a low level bowl game isn’t going to get you much, if any money at all.
There is some baseline expectation of selling seats that must be covered by the school if it is not met, iirc.
n.b. -- This comment does not constitute official chemistry advice.
Yup, usually schools are required to purchase a block of tickets that they then resell to their fans. However, the per-ticket price for those blocks is usually much higher than the stubhub prices… which means that (often) much of those blocks go unsold.
Plus, there’s travel expenses (not insignificant), coaching bonuses, and other misc. ones that can really add up — UConn lost something like $1.8M on their BCS bowl
Deposed (and recently graduated!) #1 Indian
what if we go to emerald kraft fight emerald hunger emerald bowl?
Remember, the enemy's end zone is DOWN!
That would be odd – but would probably sell well, I’d know I’d go.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
Cal is playing UCLA in hoops at Haas that day. I’d rather watch that to be honest.
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 31, 2011 8:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Not based on the results this year
Practicing more doesn’t seem to be helping much
I agree with the post as well.
Interestingly, you can pinpoint when the exact moment when the program turned — 13th of August, 2007, against OSU, when Riley, well meaningly, ran the clock out when he should have thrown the ball away. Cal football still has not recovered. I still wonder if the program would be totally different today if he just threw the ball out of bounds.
In another post, they were talking about bringing in a psychologist. ABSOLUTELY! There is some issue with this team about winning. What happened? Clearly in 2007 we had talent out the wazoo, but we managed to lose almost all the remaining games! There is some kind of diabolical self sabotage here. It continues to this day, I believe.
I love Tedford for all he has done. It’s hard for me to want him to leave. I’m hoping he can some how turn it around, at least next season, and win 8 or 9 games…. But, if he can’t, after next season, it’s getting to be time to look around at other coaches…
That’s also the moment that Tedford first lost it and threw his headset. I’ve seen his headset on the ground several times THIS year!
Tedford needs to get back his zen.
by slaphancock on Oct 31, 2011 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions
I believe that I have a possible answer to the question posed in the original post.
The answer is: Aaron Rodgers and Desean Jackson (and to a lesser extent Marshawn Lynch).
All three are once in a generation (possibly once in a lifetime) college players. One could soon enter the discussion of best QB’s EVER in the history of football (with a couple more SB wins). The other is easily one of the top 5 WR’s in the league. When you have talent like that, maybe the question isn’t ‘why isn’t tedford good anymore." Maybe the question really should be, “was Tedford EVER actually any good?”
What Tedford was able to accomplish his first two seasons with Holmoes players
as well as what he accomplished as the OC at Oregon proves that Tedford was in fact a very good coach.
by SDBear on Oct 31, 2011 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I’m not saying you’re wrong. However, to be fair, all you have proven is that Tedford is a better coach than Holmoe. Its not like Tedford had nothing to work with. Boller and Namdi were both 1st rounders.
Also he was a good OC at Oregon, which only proves is a good OC. Doesn’t show he was ever a good head coach.
While I don’t believe that Holmoe could have led the 2004 team to anything. I think its possible that a mediocre head coach (lets say Paul Wulff) could have had 10 wins with the 2004 team as well.
Boller was a first rounder because of Tedford, without Tedford he might have been a late round pick
No doubt Boller had first round talent and arm strength but he was as inconsistent as Maynard is now. However, under Tedfords coaching he blossomed.
I am sorry but Wulff hasn’t shown any signs that he could have won 10 games with the 04 squad. Tedford was a great head coach at Cal during that four year run.
A mediocre coach would have lost at least two more games in 04 and would not have been 10 yards away from beating SC.
Don’t let Tedfords current failures cloud your judgement he was a very good coach and offensive mind during his early years at Cal.
Yeah, we shouldn’t forget how terrible Boller was from 1999 to 2001. He was no Aaron Rodgers in 2002, but he was light years better than he’d been the rest of his career.
I met a manager at work who went to Cal during Boller's time.
His exact quote: “Before Tedford, Boller was so bad that we would kick him out of our parties”
The dude was a forestry major.
Deposed (and recently graduated!) #1 Indian
nothing wrong with being a forestry major. that means he loves chopping down trees.
Remember, the enemy's end zone is DOWN!
by GoldBlooded on Oct 31, 2011 4:29 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Maybe the question really should be, "was Tedford EVER actually any good?"
That answer is easy. Yes.
by sycasey on Oct 31, 2011 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions 7 recs
Thank you.
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
Maybe the question really should be, "was Tedford EVER actually any good?"
This does not strike me as a reasonable question.
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
I think you have to define “good coach.” In my book, I think a “good coach” is someone who extracts more wins than expected from the available talent. An example is Coach Montgomery, who has proven he’s a good coach. For every year he’s been here, I believe that he’s extracted more wins than expected from the available talent. Especially last year. But what year could you say that Tedford had a similar year to Coach montgomery? 2004? no way, not when you have AR. 2006? you still have a ton of talent on that year’s team. A team that, you could argue, a better head coach could have taken to a rose bowl. 2008? no. the closest season is 2003, and that’s only because expectations were already super low (but the talent level was probably actually pretty high that year).
so really, how many years has tedford actually exceeded his talent level, and how many years as he performed worse than his talent level.
All I know is this. If peple are going to state that the buck stops with Tedford (which it does) and thus the execution errors on the field are transmuted up to him (which I agree they do), then conversly the execution successes on the field should be transmuted up to him.
When we go 5-7, Tedford is a bad coach. I get that. But when we go 11-2 or whatever, thus, TEdford is a good coach. Thats my approach at least. Simplistic, perhaps, but Im a simplistic person
In the Game of Trolls, you either troll or you die.
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: Read It | Follow It | Like It | Wear It
I don’t necessarily agree with that. I’m sure there are a lot of people who just look at the Wins and losses and say that Tedford sucks. however, I look at how much “supposed” talent the team has, whether we are improving or regressing, how many stupid mistakes we make, are we making in-game adjustments, how is the gameplan, etc. And I think with all those points, Tedford is disappointing.
Lets look at Montgomery again. He had, what many would possibly see, as a down year last year. You could probably argue that an NIT bid is equivalent to a minor bowl. But, I would argue, and I believe Montgomery himself said this, but last year was one of the best coaching jobs he has done in his entire career. So not all Cal fans are stupid. We don’t just all look at wins and losses. Montgomery only got to the NIT last year, but that was one of my favorite basketball teams of all time. Last year’s team didn’t have a ton of talent, but gave maximum effort and didn’t make stupid mistakes. thats reflective of coaching. the same cannot be said for this year’s football team.
so to answer your question, I don’t think Tedford is a bad coach because of his record. I think you can have a pretty mediocre record and still be a good coach. But there are other things wrong with the program than just the win-loss record.
but gave maximum effort and didn’t make stupid mistakes
Gary Franklin just bricked a contested 30 footer :)
Deposed (and recently graduated!) #1 Indian
…for Baylor! :)
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Oct 31, 2011 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions
AR 2011 >>>>>> AR 2004. Sure, he was talented, but it’s not really the best comparison.
n.b. -- This comment does not constitute official chemistry advice.
AR would have never accomplished anything in the league if he hadn't improved after college.
No successful pro football player maxes out in college.
"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
How many times
do people say that the coach is also responsible for RECRUITING and DEVELOPING talent? JT recruited Rodgers. He recruited Marshawn Lynch and DeSean Jackson and most of the other awesome players from the glory years. Therefore, he gets credit for the W-L records of those teams REGARDLESS of talent level. It makes no sense to discount the good years because Tedford brought in more talented players in order to achieve those good years. The measure of a head coach is the total package, not some slice of it.
That said, it is also true that Tedford exceeded expectations with the given talent level as soon as he arrived, so even by that (very limited) measure you’d have to admit that he was once good.
I would agree that Tedford did a great job recruiting those players. But just relying on recruiting elite players is not a sustainable model. If Tedford was able to bring in that type of talent every year, then I’d be all for Tedford remaining as head coach. But what happens when the recruits aren’t quite that good (like in 2007?) Well, 2011 happens.
Lavin was an elite recruiter as well. He went to numerous sweet sixteens. I don’t think anyone argued he was a good coach.
If Tedford produces years like 2004 and 2006, I don’t care if he got them by recruiting or coaching up bad players or whatever. What he did was working.
The problem now is that it isn’t working, regardless of the method. I just think it’s silly to say that he wasn’t doing a good job before because “the players were too good.” Maybe he helped make them good, like a coach is supposed to do?
exactly right
How many times
do people say that the coach is also responsible for RECRUITING and DEVELOPING talent? JT recruited Rodgers. He recruited Marshawn Lynch and DeSean Jackson and most of the other awesome players from the glory years. Therefore, he gets credit for the W-L records of those teams REGARDLESS of talent level. It makes no sense to discount the good years because Tedford brought in more talented players in order to achieve those good years. The measure of a head coach is the total package, not some slice of it.
It is coaching AND recruiting. Monty is good at the “coaching” part of it (great at it!) but our recruiting has been shitty. It is not fair to commend him for getting 3rd in the PAC because the players HE RECRUITS are not nearly as talented as many other teams in the league. It’s the total package, not just one side or the other.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I agree with that. coaching and recruiting are both important. and in a perfect world, you have a coach who excels at both. but if I were to choose between one or the other, I chose the coach who can coach and not the coach who can recruit. for one, i think recruiting can be cyclical. two, recruiting can be pure luck (AR). but if you got a coach who can coach and develop players (like montgomery) at the very least, year in and year out you’re going to be competitive. and even without elite talent, you can win the league (like montgomery has a chance to do this year). and what happens when Montgomery gets truly elite talent (which i think is only a matter of time). bottom line is that i don’t think there’s any question is who is the better coach between montgomery and tedford (despite montgomery’s apparent recruiting deficiencies)
I’d argue that one facet of his recruiting deficiencies is his reluctance to chase the “one and done” guys. He wants guys who will stick around in the program, which necessarily leads to a lower caliber of recruit. On the other hand… those guys as 3rd/4th years should be more effective than the latest, greatest one and done.
Or so we hope!
Deposed (and recently graduated!) #1 Indian
I think the model is similar to Duke, as opposed to Kentucky
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
which I love btw… I love getting to watch our players develop and get better over time, I love watching them learn how to play “Monty basketball.”
In Monty I trust.
Deposed (and recently graduated!) #1 Indian
I agree with you
but again, he gets assessed on how his teams do, not how they do relative to their talent. If we’re stuck in 4th or 5th place year in and year out (when Braun would have been in 9th or 10th), that is still not good enough. I hope our bball program will consistently challenge for the conference title, and if they do, I don’t really care who Monty recruits. But if he doesn’t achieve those results, he should be held accountable.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
In basketball, I choose the guy who can coach, because the top recruits tend to leave for the NBA in one-two years anyway. You can coach and develop average recruits in two-three years in college into solid college players.
In football, I choose the guy who can recruit. Mack is probably one of the least innovative coaches in the country, but he’s the greatest recruiter amongst them all who owns the greatest recruiting state of them all, and it keeps Texas winning 8-10 games a year.
It’s why while the current situation sucks at Cal, it isn’t untenable because recruiting looks good. Probably the best it’s ever been.
by Avinash Kunnath on Oct 31, 2011 8:51 PM PDT up reply actions
It’s an interesting metric to calculate wins over or below expected talent. It seems particular relevant for basketball with 5 guy on the court at any time. However, I think its less knowable for football. I believe you could have some considerable talent on defense, and still have a team that can not be expected to win much. You could have talent at some positions on offense, and still have a team not expected to win much. The QB is too important. The QB play raises and lowers all the “talent” of the other players. Auburn had talent, but no Natty if they don’t have $Cam Newtwon.
So now what? I personally have no desire to either publicly advocate for Tedford’s termination, nor do I want to publicly go to bat for him. If Sandy Barbour decides that, for the good of Cal’s athletic department, Cal needs a new coach, then I’ll support that decision. If she decides that Tedford’s performance warrants one more year then I’ll be buying season tickets at new Memorial and showing up each week hoping and praying that 2002-2006 Tedford returns in all his awesomeness. I’m a fan of the Bears, I’ll do my best to support this program and its players, and that won’t change.
But mostly, I’ll just be sad. Sad because the promise that I wholeheartedly believed in is gone. Sad because somebody who was instrumental in some of my best memories has become a punch line and a punching bag. Sad because a good man, someone who understands Berkeley, who ran every non-football aspect of the program almost exactly as I’d want, may be forced to leave, and not on his own terms.
Call me a sap, call me an idiot, call me a nostalgic fool – but there’s still a part of me who believes that Tedford will recapture that magic that made all of us believers. Do you remember how we all felt in 2004? How could that have been wrong?!
If you’re given the chance – please coach, prove that part of me right.
QFA
Number one fan of Justin Bieber being the number one fan of the Dodgers, and not the [2010 World Series Champion] Giants.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 31, 2011 12:38 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
I agree so much. My overarching feeling is never really anger at the coaches, when we lose. It’s more just sadness at the whole situation. Sadness knowing that people who literally live Cal Football, from the players to the coaches to the support staff to the AD, are in general achieving such poor results. Anger, to me, is an unfair reaction, and should be reserved for willfully-induced hardship. I absolutely know for a fact that no one associated with the football team wants to fail, and for that reason I will not direct anger towards them. I will just be very sad.
Number one fan of Justin Bieber being the number one fan of the Dodgers, and not the [2010 World Series Champion] Giants.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 31, 2011 12:41 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
I was mad last season, and probably the season before, but it’s reached the point where sadness is the predominate feeling. After ruminating on the situation a bit over the weekend, the closest analogy I could think of is that it’s like watching a parent or grandparent you love start to show their age and appear less coherent. You have fond memories of them from your childhood, but the stark reality of their decline keeps staring you in the face. Where the analogy breaks down is that Tedford and Co can still turn things around, but they’re running out of time.
by minesweeper on Oct 31, 2011 11:21 PM PDT up reply actions
This is exactly why I'm hesitant to blame Tedford
But mostly, I’ll just be sad. Sad because the promise that I wholeheartedly believed in is gone. Sad because somebody who was instrumental in some of my best memories has become a punch line and a punching bag. Sad because a good man, someone who understands Berkeley, who ran every non-football aspect of the program almost exactly as I’d want, may be forced to leave, and not on his own terms.
In other words, Go Bears!
yes on this. the non-football aspect of the program is, in my book, the most important aspect.
I really don’t care if we have losing seasons (though I don’t prefer that), as long as we have institutional integrity and that the team represents our school well. Hell, I’d be fine losing all our scholarships, competing in the Ivy League, and losing yearly to Yale as long as we could say we had smart, tough, proud athletes.
Tedford has mostly steered the program the right way. I just worry that in the past few years, more pressure has been put on winning and out-recruiting rather than maintaining a stable of successful student-athletes who are benefiting from Cal’s academics. That stat about graduation rate is scary and dispiriting. What happened to “our domecile”?
That recently publicized stat was of one class: 2004 entrants. So, while disappointing, it is only one data point. Unless you are referring to something else. In which case, oh noes.
WE ARE ZOONEWS
That is exactly how I feel
Great post.
by One Armed Explorer on Oct 31, 2011 1:11 PM PDT reply actions
Cupboard
We have barely anyone from 2009 playing right now. 2008 isn’t considered the best class, but its servicable to a point. Our best players/play makers are 2010 and 2011 entries. Hopefully, momentum for our 2012 class doesn’t suffer too much. But the face plants of 2008 and 2009 in terms of recruiting are killing us at the moment. 2007 is our last decent class, and we’re at the end of the line for those guys – the next two years will be rough, but it will be fantastic if the recruiting picks up like it has.
totally this.
Number one fan of Justin Bieber being the number one fan of the Dodgers, and not the [2010 World Series Champion] Giants.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 31, 2011 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions
Expanding further on it – I blame Tedford having the shitty classes in 2008 and 2009. Talent acquisition and evaluation is something he needs to be doing. And it seems like he’s turned it around and made sure we’ve managed to be in the face of/grab some of the top talent around.
Its why even though we’ve sucked it up on gamedays, there’s a distinct reason why we sometimes look out-talented, even by “bad teams”. Recruiting rankings are a farce in some ways, but they still indicate something. It just seemed like a huge problem for those years. I justified us not getting great classes by thinking that Tedford could coach them up, but its obvious that talent and attitude are requireed before you can really coach up players into great ones.
We should shoulder some of the blame
If we didn’t invest time, money, and emotional commitment to the team, they would be free from all the pressure we heap upon them to entertain and please us.
To that end, I propose that we stop chiding them, riding them like a Dragon-Mom to “Roll On You Bears” at all costs. Instead, maybe we turn into nurturers who support them without all that imperative.
“Roll on you Bears” becomes “Roll On, If That Pleases You!”
“Defense Bears, DEFENSE!” becomes “We encourage your efforts, but it’s okay to fail, Bears, it’s OKAY TO FAIL!”
“Go Big Blue, show us what you can do!” becomes “Don’t worry about it, Adequate Blue, We hear lots of teams have difficulty keeping it up!”
by slaphancock on Oct 31, 2011 2:01 PM PDT reply actions 6 recs
“This is Bear Territory” becomes “The Bears are occasionally seen in these parts, but there’s room for all comers.”
by oskiwow on Oct 31, 2011 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions 5 recs
“The bear is barely alive and on dialysis.”
Number one fan of Justin Bieber being the number one fan of the Dodgers, and not the [2010 World Series Champion] Giants.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 31, 2011 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions
The Bear Will Not Quit Unless Asked Politely.
The Bear Will Probably Die.
by slaphancock on Oct 31, 2011 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Also for consideration: “Sometimes even Bears get tired and they are mortal, after all”
by oskiwow on Oct 31, 2011 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
The Bear will valar morghulis
"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
“The fourth quarter is probably, by all indications, going to be a major disappointment.”
Number one fan of Justin Bieber being the number one fan of the Dodgers, and not the [2010 World Series Champion] Giants.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 31, 2011 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
How Berkeley.
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Oct 31, 2011 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions
The fourth quarter will be baseless because 99% of Cal games (especially this season) are decided by the end of the third. Yet I will remain to see if Bridgford can do any better.
We are the 99%
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Oct 31, 2011 7:17 PM PDT up reply actions
“The Fourth Quarter’s Ours” is still my least favorite remnant of the Mariucci Era. Don’t declare that it’s going to be ours – show it. If nothing else, it’s a clear violation of the Woofing Theorem:
Negatory woofing
I wonder if we can assist our wobbly GB’s by creating a negative woof-wave. Like, predicting doom rather quietly, so that the players don’t actually hear it, but it’s there. Much less visible than putting a bag over my face.
it won't work!
From the FAQ:
No. Reverse woofing will never work. First of all, the Gods of
Woofing, being All-Knowing, know which teams every sports fans likes,
loves, hates, despises, or doesn’t care about. Second, reverse woofing
is extremely offensive to the Gods of Woofing for two reasons. One,
it insults their intelligence when a mere mortal presumes that he can
fool them, and two, they are offended by such deviousness. As a
result, reverse woofing is the most serious type of woofing possible,
and a reverse-woofer DOOMS his/her team to an embarrassing loss.
No, it's negative woofing
Reverse woofing is woofing for the OTHER TEAM. Negatory woofing is directed at your own team, but in the opposite direction, for example:
3rd and Six, ball on our own twenty-two yd line:
“We’re better off punting! Here comes a pick six, I just know it”.
That needs to be posted the next time someone says that Cal is DOOOOOOOMED
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Oct 31, 2011 7:18 PM PDT up reply actions
According to the theory, it can be blamed on the doomsayers!!
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Oct 31, 2011 7:58 PM PDT up reply actions
“Who’s house?”
“It’s a rental condo. Owners are real nice. Live in Albany…”
Number one fan of Justin Bieber being the number one fan of the Dodgers, and not the [2010 World Series Champion] Giants.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 31, 2011 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions
Rec’d
Cal Football: I loved them once and they broke my heart. Let that be a lesson to you. Never love anything.
by CalBandGreat on Oct 31, 2011 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Oski Oh-No!
Whiskey Feed-Me!
Offense! Mushified!
Defense! Lazy-eye!
California! Meh!
WE ARE ZOONEWS
by zoonews on Oct 31, 2011 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions 6 recs
LULZ
"i, for one, welcome our new atomic overlords" - GoldBlooded
by atomsareenough on Oct 31, 2011 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions
“First and ten, try your best to replicate your success, Bears!”
Number one fan of Justin Bieber being the number one fan of the Dodgers, and not the [2010 World Series Champion] Giants.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 31, 2011 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions
I shouldn’t endorse this kind of negativity.
But you guys did so damn well…
by TheScientist019 on Oct 31, 2011 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions
I’ve tried to rack my brains for an example of a coach that performed so well for a 5 year span, only to have everything positive that characterized his teams suddenly change.
You want crazy? Try Joe Paterno, circa 2000-2004. Dude goes 34 years without a losing season, then has 4 losing seasons in 5 years. (Of course, since then, he’s righted the ship, and taken Penn State to 6 straight bowl games, with a 7th in the cards).
by pentti on Oct 31, 2011 3:35 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Transfer of power.
The change of results came because Paterno became a figurehead and representative and ceded most of the control of the team to DC Tom Bradley.
"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
I heart this article
This really reflects a lot of my feelings about the Bears – joy when they do well, sadness when they don’t, faith that the folks running the program have the university’s – not just the program’s – best interests at heart.
I have a longer post about how I learned to be a Cal fan kicking around in my head – I grew up in Denver and didn’t realize John Elway was a whiny brat until 1989 – but I think this post, more than many other on this blog, reflects how I try to think about rooting for the Bears.
I’ve tried to rack my brains for an example of a coach that performed so well for a 5 year span, only to have everything positive that characterized his teams suddenly change.
Would it be crazy to mention Joe Paterno here?
2000: 5-7
2001: 5-6
2002: 9-4
2003: 3-9
2004: 4-7
Ah crap, I browsed through the read but somehow missed the post two above mine. Why doesn’t the site have a delete button?
Nope
I mentioned Penn State in another comment somewheres, I think he had two losing seasons then went to the Rose Bowl the following year.
Mark Richt’s had issues too, even Devil Mack had a losing season while trying to BREAK IN A NEW QB
Mark Richt has had issues that he hasn't actually fixed yet.
The same can be said for Mack.
"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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XDe1qa2On0
Number one fan of Justin Bieber being the number one fan of the Dodgers, and not the [2010 World Series Champion] Giants.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Oct 31, 2011 6:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Thanks. This is a good write-up.
I have been thinking about this a little, as the team appears to be underperforming and not meeting expectations.
I think a winning record is a useful indicator for the health of a program, but a coach should be evaluated on more than that.
Winning certainly is important, especially during the game: it is the objective and it is the culmination of all the preparation. Winning is pure: identifying who crossed the line first, threw the weight the furthest, put the most points on the board is a clear metric and one that we all can identify with. It is also an important indicator, as winning reflects successful aggregation of all the components of a program (it is hard to win if your team is not executing, your players not performing, your strategy is out-dated, etc.) But it is not he only thing, particularly in college.
Here is a germ of an idea. Let’s evaluate a coach based on a number of specific elements, with the elements given varying weights depending on how important they are. (FYI: this is how I vote for President, looking across the issues I care about, and look how well that has worked.)
1. Winning. Important as a general indicator, and for practical reasons (the alums who invest way too much of their self worth in what 20 year olds do on the playing field need to be placated.) I would weight this heavily.
2. Player development. Remember, the sports are primarily for the athletes, not for the students, administration or alums. Is the coach helping players achieve their potential? Are they learning, improving, and taking their game to the next level? Are they using what they learned, either as pros or as coaches or PE teachers or citizens of the great state of California? I would weight this heavily.
3. Contribution to the university community. Do the games and the players support what the University is about building school spirit and fostering creativity and effort? Is the thinking state-of-the art, and does it contribute to the work in other departments and disciplines? I would weight this medium.
4. Stay classy, bears. Is the coach and team playing by the rules, playing with class, and representing the university well? I would weight this low, unless there is a problem – then I would give it high weight to replace the coach. That is to say, it should be expected.
5. Money. For football, you have to pay a lot of other sports bills. Sad, but necessary. I would weight this highly.
So, I guess I am trying to compare this decision to the decision to get rid of the chair of the history department. yes, we want our history students to be winning competitions and making us proud, but in fact the department’s contributions are much more layered, and the chair is evaluated on a number of things other than the prizes. I would like to see that instead of the monomaniacal focus on the ups and downs of each seasons win total.
Jason Hafemeister
by Jake88 on Oct 31, 2011 6:31 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Sadly, I don’t think we’ll be seeing another 56-game hitting streak from Coach Tedford, for, although a fanbase still turns its lonely eyes to him, Joltin’ Jeff has left and gone away. :(
I blame Twist.
I don't always comment on the frontpage
But when I do, it’s because the posts are this good.
2011 World Cup Champions Team India
56-game streak
If Joltin’ Jeff gets a decent QB, we could. Plus, the new facilities may add to the depth of the team, team cohesion, (he can address the entire team at once), health and wellness, better weight training, ect. However, I will still seek out a porta-potty, solely on gp, to bring back the memories…
Give Jeff a Chance
Guys, I figured it out!
We hired the wrong Oregon coach!
If Tedford doesn’t give us 9 wins next year…
MIKE BELLOTTI!



























































