PDA

View Full Version : Tedford Under Pressure



CAL6371
04-13-2010, 08:58 PM
Today's College Football Live had a segment on coaches under pressure this year. The leadoff subject was ...Jeff Tedford. A video was shown as Robert Smith stated that this was unfair and cited JT's accomplishments and the historical record.
The next subject was Rich Rodriguez of Michigan. All agreed he was in trouble and might well be fired without 8-9 wins and a bowl victory.

BGGB2
04-14-2010, 01:29 AM
I think JT would need to suffer a losing record before any real pressure would build. Although another 7-6/3-6 like 2007 would start getting people antsy.

I can't believe how bad C.F.L. and Game Day Live are, yet they are still amazingly influential. It's a weird situation. The ESPN brand name is incredibly powerful, so they have no real competition. And thus no reason to raise their game.

Luckily SportsCenter is still terrific after all these years.

6956bear
04-14-2010, 04:01 AM
There is pressure building on JT. The AD is asking for significant "contributions" from the the donors and with the ESL's and department shortfalls it is important that Cal football win and win pretty big. His record is good and he has made Cal football relevant (no small feat) but it is now quickly becoming a "what have you done lately" situation for JT.

Cal is trying to become a big time player in football with the facilities upgrades, expanded recruiting etc. and is asking for contributions from the donors to support that movement. As the Cal donor base digs deeper in their pockets the expectations rise. Other sports at Cal depend on football revenues for their very existence so Cal needs to win and have the games be well attended.

I think JT is safe for now, but the pressure will really mount should the team perform poorly this Fall. Not fair maybe, but if you want to be one of the big boys in college football it is part of the equation.

elpbear
04-14-2010, 05:45 AM
Let's face it, nobody is satisfied with "not bad" (some might say mediocre) any more, including Tedford.

Hail2Calif
04-14-2010, 07:35 AM
Not sure what the definition of 'poorly this Fall' is (my personal opinion is 7 or fewer wins) - but I don't think JT's status at Cal is quite near 'hotseat' yet. Definitely there is increased pressue (much of it self-induced I am sure), but I think by and large, a healthy majority of 'Big Donors' who are going to fund most of the renovations are still okay with the overall shape of the program (regular Bowl appearances, high graduation rates, winning seasons) with the anticipation that the best times are still ahead.

Certainly another 2007 type campaign - or even a losing season - on the heels of our disappointing 2009 season would turn up the pressure several notches.

On the otherhand, I think for 2010, a 9 win season with improvement shown on Special Teams and more of a play-making Defense laying the foundation for higher expectations in 2011 and 2012 would be considered a good season for most people going into this Fall.

socaltownie
04-14-2010, 08:22 AM
Laughable. Tedford is about as golden as you can be with the donor base. They remember the lean years - because there were a ton of them. The only reason that EPSN could say that is that they have NO comprehension of just how bad things were and how much they have improved.

Plus the stark reality is that the Pete Caroll years at USC were such a complete abberation. Essentially Tedford was "cursed" to be coaching in a 10team league (so double BCS invites MUCH harder) during a time in which we saw one of the greatest runs of all time in college football. Through the first and last seasons out and the Toejams lost a total of NINE game over the course of 7 seasons. 7 straight BCS bowls. Top 4 in year end polls.

dupdadee
04-14-2010, 09:02 AM
Only pressure Tedford has to deal with is from his waistbelt not being able to deal with ever growing fat midsection of his.

SmellinRoses
04-14-2010, 09:34 AM
Let's face it, nobody is satisfied with "not bad" (some might say mediocre) any more, including Tedford.

No question the team has slipped into mediocrity- maybe this season will answer the question as to whether the program is going to climb out of it...

UrsaMajor
04-14-2010, 09:47 AM
"Not being the worst ranks as some measure of praise."
Shakespeare in King Lear

Sonofoski
04-14-2010, 09:49 AM
Your personal attacks serve no purpose.

Mike Zillion
04-14-2010, 09:53 AM
Laughable. Tedford is about as golden as you can be with the donor base.

If he was that gold, he wouldn't have had two cronies forced out against his will this year. He's still in good graces overall, but he doesn't have the carte blanche he once did.

maxer
04-14-2010, 09:56 AM
If he was that gold, he wouldn't have had two cronies forced out against his will this year. He's still in good graces overall, but he doesn't have the carte blanche he once did.

Please provide citations that Alamar and Gregory were forced out against Tedford's wishes.

Thanks.

Mike Zillion
04-14-2010, 09:58 AM
Please provide citations that Alamar and Gregory were forced out against Tedford's wishes.

Thanks.

Please provide citations that they weren't.

Thanks.

cal97
04-14-2010, 09:59 AM
Laughable. Tedford is about as golden as you can be with the donor base. They remember the lean years - because there were a ton of them. The only reason that EPSN could say that is that they have NO comprehension of just how bad things were and how much they have improved.

Plus the stark reality is that the Pete Caroll years at USC were such a complete abberation. Essentially Tedford was "cursed" to be coaching in a 10team league (so double BCS invites MUCH harder) during a time in which we saw one of the greatest runs of all time in college football. Through the first and last seasons out and the Toejams lost a total of NINE game over the course of 7 seasons. 7 straight BCS bowls. Top 4 in year end polls.

I don't think he's nearly as golden as he once was. While there have been numerous threads debating exactly where Tedford's salary falls among football coaches, it's undisputed that he's well compensated for his efforts and his recent results have not been at the level that his compensation suggests. Comparing Cal to the pre-Tedford days is an obsolete scenario. We have a $100M+ facility being built and an aggressive ESP program underway. Yes, Tedford improved Cal from the dark times but he's being well paid to do so and if he can't get this program competing at the highest levels, then we need to find someone who can. I don't want to fire Tedford but I do want to hold him accountable for the team underperforming its talent and being fundamentally unsound in many areas, especially special teams. He's the head coach and that goes with the territory.

The administration has gone all in based upon an assumption that football with be a strong program. Tedford already has been thanked for improving the Cal program in the form of many million dollars.

As for USC, they've been good but they lost a bunch of games last year. Oregon was better than them in 2007 too until Dennis Dixon got hurt. SC has been great but they haven't been invincible every year. I agree that some bad luck has kept Tedford's teams out of a few BCS bowls but at some point you have to make your own luck.

CalBearinLA
04-14-2010, 09:59 AM
Only pressure Tedford has to deal with is from his waistbelt not being able to deal with ever growing fat midsection of his.

this came out of nowhere...

maxer
04-14-2010, 10:02 AM
Please provide citations that they weren't.

Thanks.

Just because something is a fact IN YOUR MIND doesn't make it true. If you can't prove it, that's what we call a "theory".

Maybe it is true, who knows -- but if you can't prove it, which you obviously can't, then don't cite it as a fact.

Is this really something that needs to be explained to you?

BGGB2
04-14-2010, 10:03 AM
Please provide citations that they weren't.

Thanks.

C'mon. You make a pretty bold claim - the burden is on you to provide some evidence to back it up.

Mike Zillion
04-14-2010, 10:28 AM
C'mon. You make a pretty bold claim - the burden is on you to provide some evidence to back it up.

Well, people have been providing ad nauseam the stories that Gregory left of his own accord since it happened. Now Greybear has said that those stories are all BS.

Did I have a link before Greybear said that which proved that Gregory was forced out? No. But I did have common sense at my disposal. Defensive coordinators don't take assistant jobs at other schools willingly.

Given how long Tedford kept Alamar in his position, despite his being terrible at his job, it's clear that performance wasn't the number one thing that determined whether Alamar kept his job. Many people on this board refused to accept that Alamar was terrible at his job because they don't want to think. They just want to put their heads in the sand and chant :tedford. Then he was finally gone when the inner-circle donors went to Tedford, armed with lots of statistical evidence, to effect some changes in staff. All of a sudden, changes that Tedford wouldn't consider earlier when they made an equal amount of sense happen. What was the change?

The change was the donors pushing. Hard.

socaltownie
04-14-2010, 10:41 AM
Well, people have been providing ad nauseam the stories that Gregory left of his own accord since it happened. Now Greybear has said that those stories are all BS.

Did I have a link before Greybear said that which proved that Gregory was forced out? No. But I did have common sense at my disposal. Defensive coordinators don't take assistant jobs at other schools willingly.

Given how long Tedford kept Alamar in his position, despite his being terrible at his job, it's clear that performance wasn't the number one thing that determined whether Alamar kept his job. Many people on this board refused to accept that Alamar was terrible at his job because they don't want to think. They just want to put their heads in the sand and chant :tedford. Then he was finally gone when the inner-circle donors went to Tedford, armed with lots of statistical evidence, to effect some changes in staff. All of a sudden, changes that Tedford wouldn't consider earlier when they made an equal amount of sense happen. What was the change?

The change was the donors pushing. Hard.

Oh PLEASE! There are perhaps two handfuls of donors that give to the Cal program that would even HAVE the access to call up the coach/AD and get a meeting. There MIGHT be 1 or 2 (and your name isn't Haas) that might be able to TANGENTIALLY and very very gently encourage a coach to make a move. And NONE Of them are posting on a sports board.

This isn't Texas or Florida or Notre Dame which have a tradition of that kind of activism by their donor base. It isn't that bad Nick Nolte movie. The idea that you could think it was happening with Tedford means that you are talking out of something other than your mouth.

And to Cal97 you are too young. _IF_ Tedford ran into Mike White like problems he absolutely would be on thin ice. No Chancellor is going to defend a Cal coach against the wrath of the faculty senate if NCAA violations are coming down. IF season tickets radically fell off because the product on the field was horrible then he might be on thin Ice (see Holmoe). But not competing for a BCS bid - there is absolutely NO evidence that this is leading to any kind of external pressure on JT. Now he may be doing it to himself (good for him) but it is entirely self imposed unless you have PROOF or at least a decently placed rumor from the $10,000+ donor community that extreme pressure (i.e. withheld donations) is being exerted.

Mike Zillion
04-14-2010, 10:59 AM
Oh PLEASE! There are perhaps two handfuls of donors that give to the Cal program that would even HAVE the access to call up the coach/AD and get a meeting.

Yes. And?


There MIGHT be 1 or 2 (and your name isn't Haas)

Please provide citations my last name isn't Haas. Thanks.


that might be able to TANGENTIALLY and very very gently encourage a coach to make a move. And NONE Of them are posting on a sports board.

No, they aren't. But there are some people on this board who do post who are high enough up in the donor circles to know what those people are doing.


The idea that you could think it was happening with Tedford means that you are talking out of something other than your mouth.

The idea that you think you know more about this situation than I do shows that you are thinking with your heart and not with your head.


it is entirely self imposed unless you have PROOF

Ah, back to :tedford.

maxer
04-14-2010, 10:59 AM
Well, people have been providing ad nauseam the stories that Gregory left of his own accord since it happened. Now Greybear has said that those stories are all BS.

Did I have a link before Greybear said that which proved that Gregory was forced out? No. But I did have common sense at my disposal. Defensive coordinators don't take assistant jobs at other schools willingly.

Given how long Tedford kept Alamar in his position, despite his being terrible at his job, it's clear that performance wasn't the number one thing that determined whether Alamar kept his job. Many people on this board refused to accept that Alamar was terrible at his job because they don't want to think. They just want to put their heads in the sand and chant :tedford. Then he was finally gone when the inner-circle donors went to Tedford, armed with lots of statistical evidence, to effect some changes in staff. All of a sudden, changes that Tedford wouldn't consider earlier when they made an equal amount of sense happen. What was the change?

The change was the donors pushing. Hard.

And maybe that's true. Maybe Tedford and Gregory got into a fight at a restaurant over the bill and that was the genesis of all of this... who knows?

But what you are stating is a THEORY that you believe to be true. Fair enough. But that does not make it a FACT. Stating it like it is one is disingenuous (and that's being kind).

cal97
04-14-2010, 11:00 AM
And to Cal97 you are too young. _IF_ Tedford ran into Mike White like problems he absolutely would be on thin ice. No Chancellor is going to defend a Cal coach against the wrath of the faculty senate if NCAA violations are coming down. IF season tickets radically fell off because the product on the field was horrible then he might be on thin Ice (see Holmoe). But not competing for a BCS bid - there is absolutely NO evidence that this is leading to any kind of external pressure on JT. Now he may be doing it to himself (good for him) but it is entirely self imposed unless you have PROOF or at least a decently placed rumor from the $10,000+ donor community that extreme pressure (i.e. withheld donations) is being exerted.

It's not just about season tickets anymore. ESP is the golden goose that is being counted upon to ensure the financial stability of the entire athletic department. It's currently 60% sold out but that number is soft because people can opt out at any time. People are not going to pay those prices to watch a team that can't compete at the highest level. That doesn't mean that we have to win 10+ every year (although that would be nice) but we have to be able to sustain 8+ win seasons and BCS every 4-5 years. If the ESP program isn't well subscribed every year, the entire AD will fall apart. That's what I meant by going all in on football. That's why the old rules don't apply anymore. Being a nice guy, graduating players, and winning 7 games per year will get Tedford fired in a few years. That's the new reality. I hope it doesn't come to that and I still believe that Tedford can get us back to where we need to be but he definitely is (and should) feeling the pressure now.

Mike Zillion
04-14-2010, 11:09 AM
Being a nice guy, graduating players, and winning 7 games per year will get Tedford fired in a few years.

Nothing short of a major embarrassment (like what is going on at USC right now) could threaten Tedford's job in the next few years. I think he has six years left on his contract right now and regardless of wins and losses, I think he completes at least four of them no matter what because nobody wants to pay off that contract. And even if they did, there is too much fear that we would go back to the bad old days for anyone to have the guts to fire the most successful football coach we've had since before our last Rose Bowl appearance. If that day ever comes where we are forced to consider that possibility, it will be because the results have been so poor for so many years that we have no choice.

calbear77x
04-14-2010, 11:44 AM
Just because something is a fact IN YOUR MIND doesn't make it true. If you can't prove it, that's what we call a "theory".

Maybe it is true, who knows -- but if you can't prove it, which you obviously can't, then don't cite it as a fact.

Is this really something that needs to be explained to you?

Technically, it'd be a hypothesis, or possibly a conjecture. A theory is the term scientists use to describe their best current understanding, and generally speaking this understanding has withstood rigorous attack.

But yes, whether you're talking about Cal coaches or existence of supreme deities, if you make the assertion one way or the other, it is not up to me to prove something doesn't exist, but rather up to you to prove it does. I know that isn't how it always ends up working in the real world, but if you want to discern the truth, you gotta do it that way.

socaltownie
04-14-2010, 11:44 AM
Yes. And?

Please provide citations my last name isn't Haas. Thanks.


Zillion does not equal Haas unless Bush is doing the spelling.

socaltownie
04-14-2010, 11:55 AM
It's not just about season tickets anymore. ESP is the golden goose that is being counted upon to ensure the financial stability of the entire athletic department. It's currently 60% sold out but that number is soft because people can opt out at any time. People are not going to pay those prices to watch a team that can't compete at the highest level. That doesn't mean that we have to win 10+ every year (although that would be nice) but we have to be able to sustain 8+ win seasons and BCS every 4-5 years. If the ESP program isn't well subscribed every year, the entire AD will fall apart. That's what I meant by going all in on football. That's why the old rules don't apply anymore. Being a nice guy, graduating players, and winning 7 games per year will get Tedford fired in a few years. That's the new reality. I hope it doesn't come to that and I still believe that Tedford can get us back to where we need to be but he definitely is (and should) feeling the pressure now.

You may know on this more than I but I thought that even with the 30 year payment plan the commitment is pretty binding and can't be easily broken. Thus once Cal gets the contract signed you are "all in" - just a question of whether lump sumed or amortized over either 5 or 30 years. If they are at 60% of BUDGET at this point they are doing great. If they are at 60% of SEATS still work to be done because I have to believe the club seats are going to be the pain. Not undoable but that is a pretty ding.

If they have to get recommits from all 30 year ESP owners each year you are absolutely right - the football team is going to be expected NEVER to fall back into the bad old days - and probably compete for the conference crown every year or else they are going to have problems.

SadbutTrue999
04-14-2010, 11:56 AM
I think JT would need to suffer a losing record before any real pressure would build. Although another 7-6/3-6 like 2007 would start getting people antsy.


I'm fairly certain that we may be looking at that kind of season...

FiatSlug
04-14-2010, 11:59 AM
Only pressure Tedford has to deal with is from his waistbelt not being able to deal with ever growing fat midsection of his.

Ray Ratto would write. Can you re-state with "ursine" in the sentence?

cal97
04-14-2010, 12:01 PM
You may know on this more than I but I thought that even with the 30 year payment plan the commitment is pretty binding and can't be easily broken. Thus once Cal gets the contract signed you are "all in" - just a question of whether lump sumed or amortized over either 5 or 30 years. If they are at 60% of BUDGET at this point they are doing great. If they are at 60% of SEATS still work to be done because I have to believe the club seats are going to be the pain. Not undoable but that is a pretty ding.

If they have to get recommits from all 30 year ESP owners each year you are absolutely right - the football team is going to be expected NEVER to fall back into the bad old days - and probably compete for the conference crown every year or else they are going to have problems.

It is not binding. From the ESP web site:

"Annual renewable program - no long-term encumbrance or contract. Sign a typical pledge agreement. Enjoy Cal games as long as you wish and then return the seats back to Cal to be resold."

link (http://calesp.com/facts.htm)

They don't have to get formal recommits every year but people can decide to cancel at any time with no penalty, which is effectively the same thing. This can be an advantage if the team does well because any inventory (either unsold or not renewed) can be resold at a higher price at a later date.

calbear77x
04-14-2010, 12:02 PM
You may know on this more than I but I thought that even with the 30 year payment plan the commitment is pretty binding and can't be easily broken. Thus once Cal gets the contract signed you are "all in" - just a question of whether lump sumed or amortized over either 5 or 30 years. If they are at 60% of BUDGET at this point they are doing great. If they are at 60% of SEATS still work to be done because I have to believe the club seats are going to be the pain. Not undoable but that is a pretty ding.

If they have to get recommits from all 30 year ESP owners each year you are absolutely right - the football team is going to be expected NEVER to fall back into the bad old days - and probably compete for the conference crown every year or else they are going to have problems.

No, just the opposite. In order to get more people buying ESP, Cal is allowing you to quit the program any time without penalty. Perhaps that will entice a few on this board to sign up right now! :)

aweissburg
04-14-2010, 12:10 PM
You may know on this more than I but I thought that even with the 30 year payment plan the commitment is pretty binding and can't be easily broken. Thus once Cal gets the contract signed you are "all in" - just a question of whether lump sumed or amortized over either 5 or 30 years. If they are at 60% of BUDGET at this point they are doing great. If they are at 60% of SEATS still work to be done because I have to believe the club seats are going to be the pain. Not undoable but that is a pretty ding.

If they have to get recommits from all 30 year ESP owners each year you are absolutely right - the football team is going to be expected NEVER to fall back into the bad old days - and probably compete for the conference crown every year or else they are going to have problems.

I considered the ESP and talked to some of the reps (ultimately passing since I couldn't justify the expense living in LA). My understanding is the commitment isn't "binding" in the traditional sense that you're stuck for 30 years. It is a pledge and you are locked in at a rate for the seats and interest rate on the carry. The ESP is transfereable and you get 40 years for the price of 30 (that's the hook). But it seems like you're obligated/entitled to re-up every year, opening the door for not doing that. Haven't seen the contract since, as noted, I didn't get past the term sheet phase with them.

As for the bigger issue (and ignoring the hypothesis/theory) discussion, I have to say I've heard from a few sources who teach at Cal that Alamar was a done deal after the Bowl Game. As for Gregory, I think JT made it clear things needed to change, Gregory didn't want to change, so Gregory left. Describing it as his decision, being pushed out, whatever, is really not all that important to me. Gregory is gone, and it wasn't by accident (and probably not by firing squad) nor entirely his "choice."

I think the outcome, the conclusion, of having two "friends" leaves means JT has heard the message. And I think that coaches typically get fired for three reasons: bad record (I don't think that is the case here), sanctions (nope) or a perception that the coach cannot change and they've hit their peak. JT's current status is he's now got two new coaches in the two areas most needing improvement. That shows change. Buys him a few years, assuming we don't tank.

Mike Zillion
04-14-2010, 12:24 PM
Technically, it'd be a hypothesis, or possibly a conjecture. A theory is the term scientists use to describe their best current understanding, and generally speaking this understanding has withstood rigorous attack.

But yes, whether you're talking about Cal coaches or existence of supreme deities, if you make the assertion one way or the other, it is not up to me to prove something doesn't exist, but rather up to you to prove it does. I know that isn't how it always ends up working in the real world, but if you want to discern the truth, you gotta do it that way.

More like it is up to people to believe what they want to believe.

sycasey
04-14-2010, 12:29 PM
Ray Ratto would write. Can you re-state with "ursine" in the sentence?

Also with a phrase written in some random foreign language for no reason.

socaltownie
04-14-2010, 12:30 PM
stand corrected. Buried in a part of the FAQ is the section which indicates that this essentially works as a package deal. Not a PSL but a way of bundling your seat with an AD donation.

For seats on the 30 yrd line has anyone worked out the premium you are paying under the new program than the ducket you would have incurred under the old regime (season tix + BB donation to ensure priority?) Sorry, I know a booth.

calbear77x
04-14-2010, 12:44 PM
stand corrected. Buried in a part of the FAQ is the section which indicates that this essentially works as a package deal. Not a PSL but a way of bundling your seat with an AD donation.

For seats on the 30 yrd line has anyone worked out the premium you are paying under the new program than the ducket you would have incurred under the old regime (season tix + BB donation to ensure priority?) Sorry, I know a booth.

To answer that question without too many facts getting in the way, you'd pay "substantially more" for ESP seats. However, if you think of this as a 40 year commitment (and Cal seems on the fence about whether they really want you to do that given their mixed messages), you realize that in about 15 years, as the price stays steady and everything else around you goes up due to inflation, it's possible that it'll look like a decent deal for the next 25 years. That's how I've always rationalized it to myself, but then I'll admit that I haven't really wanted to think too much about it. I just closed my eyes and did it.

calbear77x
04-14-2010, 12:51 PM
More like it is up to people to believe what they want to believe.

True, but that's other people who believe hearsay and conjecture, not rational thinkers like ourselves, right MZ? :)

maxer
04-14-2010, 01:35 PM
More like it is up to people to believe what they want to believe.

Of course it's up to people to believe what they want to believe. But don't present your interpretation as fact. That's dishonest.

Is this really not something that you understand?

socaltownie
04-14-2010, 02:23 PM
To answer that question without too many facts getting in the way, you'd pay "substantially more" for ESP seats. However, if you think of this as a 40 year commitment (and Cal seems on the fence about whether they really want you to do that given their mixed messages), you realize that in about 15 years, as the price stays steady and everything else around you goes up due to inflation, it's possible that it'll look like a decent deal for the next 25 years. That's how I've always rationalized it to myself, but then I'll admit that I haven't really wanted to think too much about it. I just closed my eyes and did it.

OK. I took a look. As best I can see you are currently on the hook for about $1000 a seat for season tixs between the 30s on the west side. About $400 for the season ticket package and $600 BB donation (this is why our faculty member family never sat closer than the 15). Sections G/GG are $1200 a ticket.

Not sure where the lowest value ESP (40,000 up front or 30 years at $2741 annually gets you but give possible inflation/NPV it isn't a horribly bad deal. if they are right and the reduced supply means greater market value than it will be a good deal. If, however, the product on the field "stinks" then - ESPECIALLY IF YOU PAY ALL UP FRONT - you have something of limited/no value.

Speak from experience - I bought a PSL at Petco Park thinking that "Hey, AT&T sold out all the time - this has to be smart" only to find that NO ONE wanted to buy a Padres Club PSL. You couldn't Give them away given the transfer fee the Padres dinged you with.

calbear77x
04-14-2010, 02:30 PM
OK. I took a look. As best I can see you are currently on the hook for about $1000 a seat for season tixs between the 30s on the west side. About $400 for the season ticket package and $600 BB donation (this is why our faculty member family never sat closer than the 15). Sections G/GG are $1200 a ticket.

Not sure where the lowest value ESP (40,000 up front or 30 years at $2741 annually gets you but give possible inflation/NPV it isn't a horribly bad deal. if they are right and the reduced supply means greater market value than it will be a good deal. If, however, the product on the field "stinks" then - ESPECIALLY IF YOU PAY ALL UP FRONT - you have something of limited/no value.

Speak from experience - I bought a PSL at Petco Park thinking that "Hey, AT&T sold out all the time - this has to be smart" only to find that NO ONE wanted to buy a Padres Club PSL. You couldn't Give them away given the transfer fee the Padres dinged you with.

Yeah, I won't lie to you. I did it because I love Cal in an irrational way, not because I thought it was a great investment. In my experience, the only tickets that are ever worth squat are USC, UCLA and sometimes Oregon. And even then, I'd never come close to selling tix and covering my costs. For what I pay, I should be getting a back massage from Sandy Barbour during TV timeouts. And even then, it'd only be BARELY worth it.

socaltownie
04-14-2010, 02:34 PM
For what I pay, I should be getting a back massage from Sandy Barbour during TV timeouts. And even then, it'd only be BARELY worth it.

And ONE! For those that don't have an "A" sticker (or better yet, nobel prize winner parking spots) the parking privledges are also a nice bonus.

cal97
04-14-2010, 02:38 PM
Yeah, I won't lie to you. I did it because I love Cal in an irrational way, not because I thought it was a great investment. In my experience, the only tickets that are ever worth squat are USC, UCLA and sometimes Oregon. And even then, I'd never come close to selling tix and covering my costs. For what I pay, I should be getting a back massage from Sandy Barbour during TV timeouts. And even then, it'd only be BARELY worth it.

It's not an investment. It's a donation and needs to be viewed as such. Maybe you save a few bucks 15 years from now but that's not why anyone did this. If you buy on the 30 year plan like I did, it's also not entirely true that your cost will never go up. The nominal fee won't increase but the proportion that's tax deductible will decrease over time because you can only deduct the amount you gave in excess of the market value of what you received. The market value of the tickets, parking, etc. will increase and lower your tax deduction. I suppose it could get cheaper too if marginal tax brackets increase either through increased income or the Obama Administration's war on anyone who makes over $250K.

Mike Zillion
04-14-2010, 04:25 PM
Of course it's up to people to believe what they want to believe. But don't present your interpretation as fact. That's dishonest.

Is this really not something that you understand?

I can't help it if I'm more connected to the inner workings of the program than you are. It's up to you to believe me or not.

maxer
04-14-2010, 04:31 PM
I can't help it if I'm more connected to the inner workings of the program than you are. It's up to you to believe me or not.

Man, you are super dense. For the last time, and then I give up:

I do not care if you are right. It is immaterial to me. I am simply saying, do not present your opinion as a fact unless it is ACTUALLY A FACT and you can back it up with OTHER FACTS.

If you can't do that, it's your opinion. If you take a couple publicly available facts, and form a version of events in your mind which COULD be true, that is also not a fact - it is a hypothesis.

Those are all things that this board is for. But don't call them facts.

If this is not something that you are able to understand, then I, and everyone else here, would be wise to disregard every single thing that you say.

Mike Zillion
04-14-2010, 04:40 PM
Man, you are super dense. For the last time, and then I give up:

I do not care if you are right. It is immaterial to me. I am simply saying, do not present your opinion as a fact unless it is ACTUALLY A FACT and you can back it up with OTHER FACTS.

If you can't do that, it's your opinion. If you take a couple publicly available facts, and form a version of events in your mind which COULD be true, that is also not a fact - it is a hypothesis.

Those are all things that this board is for. But don't call them facts.

If this is not something that you are able to understand, then I, and everyone else here, would be wise to disregard every single thing that you say.

I present the truth. You either accept it or you don't

68great
04-14-2010, 05:17 PM
Please provide citations that they weren't.

Thanks.

Well after the bowl game, JT said "Things are going to change" (or words to that effect).

Guess what. They did.
So it reasonable to assume that the changes that occurred are the changes JT had in mind.

FiatSlug
04-14-2010, 05:25 PM
I present the truth. You either accept it or you don't

You're a bully. Either you accept it or you don't.

TorBear
04-14-2010, 05:36 PM
Yes, Tedford improved Cal from the dark times but he's being well paid to do so and if he can't get this program competing at the highest levels, then we need to find someone who can.

What do you consider "the highest levels"?


I don't want to fire Tedford but I do want to hold him accountable for the team underperforming its talent and being fundamentally unsound in many areas, especially special teams. He's the head coach and that goes with the territory.

So how do you hold him accountable for all of these perceived deficiencies if you don't want to fire him?

wifeisafurd
04-14-2010, 05:40 PM
The AD was real unhappy at the end of last season, and she was quite vocal. To her relief, so was Tedford. Tedford plans many changes (Gregory was not fired per se; however, his "resignation" has provided an opportunity), some of which already are apparant. My name is not Haas, but I can tell you I heard the AD with my own ears, and I saw Tedford's laundry list with my own eyes. At this juncture, I think the AD and Tedford are on the same page, so I just don't see how Tedford is on the hot seat. Just my opinion.

GoBears58
04-14-2010, 05:55 PM
I can't help it if I'm more connected to the inner workings of the program than you are. It's up to you to believe me or not.

looks like we have another admiral bear versus deelish feud brewing. The fact is that if Tedford gets blown out in multiple games like last year than he will be on the hot seat. Winning 8 games but losing by 30 in the losses shows a Braun and Lavinesque hold on the job.. I hope that we can start recruiting as well on offense (save RB) as Tosh is doing on defense and JT will get back to '04 and '06 performance levels.

maxer
04-14-2010, 11:26 PM
looks like we have another admiral bear versus deelish feud brewing. The fact is that if Tedford gets blown out in multiple games like last year than he will be on the hot seat. Winning 8 games but losing by 30 in the losses shows a Braun and Lavinesque hold on the job.. I hope that we can start recruiting as well on offense (save RB) as Tosh is doing on defense and JT will get back to '04 and '06 performance levels.

I wasn't around for that feud, but I am not disputing anything the guy is saying -- I am simply trying to describe to him the difference between a fact and his hypothesis/opinion, but he doesn't have enough under the hood to understand that it seems.

OaktownBear
04-15-2010, 07:59 AM
This is just based on my observations of Cal's behavior over the years, but I don't think they look at it that way or the way many fans do. They have always seemed to view increasing revenue beyond a certain point as a highly risky proposition (which is correct, frankly). Let's just assume that Tedford proves to be an 8 win a season coach, year in and year out. And, attendance adjusts based on that (say stabilizes around the 45K-50K mark) IMO, Cal sticks with that. And in my opinion the fact that the AD is looking to football to pay for everything cements Tedford's position rather than putting it at risk. It is, from an economic perspective, a very risky proposition that making a coaching change will increase revenue. And the fact is, Cal can't afford for it to get significantly worse. There is no way it is even possible for an unsuccessful football program to support the AD, and if we went back to the ol' days, it would be a financial disaster. One significant problem with the idea that the AD has to be revenue neutral at all time is that this was not even possible pre-Tedford and the university just can't expect that the football team will be in that position forever. But IMO, that policy, far from saying Tedford better get to BCS games quickly, says to me that the AD can't take any risk that we go back to 30K per game attendance.