Chat Room
Go Back   The Bear Insider - Covering Cal Sports 24 x 7 > The Public Place where "CyberBears" Growl > Football
Reload this Page Is the coaching around the Pac-10 that much better now?
Notices
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  (#1) Old
CGB2813 CGB2813 is offline
Real Bear
 
Posts: 1,566
Join Date: Jul 2008
Is the coaching around the Pac-10 that much better now? - 11-23-2010, 05:12 PM

I think so.

Tedford is only 17-16 against the other current nine Pac-10 coaches, but 27-16 against their predecessors.
Reply With Quote
  (#2) Old
SurvivorOf1and10fkaLEA SurvivorOf1and10fkaLEA is offline
Loyal Bear
 
SurvivorOf1and10fkaLEA's Avatar
 
Posts: 3,494
Join Date: Jul 2008
11-23-2010, 05:21 PM

It's not just the coaching. College football as a whole has really grown in the last decade. There is more money, more fan interest, more pressure from alums and boosters for success. Also, more kids are playing football, and there are more, better D-I players. With the increased TV exposure, more players are willing to go play at programs like Arizona and WSU instead of riding the pine at USC or UCLA.

But, you are right. Erickson and Neweasel were considered star coaches in their day. They are in the bottom half of coaches in the Pac-10 in today's game.
Reply With Quote
  (#3) Old
tbischel tbischel is offline
Active Bear
 
Posts: 237
Join Date: Jul 2008
11-24-2010, 08:03 AM

I'd have to disagree with some of that...

"more kids are playing football": only because of population growth. With high schools class size increasing to handle the glut of students, but the number of football players per high school team staying the same, the rate may be dropping.

"more, better D-I players": I'm not convinced that generational improvement is as significant as people think. When Brett Favre can be the best qb in the NFL last year, and he played college football in the 1980's... I have to believe any change in quality is related only to first population growth, second player size due to the american diet, and possibly the proliferation of performance enhancing drugs. And are there more D-I players? The scholarship limits are the same, the number of D-I teams is roughly the same.

"increased TV exposure": The big increase was from the 80's to the 90's... I guess there was a limited increase in coverage over the last decade, but ESPN, ESPN2, ABC, CBS, NBC and the Fox Sports Networks have been doing their thing since long before Tedford got to Cal. And WSU was one of the top pac-10 programs a decade ago.

"more pressure from alums and boosters for success": I think there has always been a lot of pressure for success... unless you equate pressure with money. In which case I agree.

I tend to think coaches get too much credit when they win, and too much blame when they lose. Ultimately, its the guys on the field that have to execute the plays. I think Tedford, Erickson, and Neuheisel could each be very successful in todays game when the right guys are in place. I also think that recruiting is kind of like the lotto... you sometimes just have to get lucky with your picks.
Reply With Quote
  (#4) Old
UrsaMajor UrsaMajor is offline
Golden Bear
 
Posts: 6,376
Join Date: Jul 2008
11-24-2010, 08:32 AM

+1

While coaching is very important, it is far more accurate to say that CAL is 17-16 against the current Pac-10 teams and 27-16 previously. Sometimes I think fans view the game solely as a boxing match between two middle aged men...
Reply With Quote
  (#5) Old
tenplay tenplay is offline
Real Bear
 
Posts: 2,182
Join Date: Jul 2008
11-24-2010, 08:46 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by CGB2813 View Post
I think so.

Tedford is only 17-16 against the other current nine Pac-10 coaches, but 27-16 against their predecessors.
Actually it must be getting worse because Stoopid's record has improved dramatically in recent years.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Ad Management by RedTyger