Even in the "weak" half of Tedford's tenure at Cal (2007-2012), he went 39-37 and took us to bowl games in 4 out of 6 years. That is better than any coach we have had since then.

"Bad Tedford" is still in the Top 3 coaches we have had since 1957. Even at his worst, he is behind only the following individuals since 1957 in terms of winning percentage:

1. Good Jeff Tedford (2002-2006) -- .750
2. Total Jeff Tedford (2002-2012) -- .590
3. Bruce Snyder (1987-1991) -- .544
4. Mike White (1972-77) -- .538
5. Bad Jeff Tedford (2007-2012) -- .513
6. Steve Mariucci (1996) -- .500

Tedford also had a winning conference record twice in the "bad half" of his tenure. Sonny Dykes and Justin Wilcox have never accomplished that once.

Cal Strong glad Tedford is healthy. And he glad he is happy going back to Fresno St. Tedford would have destroyed us every single year if he had taken over for Cristobal at Oregon.

But Cal Strong wish that we could have brought back a healthy Tedford for another 2-4 years just so we could have a strong reminder of what it is like to have an exciting program on the upswing.

Cal Strong posted this elsewhere, but he think it deserve its own thread.

LOL

You are trying way too hard to pump up the decline in Tedford's Cal tenure. He wasn't let go because he went 9-4 in 2008, which you claim is part of "Bad Tedford". That is silly.

"Bad Tedford" is 2010-2012. 9-18 in Pac-12 games, 15-22 overall, and importantly, an inexcusable inattention to football team academic progress that had the program on the verge of being ineligible for bowl games.

Those three seasons are why Tedford was fired.

I hope his health is much better now, and I hope he does well at Fresno State. But it's silly to claim the end of his Cal tenure was some kind of glory days.

BearSD said:

---

LOL

You are trying way too hard to pump up the decline in Tedford's Cal tenure. He wasn't let go because he went 9-4 in 2008, which you claim is part of "Bad Tedford". That is silly.

"Bad Tedford" is 2010-2012. 9-18 in Pac-12 games, 15-22 overall, and importantly, an inexcusable inattention to football team academic progress that had the program on the verge of being ineligible for bowl games.

Those three seasons are why Tedford was fired.

I hope his health is much better now, and I hope he does well at Fresno State. But it's silly to claim the end of his Cal tenure was some kind of glory days.

---

He had a winning record and took us to a bowl in 2011 -- the year before he was fired. And he never started a season 1-5.

But even if you shorten the "Bad Tedford" era to 2010-2012, his conference winning percentage (.333) was not much worse than Wilcox's (.375) during his entire tenure at Cal -- including Wilcox's best years.

Cal Strong! said:

---

BearSD said:

---

LOL

You are trying way too hard to pump up the decline in Tedford's Cal tenure. He wasn't let go because he went 9-4 in 2008, which you claim is part of "Bad Tedford". That is silly.

"Bad Tedford" is 2010-2012. 9-18 in Pac-12 games, 15-22 overall, and importantly, an inexcusable inattention to football team academic progress that had the program on the verge of being ineligible for bowl games.

Those three seasons are why Tedford was fired.

I hope his health is much better now, and I hope he does well at Fresno State. But it's silly to claim the end of his Cal tenure was some kind of glory days.

---

He had a winning record and took us to a bowl in 2011 -- the year before he was fired. And he never started a season 1-5.

But even if you shorten the "Bad Tedford" era to 2010-2012, his conference winning percentage (.333) was not much worse than Wilcox's (.375) during his entire tenure at Cal -- including Wilcox's best years.

---

When you consider the talent on that team, 2011 was a miserable failure, largely because of QB play. Telford had 3 4 star elite 11 QBs. but we resorted to Zach Maynard who had a huge bias for targeting his half brother. Uber talented WR Jones 10+ years as an NFL starterwas lining up on the other side.
Otherwise that team had one of the best defenses in Cal football history and decent offensive personnel, including 5 future NFL starters. The way Tedford handled the Maynard situation played a part in his decline.

heartofthebear said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

BearSD said:

---

LOL

You are trying way too hard to pump up the decline in Tedford's Cal tenure. He wasn't let go because he went 9-4 in 2008, which you claim is part of "Bad Tedford". That is silly.

"Bad Tedford" is 2010-2012. 9-18 in Pac-12 games, 15-22 overall, and importantly, an inexcusable inattention to football team academic progress that had the program on the verge of being ineligible for bowl games.

Those three seasons are why Tedford was fired.

I hope his health is much better now, and I hope he does well at Fresno State. But it's silly to claim the end of his Cal tenure was some kind of glory days.

---

He had a winning record and took us to a bowl in 2011 -- the year before he was fired. And he never started a season 1-5.

But even if you shorten the "Bad Tedford" era to 2010-2012, his conference winning percentage (.333) was not much worse than Wilcox's (.375) during his entire tenure at Cal -- including Wilcox's best years.

---

When you consider the talent on that team, 2011 was a miserable failure, largely because of QB play. Telford had 3 4 star elite 11 QBs. but we resorted to Zach Maynard who had a huge bias for targeting his half brother. Uber talented WR Jones 10+ years as an NFL starterwas lining up on the other side.
Otherwise that team had one of the best defenses in Cal football history and decent offensive personnel, including 5 future NFL starters. The way Tedford handled the Maynard situation played a part in his decline.

---

Tedford was fired for good reason. But he wasn't as bad, even at his worse, as we tend to think. Even in the second half of his tenure at Cal, he was better than any coach we've had in the past 75 years who isn't named Snyder or White.

Unfortunately, Maynard was the best QB we had on the roster. Cal Strong wish Tedford had recruited and/or developed better QB talent. But the sad truth is that Maynard was better than Kline. He was better than any of the other guys we had as well.

He recently had a 10 and a 12 win season at Fresno - finishing ranked at #18 in 2018. Since Tedford's firing at Cal, Wilcox has never finished the season ranked. Neither has Sonny -- either at Cal or SMU.

heartofthebear said:

---

Cal Strong! said:

---

BearSD said:

---

LOL

You are trying way too hard to pump up the decline in Tedford's Cal tenure. He wasn't let go because he went 9-4 in 2008, which you claim is part of "Bad Tedford". That is silly.

"Bad Tedford" is 2010-2012. 9-18 in Pac-12 games, 15-22 overall, and importantly, an inexcusable inattention to football team academic progress that had the program on the verge of being ineligible for bowl games.

Those three seasons are why Tedford was fired.

I hope his health is much better now, and I hope he does well at Fresno State. But it's silly to claim the end of his Cal tenure was some kind of glory days.

---

He had a winning record and took us to a bowl in 2011 -- the year before he was fired. And he never started a season 1-5.

But even if you shorten the "Bad Tedford" era to 2010-2012, his conference winning percentage (.333) was not much worse than Wilcox's (.375) during his entire tenure at Cal -- including Wilcox's best years.

---

When you consider the talent on that team, 2011 was a miserable failure, largely because of QB play. Telford had 3 4 star elite 11 QBs. but we resorted to Zach Maynard who had a huge bias for targeting his half brother. Uber talented WR Jones 10+ years as an NFL starterwas lining up on the other side.
Otherwise that team had one of the best defenses in Cal football history and decent offensive personnel, including 5 future NFL starters. The way Tedford handled the Maynard situation played a part in his decline.

---

Tedford signed Cal QB Ratings since 2008 in order
2010 Riley 140
2012 Maynard 130
2009 Riley 129
2011 Maynard 127
2008 Longshore 126
2008 Riley 118
2010 Sweeney 105
2013 Kline 100
2009 Sweeney 98
2011 Bridgford 89
2008 Mansion 86
2010 Mansion 86
2012 Bridgford 76
2012 Mansion 71
2014 Hinder 70
2013 Hinder 59

Counter to your narrative, Maynard actually gave us better QB play than both Longshore and Riley in 2008 and was far better than any of our other options: Mansion, Bridgford, Hinder or true freshman Kline.

If Mansion was good he would have won the job in 2010 after Riley got injured (as some on this board actually hoped for). His 86 passing rating for that season shows what he did.

When Maynard got injured in 2012 (as many on this board hoped for) and Bridgford became the starter, Bridgford posted a 76 QB rating.

Bridgford then transferred to So Miss where Marcus Arroyo made him the starter and he posted similarly bad numbers.

It wasn't Tedford's "handling of the Maynard situation" that was the problem. It was the fact that Sweeney, Mansion, Hinder and Bridgford turned out to be so bad that Maynard was his best option. That was the problem.

And a bigger problem never mentioned: In 2012 we had the #107 pass defense (#95 overall, #98 scoring defense) and had 2 DBs, Marc Anthony and Steve Williams, get drafted.

Cal Strong! said:

---

Even in the "weak" half of Tedford's tenure at Cal (2007-2012), he went 39-37 and took us to bowl games in 4 out of 6 years. That is better than any coach we have had since then.

"Bad Tedford" is still in the Top 3 coaches we have had since 1957. Even at his worst, he is behind only the following individuals since 1957 in terms of winning percentage:

1. Good Jeff Tedford (2002-2006) -- .750
2. Total Jeff Tedford (2002-2012) -- .590
3. Bruce Snyder (1987-1991) -- .544
4. Mike White (1972-77) -- .538
5. Bad Jeff Tedford (2007-2012) -- .513
6. Steve Mariucci (1996) -- .500

Tedford also had a winning conference record twice in the "bad half" of his tenure. Sonny Dykes and Justin Wilcox have never accomplished that once.

Cal Strong glad Tedford is healthy. And he glad he is happy going back to Fresno St. Tedford would have destroyed us every single year if he had taken over for Cristobal at Oregon.

But Cal Strong wish that we could have brought back a healthy Tedford for another 2-4 years just so we could have a strong reminder of what it is like to have an exciting program on the upswing.

Cal Strong posted this elsewhere, but he think it deserve its own thread.

---

I think Tedford's firing was unfortunate but it did feel like the wheels were coming off - the academics were bad and his health was evidently bad, too. However, I think the best programs in our weight division allow for some down years because stability is important.

In the early Tedford years, the common comparison was Kirk Ferentz at Iowa. They were similarly aged and similarly successful (though Ferentz a bit more, perhaps). It's hard to believe that Ferentz is still there. But if you look at Ferentz's record, he definitely had some down years - particularly from 2005-2007, and then 2009 to 2014. Since then, he's 63 wins and 23 losses in 7 years, including two conference championship appearances.

I think we'd all take that right now. If Cal had stuck with Tedford and allowed him to try to right the ship, like Iowa did with Ferentz, I wonder if Tedford would have done as well (or, at least better than we have done).

This is a strong line of thinking.

Tedford had to go -- firing or otherwise -- due to the APR issues and his own health. But if I were in charge I would have supported him more strongly by forcing him to have a deputy to help him fix these issues -- without firing him. Mainly because his track record was so excellent. It would be hard, but a strong way to balance loyalty/stability with making needed adjustments.

eabandit said:

---

This is a strong line of thinking.

Tedford had to go -- firing or otherwise -- due to the APR issues and his own health. But if I were in charge I would have supported him more strongly by forcing him to have a deputy to help him fix these issues -- without firing him. Mainly because his track record was so excellent. It would be hard, but a strong way to balance loyalty/stability with making needed adjustments.

---

I think the fan base would have supported a sabbatical, or medical leave, but who do you make interim HC? Michalczik? Pendergast? Maybe Ron Gould?

I realize Maynard was our best option. I blame Tedford for that. And the Maynard era proves how misleading stats can be. I attended those games in person and Maynard single-handedly lost us quite a few games during his time at Cal.

Dykes walked into a dumpster fire, but many here don't agree. Who cares. Ancient history.

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Dykes walked into a dumpster fire, but many here don't agree. Who cares. Ancient history.

---

So did Tedford. So did Wilcox. So do most coaches who replace fired coaches. That's just how we roll.

But as dumpster fires go, inheriting a 1-11 team (Tedford) is worse than inheriting a 3-9 team (Dykes) or a 5-7 team (Wilcox).

calumnus said:

---

eabandit said:

---

This is a strong line of thinking.

Tedford had to go -- firing or otherwise -- due to the APR issues and his own health. But if I were in charge I would have supported him more strongly by forcing him to have a deputy to help him fix these issues -- without firing him. Mainly because his track record was so excellent. It would be hard, but a strong way to balance loyalty/stability with making needed adjustments.

---

I think the fan base would have supported a sabbatical, or medical leave, but who do you make interim HC? Michalczik? Pendergast? Maybe Ron Gould?

---

This was one of Tedford's weaknesses. He never really developed a clear number two or a potential successor at Cal. He got better at this after he left us -- e.g. DeBoer and Steinauer at Fresno State.

heartofthebear said:

---

I realize Maynard was our best option. I blame Tedford for that. And the Maynard era proves how misleading stats can be. I attended those games in person and Maynard single-handedly lost us quite a few games during his time at Cal.

---

By that token Longshore was "responsible" for every loss in 2006 and 2007 except for the one Riley "lost."

We can probably go through every single Cal loss, and with few exceptions, pin it on the QB.

But 2012, we go to Ohio State and Maynard completes 70% of his passes while Bigelow has 4 carries for 160 yards and 2 TDs, but then sits the rest of the game. 4th and short in Ohio State territory, score tied, only minutes left, Tedford elects to kick, D'Amato misses his 3rd FG attempt. Ohio State then goes the length of the field to win. Cal puts up 512 yards on a ranked team in their stadium, with Maynard completing 70%, but the loss is Maynard's fault and Tedford is just a victim?

OK, what about the 2011 Big Game 31-28 loss to Top 10 ranked Stanford that went 11-1 and made the BCS?

Zack Maynard 20 of 29 (69%) for 280 yards 2 TD 0 Int
Andrew Luck 20 of 30 (67%) for 257 yards 2 TD 1 Int

Maynard QBR 274
Luck QBR 154

Maynard outplays that year's Heisman runner-up and soon #1 draft pick Andrew Luck, losing by 3 to a BCS team, but the loss was on him? He was "responsible" for that loss too?

Maynard had some stinkers. But you also have to acknowledge games like the 2012 win over a ranked UCLA team where he went 25 of 30 (83.3%) for 295 yards 4 TDs and 1 Int (and rushing for a 5th TD) for a 203 QBR our offense putting up 480 yards and beating UCLA 43-17. A UCLA team that won the PAC-12 South.

BearSD said:

---

LOL

You are trying way too hard to pump up the decline in Tedford's Cal tenure. He wasn't let go because he went 9-4 in 2008, which you claim is part of "Bad Tedford". That is silly.

"Bad Tedford" is 2010-2012. 9-18 in Pac-12 games, 15-22 overall, and importantly, an inexcusable inattention to football team academic progress that had the program on the verge of being ineligible for bowl games.

Those three seasons are why Tedford was fired.

I hope his health is much better now, and I hope he does well at Fresno State. But it's silly to claim the end of his Cal tenure was some kind of glory days.

---

Here are Tedford's blowout losses in his final 3 seasons. (I am defining "blowout" as more than 2 scoring drives, or 17 or more points.)

2010 season:
1. Loss to Nevada by 21 points.
2. Loss to USC by 34 points.
3. Loss to Oregon State by 28 points.
4. Loss to Stanford by 34 points.

2011 season:
5. Loss to Oregon by 28 points.
6. Loss to USC by 21 pionts.
7. Loss to UCLA by 17 points.

2012 season:
8. Loss to USC by 18 points.
9. Loss to Stanford by 18 points.
10. Loss to Utah by 22 points.
11. Loss to Oregon by 42 points.
12. Loss to Oregon State by 48 points.


That's 12 blowout losses in 37 games.

Roughly 1 out of 3 games in Tedford's final 3 seasons (32%) was a blowout loss.



For comparison purposes:

Sonny Dykes era

2013 season:
1. Loss to Ohio State by 18 points.
2. Loss to Oregon by 39 points.
3. Loss to Washington State by 22 points.
4. Loss to UCLA by 27 points.
5. Loss to Oregon State by 32 points.
6. Loss to Washington by 24 points.
7. Loss to USC by 34 points.
8. Loss to Colorado by 17 points.
9. Loss to Stanford by 50 points.

2014 season:
10. Loss to Washington by 24 points.
11. Loss to Oregon by 18 points.

2015 season:


2016 season:
12. Loss to USC by 21 points.
13. Loss to Washington by 39 points.
14. Loss to Washington State by 35 points.


14 blowout losses in 49 games. (28.5%)


Justin Wilcox era

2017 season:
1. Loss to Oregon by 21 points.
2. Loss to Washington by 31 points.

2018 season:
3. Loss to Oregon by 18 points.
4. Loss to UCLA by 30 points.

2019 season:
5. Loss to Utah by 35 points.
6. Loss to USC by 24 points.

2020 season:
7. Loss to UCLA by 24 points.

2021 season:
8. Loss to UCLA by 28 points.


8 blowout losses in 54 games. (14.8%)

the blowout losses towards the end of the Tedford era were terribly demoralizing. But Cal Strong no see how this makes him a worse coach than Wilcox -- who has lots of close losses. If anything, it shows how overmatched talent-wise Tedford's teams were.

In contrast -- Wilcox could have easily started this season 7-0. But whenever it was close at the end, the other teams' coaches were able to fire up their guys while Wilcox just stood there with a clenched jaw.

As for blowout losses, the worst in my lifetime has been Sonny's first lost to stanfurd. That and the 2010 loss to stanfurd under Tedford were low points in human history.

Cal Strong! said:

---

the blowout losses towards the end of the Tedford era were terribly demoralizing. But Cal Strong no see how this makes him a worse coach than Wilcox -- who has lots of close losses. If anything, it shows how overmatched talent-wise Tedford's teams were.

In contrast -- Wilcox could have easily started this season 7-0. But whenever it was close at the end, the other teams' coaches were able to fire up their guys while Wilcox just stood there with a clenched jaw.

As for blowout losses, the worst in my lifetime has been Sonny's first lost to stanfurd. That and the 2010 loss to stanfurd under Tedford were low points in human history.

---

The point is that Tedford had to go at the end of 2012.

We weren't going to get Fresno State Tedford. Fresno State Tedford was the result of taking time off. He needed to take that time off. Sandy Barbour could've forced him to take a year off, but Tedford didn't realize he had a problem. When he was fired, he didn't realize how unhealthy his lifestyle had become. That's according to Tedford himself.

In the middle of the Tedford era, I took a sleep psychology class at UC Berkeley taught by the professor below. For the final paper, I chose to write about sleep and Tedford. Turns out there was a wealth of public information about Tedford and sleep. He even acknowledged it was a problem. I got an A on the paper. This was a few years before he was fired.

Tedford had to be fired because of the APR issue.

That's it.

It is as simple as that.

Remember Tedford's health emergency in 2014? Couple that with the APR issue and it would have been a program killer.

It was the academics and potential NCAA repercussions that forced the firing. The football had not fallen to fire-able depths yet, not for Cal's best coach in 50-60 years. It was slowly getting there, mind you, but it wasn't there

So the big question here is whether DrStrong would support rolling back the admissions requirements to Tedford era standards. I believe about 70% of football players were admitted via 'exception' before the policy change in 2013 brought on my the APR crisis.

Now it's 20%, which comes to 4-5 per year instead of 15-20.

Also, I heard on the radio that all Notre Dame students must take calculus as a freshman. All includes the football team. Is that true though?

Part of the reason Brian Kelly might have left thinking he had gone as far as he could at ND.

ColoradoBear said:

---

So the big question here is whether DrStrong would support rolling back the admissions requirements to Tedford era standards. I believe about 70% of football players were admitted via 'exception' before the policy change in 2013 brought on my the APR crisis.

Now it's 20%, which comes to 4-5 per year instead of 15-20.

Also, I heard on the radio that all Notre Dame students must take calculus as a freshman. All includes the football team. Is that true though?

Part of the reason Brian Kelly might have left thinking he had gone as far as he could at ND.

---

Leaving aside the possible benefit of having your brain deal with calculus I can't for the life of me think of another reason to mandate having every college student take calculus. I took two quarters, washed out, and spent a career programming mainframe computers with a philosophy degree. It sounds like a football coach who demands that his team establish the run first no matter what...old, outdated thinking. They probably make students all take religion classes too. :-)

I think Bridgford got injured before he ever played a down for Cal. Secondly could somebody post the recruiting class ranks for JT with the APR scores? I think you will find as the recruiting rankings went up that the subsequent APR went down. Entitled 5 stars didn't want to work and led tp JT losing control. Then the "et tu Brotus" from Tosh.

Bad Tedford debuted against Southern Miss in 2004 and stuck around until he was let go.

MilleniaBear said:

---

I think Bridgford got injured before he ever played a down for Cal. Secondly could somebody post the recruiting class ranks for JT with the APR scores? I think you will find as the recruiting rankings went up that the subsequent APR went down. Entitled 5 stars didn't want to work and led tp JT losing control. Then the "et tu Brotus" from Tosh.

---

Bridgford started that first game in Maynard's last season. Also might have played another time or two. It didn't go so well.

bearsandgiants said:

---

Bad Tedford debuted against Southern Miss in 2004 and stuck around until he was let go.

---

Hard to say. Cal Strong no entirely disagree. But that mean that Bad Tedford won a share of the league championship in 2006 and got us to a #2 ranking in 2007.

Cal Strong think the change between Good Tedford and Bad Tedford occurred in middle of 2007 season. So Cal Strong drew the line right after that season ended.

Cal STRONG!!!!

Big C said:

---

MilleniaBear said:

---

I think Bridgford got injured before he ever played a down for Cal. Secondly could somebody post the recruiting class ranks for JT with the APR scores? I think you will find as the recruiting rankings went up that the subsequent APR went down. Entitled 5 stars didn't want to work and led tp JT losing control. Then the "et tu Brotus" from Tosh.

---

Bridgford started that first game in Maynard's last season. Also might have played another time or two. It didn't go so well.

---

Bridgford played in 10 games at Cal. He started against Nevada and then started the last two games after Maynard got injured (broke his leg?). He then transferred to Southern Miss following Arroyo and was made the starter until he lost it due to bad play (though somewhat better than he played at Cal. Here are all his game logs:
https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/allan-bridgford-1/gamelog/

calumnus said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

I realize Maynard was our best option. I blame Tedford for that. And the Maynard era proves how misleading stats can be. I attended those games in person and Maynard single-handedly lost us quite a few games during his time at Cal.

---

By that token Longshore was "responsible" for every loss in 2006 and 2007 except for the one Riley "lost."

We can probably go through every single Cal loss, and with few exceptions, pin it on the QB.

But 2012, we go to Ohio State and Maynard completes 70% of his passes while Bigelow has 4 carries for 160 yards and 2 TDs, but then sits the rest of the game. 4th and short in Ohio State territory, score tied, only minutes left, Tedford elects to kick, D'Amato misses his 3rd FG attempt. Ohio State then goes the length of the field to win. Cal puts up 512 yards on a ranked team in their stadium, with Maynard completing 70%, but the loss is Maynard's fault and Tedford is just a victim?

OK, what about the 2011 Big Game 31-28 loss to Top 10 ranked Stanford that went 11-1 and made the BCS?

Zack Maynard 20 of 29 (69%) for 280 yards 2 TD 0 Int
Andrew Luck 20 of 30 (67%) for 257 yards 2 TD 1 Int

Maynard QBR 274
Luck QBR 154

Maynard outplays that year's Heisman runner-up and soon #1 draft pick Andrew Luck, losing by 3 to a BCS team, but the loss was on him? He was "responsible" for that loss too?

Maynard had some stinkers. But you also have to acknowledge games like the 2012 win over a ranked UCLA team where he went 25 of 30 (83.3%) for 295 yards 4 TDs and 1 Int (and rushing for a 5th TD) for a 203 QBR our offense putting up 480 yards and beating UCLA 43-17. A UCLA team that won the PAC-12 South.

---

I would add Maynard's game at ASU and a dramatic win at Colorado. He was really good in the ASU game, which I attended. I always felt people were too hard on Maynard.

MSaviolives said:

---

calumnus said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

I realize Maynard was our best option. I blame Tedford for that. And the Maynard era proves how misleading stats can be. I attended those games in person and Maynard single-handedly lost us quite a few games during his time at Cal.

---

By that token Longshore was "responsible" for every loss in 2006 and 2007 except for the one Riley "lost."

We can probably go through every single Cal loss, and with few exceptions, pin it on the QB.

But 2012, we go to Ohio State and Maynard completes 70% of his passes while Bigelow has 4 carries for 160 yards and 2 TDs, but then sits the rest of the game. 4th and short in Ohio State territory, score tied, only minutes left, Tedford elects to kick, D'Amato misses his 3rd FG attempt. Ohio State then goes the length of the field to win. Cal puts up 512 yards on a ranked team in their stadium, with Maynard completing 70%, but the loss is Maynard's fault and Tedford is just a victim?

OK, what about the 2011 Big Game 31-28 loss to Top 10 ranked Stanford that went 11-1 and made the BCS?

Zack Maynard 20 of 29 (69%) for 280 yards 2 TD 0 Int
Andrew Luck 20 of 30 (67%) for 257 yards 2 TD 1 Int

Maynard QBR 274
Luck QBR 154

Maynard outplays that year's Heisman runner-up and soon #1 draft pick Andrew Luck, losing by 3 to a BCS team, but the loss was on him? He was "responsible" for that loss too?

Maynard had some stinkers. But you also have to acknowledge games like the 2012 win over a ranked UCLA team where he went 25 of 30 (83.3%) for 295 yards 4 TDs and 1 Int (and rushing for a 5th TD) for a 203 QBR our offense putting up 480 yards and beating UCLA 43-17. A UCLA team that won the PAC-12 South.

---

I would add Maynard's game at ASU and a dramatic win at Colorado. He was really good in the ASU game, which I attended. I always felt people were too hard on Maynard.

---

Yes, people forget the games where he played great and won or hung with ranked teams largely on his play.

Longshore, Riley and Maynard were all strikingly similar with similar overall stats, high highs and low lows. People here were brutal towards Maynard, rough on Riley but loved Longshore despite the fact that Longshore was surrounded by far and away the most talent. Part of it is the quarterback gets too much blame and too much credit for wins and losses, so being an average quarterback on a great team makes people think you are better than you are (plenty of examples in NFL history). I suspect there is more to it than that, but it was definitely a case of people being in denial about Tedford's decline and needing a scapegoat, even including conspiracy theories.

calumnus said:

---

MSaviolives said:

---

calumnus said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

I realize Maynard was our best option. I blame Tedford for that. And the Maynard era proves how misleading stats can be. I attended those games in person and Maynard single-handedly lost us quite a few games during his time at Cal.

---

By that token Longshore was "responsible" for every loss in 2006 and 2007 except for the one Riley "lost."

We can probably go through every single Cal loss, and with few exceptions, pin it on the QB.

But 2012, we go to Ohio State and Maynard completes 70% of his passes while Bigelow has 4 carries for 160 yards and 2 TDs, but then sits the rest of the game. 4th and short in Ohio State territory, score tied, only minutes left, Tedford elects to kick, D'Amato misses his 3rd FG attempt. Ohio State then goes the length of the field to win. Cal puts up 512 yards on a ranked team in their stadium, with Maynard completing 70%, but the loss is Maynard's fault and Tedford is just a victim?

OK, what about the 2011 Big Game 31-28 loss to Top 10 ranked Stanford that went 11-1 and made the BCS?

Zack Maynard 20 of 29 (69%) for 280 yards 2 TD 0 Int
Andrew Luck 20 of 30 (67%) for 257 yards 2 TD 1 Int

Maynard QBR 274
Luck QBR 154

Maynard outplays that year's Heisman runner-up and soon #1 draft pick Andrew Luck, losing by 3 to a BCS team, but the loss was on him? He was "responsible" for that loss too?

Maynard had some stinkers. But you also have to acknowledge games like the 2012 win over a ranked UCLA team where he went 25 of 30 (83.3%) for 295 yards 4 TDs and 1 Int (and rushing for a 5th TD) for a 203 QBR our offense putting up 480 yards and beating UCLA 43-17. A UCLA team that won the PAC-12 South.

---

I would add Maynard's game at ASU and a dramatic win at Colorado. He was really good in the ASU game, which I attended. I always felt people were too hard on Maynard.

---

Yes, people forget the games where he played great and won or hung with ranked teams largely on his play.

Longshore, Riley and Maynard were all strikingly similar with similar overall stats, high highs and low lows. People here were brutal towards Maynard, rough on Riley but loved Longshore despite the fact that Longshore was surrounded by far and away the most talent. Part of it is the quarterback gets too much blame and too much credit for wins and losses, so being an average quarterback on a great team makes people think you are better than you are (plenty of examples in NFL history). I suspect there is more to it than that, but it was definitely a case of people being in denial about Tedford's decline and needing a scapegoat, even including conspiracy theories.

---

Race certainly played a large part.

But I find it interesting that you think people were easy on Longshore but rough on Riley. After the Oregon game in 2007, people here were brutal to Longshore (and Tedford for leaving him in). For the next two and a half seasons they made every apology imaginable for Riley.

GMP said:

---

calumnus said:

---

MSaviolives said:

---

calumnus said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

I realize Maynard was our best option. I blame Tedford for that. And the Maynard era proves how misleading stats can be. I attended those games in person and Maynard single-handedly lost us quite a few games during his time at Cal.

---

By that token Longshore was "responsible" for every loss in 2006 and 2007 except for the one Riley "lost."

We can probably go through every single Cal loss, and with few exceptions, pin it on the QB.

But 2012, we go to Ohio State and Maynard completes 70% of his passes while Bigelow has 4 carries for 160 yards and 2 TDs, but then sits the rest of the game. 4th and short in Ohio State territory, score tied, only minutes left, Tedford elects to kick, D'Amato misses his 3rd FG attempt. Ohio State then goes the length of the field to win. Cal puts up 512 yards on a ranked team in their stadium, with Maynard completing 70%, but the loss is Maynard's fault and Tedford is just a victim?

OK, what about the 2011 Big Game 31-28 loss to Top 10 ranked Stanford that went 11-1 and made the BCS?

Zack Maynard 20 of 29 (69%) for 280 yards 2 TD 0 Int
Andrew Luck 20 of 30 (67%) for 257 yards 2 TD 1 Int

Maynard QBR 274
Luck QBR 154

Maynard outplays that year's Heisman runner-up and soon #1 draft pick Andrew Luck, losing by 3 to a BCS team, but the loss was on him? He was "responsible" for that loss too?

Maynard had some stinkers. But you also have to acknowledge games like the 2012 win over a ranked UCLA team where he went 25 of 30 (83.3%) for 295 yards 4 TDs and 1 Int (and rushing for a 5th TD) for a 203 QBR our offense putting up 480 yards and beating UCLA 43-17. A UCLA team that won the PAC-12 South.

---

I would add Maynard's game at ASU and a dramatic win at Colorado. He was really good in the ASU game, which I attended. I always felt people were too hard on Maynard.

---

Yes, people forget the games where he played great and won or hung with ranked teams largely on his play.

Longshore, Riley and Maynard were all strikingly similar with similar overall stats, high highs and low lows. People here were brutal towards Maynard, rough on Riley but loved Longshore despite the fact that Longshore was surrounded by far and away the most talent. Part of it is the quarterback gets too much blame and too much credit for wins and losses, so being an average quarterback on a great team makes people think you are better than you are (plenty of examples in NFL history). I suspect there is more to it than that, but it was definitely a case of people being in denial about Tedford's decline and needing a scapegoat, even including conspiracy theories.

---

Race certainly played a large part.

But I find it interesting that you think people were easy on Longshore but rough on Riley. After the Oregon game in 2007, people here were brutal to Longshore (and Tedford for leaving him in). For the next two and a half seasons they made every apology imaginable for Riley.

---

The accepted wisdom on this board from the "insiders" and the vast number of posters was thst the problem with the 2007 team was Desean Jackson and "team dissension" and that we would be better in 2008 due to "addition by subtraction."

The core issue was Tedford playing Longshore when he was obviously still injured in 2007. When he came back he threw 9 TDs against 11 interceptions, could no longer throw deep to take advantage of Djax and Hawk and had a passing rating near Ayoob's. (116). We went 1-5 over the second half with Longshore taking every snap, including losing the Axe to a 3-8 Stanford team.

Other than that infamous mistake against OSU, Riley played well in 2007. He went 36 of 56 (64%) for 563 yards 5 TDs and 1 Int for a 175 QBR.

We had a legit QB controversy in 2007, due solely to Longshore's injury status, and people took sides. Most people who wanted Riley explicitly said it was due to Longshore's injury. That continued into 2008 when Longshore suffered a pec injury while weight lifting. People on Riley side said Longshore was hurt. People on the Longshore side said Riley was "re-tarded."

People tried to manufacture QB controversies in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 saying successively Sweeney, Mansion, Hinder or Bridgford should be the starter, but when they did get in the game, even starting due to injury, it was clear Riley and Maynard were significantly better than the competition. Even still, people here rooted for Riley and later Maynard to get injured. No one ever wished for Longshore to get injured. So, while you are right, Longshore got some criticism, it did not rise nearly to the level of that directed against Riley and especially Maynard.

Again, Desean Jackson was made the scapegoat for 2007 (because he had gone to Tedford and lobbied for Riley to be forgiven for OSU and be returned to the starting position. Apparently Longshore and his supporters, including coaches and insiders didn't like that).

The Glory Years!

They certainly were! This coming from guy who's been going since '63. Only coaches that had a "Glory year" were White, Snyder & Tedford. And JT had twice as many as Mike & Bruce.

Dgoldnbaer said:

---

They certainly were! This coming from guy who's been going since '63. Only coaches that had a "Glory year" were White, Snyder & Tedford. And JT had twice as many as Mike & Bruce.

---

Of course Tedford was at Cal as long as White and Snyder combined.

Though, White's glory year, 1975, we were 8-3 finishing #14 in the AP with no bowl game.

dimitrig said:

---

Tedford had to be fired because of the APR issue.

That's it.

It is as simple as that.

---

Agree that all academics were the killer. As I have pointed out before the Academic Senste had had their fill of JT's promises to improve academic performance of the team and academic qualities the recruits. They were tired of his asking for "just one more" exception to the supposed requirements that ALL recruits were to abide by. They had decided that JT would never change. The APR put into numbers what the Academic Senate knew to be the reality JT was trying to make Cal a football factory.
The Zach Maynard situation hurt JT because many players and their families thought JT was play favorites this lost him some support among the players.
The losses on the field sealed JT's demise