calumnus;592586 said:

---

You are comparing the current state of Cal football to the crappy Stanford basketball in the 80s in the old Maples? They were outdrawn by their women's team.

---

Actually, I'm wasn't really intending to compare anything. I am really questioning the notion that coaches "plateau" in general. I hear it very frequently, and I am not sure what it is based on. I understand athletes hitting a plateau, and then declining, based on age. But I don't think that applies to coaches (maybe at some age it would, but looking at Paterno, it seems to be a really big number before that happens :p ).

My point with Monty's record at Stanfurd was that if you looked at his first nine seasons, it may have seemed that he had plateaued. He hadn't. I guess the extension I would make to Cal football is that I don't think there is any magic age or number of years in the job that would preclude Tedford from reaching or surpassing the success he had earlier in his career, as long as the recruiting, assistant coaching, facilities and other factors are there to support it.

I think the "plateau" that is referred to is one of the mind....for those lawyers here...modus operendi.....what little changes we have recently and are now seeing I believe is coming from those factors which you named, that is, assitant coaches, different players, etc., not from the head coach per se.......

Blueblood;592566 said:

---

Hey, Jerrry babes, did you manage to enjoy the Cal oregon game even though you kept reading my posts?

---

I actually was able to look forward to the game, and I enjoyed watching it, even though we lost. If you're going to go on another: "No way we win this game, why even bother to go" rant, let me know, so I can put you on ignore again.

Tedford is a great coach for Cal in many ways. Many of the things he established, especially the Academic Gameplan, are an absolute neccesity for any coach at Cal going forward. There are many things to be thankful for. that does not mean he "deserves" additional years. He has already been well compensated for his contributions.

Rather than quantify any number of wins he needs, the biggest issue in my mind of whether Tedford should stay on as head coach of the Cal football team (other than contract/financial concerns) is [U]how effective he is being as a head coach.[/U]

The single biggest issue is QB development and the offense. As a former OC, he has had trouble making the transition to being a head coach and still having effective QB development and fielding an effective offense--an offense that is flexible enough to adapt to the ever changing mix of skills and talents on a college team and puts our student athletes in the best position to win.

Hiring an OC and largely turning the offense over to him, the structure employed by most HCs, has not worked. I don't think Tedford tries that again.

Instead, this year he has staked his future and the immediate future of Cal football on an "offense by committee" approach. It definitely has shown some promise, with some good ideas and better results than the last few years, but from my standpoint it still has a lot to be desired. We are still not focusing enough on our players' strengths. I often do not see a lot of intelligence in our personnel decisions/play calling. (the "Gould chooses the player and the play is independent of the player" problem is COMPLETELY systemic). This team cries out for more creativity and misdirection. I honestly feel that the issues in the Red Zone are largely on the coaches. We may still be exhibiting tendencies that opposing coaches know only too well. Hopefully, our approach produces an improved offense as the year progresses. The staff will definitely have at least next year to improve the process as well. If at the end of next year we have a coherent, intelligent offense, and it looks like we are developing QBs to take over with the offense adjusted to fit them with little drop off in play, then I will agree that Tedford has finally put a workable system in place.

My fear is that offense is one of those areas that cannot easily be done by committee, that someone really smart needs to be in charge of the game plan and the personnel and that person needs to call plays from the press box (Oregon's offense is an exception). However, if Tedford gets a system in place that works and is stable (replicable, year after year) then I think we can expect as much year over year improvement from Tedford as any very good coach. There would be every reason to keep him.

My only other concern about Tedford is areas that are often deemed "conservative" like fullback dives on 2nd and short, but are actually not conservative at all, or taking a knee before the half--just wasted opportunities that lower your chances of ultimately scoring. Then his "creativity" ends up being things like the wildcat--with a keeper up the middle 90% of the time (hopefully that was just Ludwig). I think a successful HC these days needs to be more aggressive than Tedford has shown us in the past. However, maybe if he had a more effective offense (see above) he would be more aggressive with it.

There is a reason we were happy with our records in 2002 and 2003, the team appeared to be well run and we could project that things would only get better as our recruiting improved and players were drawn to a winner.

MrGPAC;592356 said:

---

I'm probably one of the bigger Tedford supporters on this board.

~MrGPAC

---

You won't be after three more years.

oskihasahearton;592363 said:

---

I'm for Tedford all the way. There is not another rational option.

"It is by no means an irrational fancy that, in a future existence, we shall look upon what we think our present existence, as a dream." -EAP

:beer:

---

oski...: Who's EAP? I agree with the quote. In fact, we don't have to wait for a future existence. 5decadefan

5decadefan;592687 said:

---

oski...: Who's EAP?

---

Edgar Allan Poe

BeachyBear;592372 said:

---

Okay, THAT is a positive post. Yes, it's possible to call for a coach's replacement while acknowleding his accomplishments and respecting differing points of view.

This is how a lot of the Cal community feels - that JT has been great for the program, but that it may be time for a change, for a lot of good reasons that can be disucussed.

This is a refreshing contrast to the posts attributing some evil personality flaw on the coach or call anyone who says anything positive about JT a "homer" and accusing Cal fans of not caring about FB for (heaven forbid) suggesting he coach another year before giving him the axe.

This is what disappointed me so much about the Braun discussion. It wasn't that people who thought he should go didn't have a point, but that they were so venemous and dogmatic in their point of view they made the BB board insufferable. Now in hindsight people can say Braun was good, it was time for him to go, and now we're doing better.

I wish we had more JT critics on this board who had this kind of perspective. We could sure use it around here.

---

Beachy,

I'm probably one of the more vocal "Negabears' when it comes to Tedford. I lost a ton of faith in him back in 2007 when he kept sending Longshore out to start at QB, and nothing since then has convinced me that he's fixed the issues.

I've also tried to be a little philosophical. I may believe that he is no longer one of the better Pac-12 coachs, and I have taken the time to show that just about every Pac-10 team has a winning record against Tedford since their last coaching change. And remember that he is now the Pac-10 coach with the longest tenure. Every other team has changed coaches at least one time since he was hired.

I have to admit, he brings a lot fo the program, and the fact that he emphasizes passing classes is wonderful in an era when many coaches just care about fielding the best team possible. His teams rarely play out of control and do not rack up the penalty counts of ASU and USC.

But I'm still waiting to see if he can find a way to win against the newer coaches. His failures to adjust in the second half of games, and his sometimes inexplicable offensive play calls frustrate me. This year I am granting him some grace because he has a new QB and a lot of youth on the D side of the ball, but I do want to see improvement. I'm increasingly worried that Cal is becoming much like USC was under Pete Carroll, recruiting top athletes, but not developing them much. For USC is worked because they got top 5 classes every year and could simply out athlete any team they played. Cal is getting recruiting classes between 15-25 nationally. They aren't going to have the athletes to simply out physical other teams.

Seriously, this is so much nicer.

When we first announced Tedford was our coach I was pyssed because I thought, here we go again... getting some nobody assistant coach, from Oregon no less, who will just use CAL as a stepping stone.

Obviously my opinion changed real fast. But what really did it for me is when Tedford committed to CAL after the 2004 season. He was as hot a coaching property as there was and for once, someone saw the greatness that could be CAL. I'm a big fan of loyalty... but not at the expense of results. It's what's considered "acceptable" results that becomes the issues. AND it's what those results are, especially at a place like CAL. You have to deliver on the field. There is no doubt about that. But you also need to deliver off the field. And there is the financial issue. People talk about how much we pay Tedford but what always gets left out (and I always try and insert it) is the tens of millions of dollars in extra revenue that have results due to Tedford's success. That revenue never existed before.

I've said this before, but I do not believe Tedford is owed anything more than to be treated fairly, as we all should be. That means if for some reason (and I don't think this will happen) we were to absolutely tank this season, then Sandy would be absolutely in her right to make a change. We cannot afford to have a depressed and apathetic fan base next year... or for the next 15 years!

I think saying you'll be disappointed if we don't have 11 wins next season, especially when we are playing AT Ohio State is a little severe. So we'll see what happens. I want to get back the program "mojo" we had as recently as 2009 when we opened the season with the win against Maryland before a big and loud crowd on labor day weekend... followed by the ESPN game where we beat Minnesota... yeah it got worse from there, but people forget it was jut a couple of years ago where things felt great. In 2009, if we beat Washington, the ENTIRE feel of that season is different. That's why every game is so important.

So we'll see.

86Oski;592689 said:

---

Edgar Allan Poe

---

Huh. Edgar Allen Poe. Thanks, again. 5decadefan

This is a GREAT thread !!!!!!!!

:bravo

LOUMFSG2;592624 said:

---

Actually, I'm wasn't really intending to compare anything. I am really questioning the notion that coaches "plateau" in general. I hear it very frequently, and I am not sure what it is based on. I understand athletes hitting a plateau, and then declining, based on age. But I don't think that applies to coaches (maybe at some age it would, but looking at Paterno, it seems to be a really big number before that happens :p ).

My point with Monty's record at Stanfurd was that if you looked at his first nine seasons, it may have seemed that he had plateaued. He hadn't. I guess the extension I would make to Cal football is that I don't think there is any magic age or number of years in the job that would preclude Tedford from reaching or surpassing the success he had earlier in his career, as long as the recruiting, assistant coaching, facilities and other factors are there to support it.

---

Got it. "Plateauing" is a coach at a program producing similar results, year after year. That should not be surprising, you would expect similar results unless something major changes. It is all about momentum.

As a new coach, if your arc is upward, there is excitement among the fans and the recruits. Tedford 2002, 2003 and 2004 was definitely on this path. If Rodgers stayed his senior year with Lynch and Jackson I am convinced we knock off SC and go to the Rose Bowl or better. The entire course of the program continues upward. We out recruit SC, we get top QB recruits. we become an established power. Oregon under Kelly is now on a similar path. Stanford would be if Harbaugh stayed, we will see what happens the next few years.

Mongomery at Stanford had plateaued. He had a system that worked for "Stanford" recruits and it was successful enough by Stanford standards that he could stay there forever. Something had to change to produce a different result. What changed was 1) he got lucky on finding a great but overlooked point guard in Brevin Knight and 2) he got really lucky in an NCAA tournament draw and in the upsets in his bracket that lead to a cinderella Final Four. Now he had that "new program" momentum. He 3) started landing top recruits, especially in L.A., assisted by the perception that UCLA's Lavin was not a good coach, the Stanford location/degree and a new emphasis at Stanford in admitting top athletes.

I think Tedford/Cal has plateaued, but it has looked like regression largely because the rest of the league has improved. So really the questions around Tedford and Cal, are what has or will change to return us to upward momentum? Most are pointing to the SAHPC and the new stadium, both for the recruiting benefits and for the player development benefits. Undoubtedly the facilities will help in those areas. SC sanctions open up some recruits (tempered by the improvements at Washington, Oregon and Stanford).

Those who want a change at the top point out that Cal has had top recruits in the past and under-performed. Moreover, the benefits in recruiting from the new facilities would accrue to a new coach as well.

Thus, I think the challenge for Tedford is to be that new coach, to reinvent himself and our offense to take advantage of the time on his contract and the influx in top recruits in order to regain our momentum. It would help if he gets lucky with a Brevin Knight/Aaron Rodgers.

He will quit for greener pastures before he is fired I would think.

I think 11 wins next year is doable - every game is winnable. I do not feel that way this year.

But clearly the biggest issue the last 4 years has been recruiting. What people do not realize is that we are reaping what the tree-sitters sowed three and four years ago. Those terrible recruiting classes are now our juniors and seniors. We have had a good two years of below par recruits working it's way through our system. Through all of that, we had a situation with poor QBs - including a 5 star recruit (Ayoob) who was terrible, and a very good QB who got injured and was never the same, and Riley who never recovered from a public humiliation. Tedford mismanaged that process. But that is in the past, those issue are not really common, and the fact is that we are going to be better.

Right now, I think we are as good or better than the southern division teams - any or all of them. We will find out, but I would not be surprised to see that our only real competition to get to the Rose Bowl in the next three - five years is Oregon - a team that I know we can beat - hell, we held them to 15 points last year. We will get better, and JT will get us there. Maybe not this year or next year, but we will be back.

I look at Bobby Bowden, Joe Paterno, Frank Beamer - all of who did not start out so dominant. The fact is that if you have a long term coach running a high quality decent program the program itself brings in better recruits. Change for Change sake is a destroyer of programs.

SeymoreBear;592291 said:

---

Okay, long time Tedford supporter.

My trust in his ability is wearing thin, but since he was responsible for reviving our program and putting the whole new memorial stadium plan/sahpc to the works he deserves our applause.

That said, this year I figured with all of our question marks we'd reach 8-5 (with a bowl win) so a 7-5 season.

I think he deserves at least 1 year in the new stadium and SAHPC, along with a better schedule next year.

But if we don't have at least 11 wins next year, things need to change. It will be officially a plateau. I'm sick of being disappointed, and I want to add that Rose Bowl rose to my tattoo (hehe)


Tedford is one of only 25 FBS coaches getting paid at least 2 million dollars a year, and is almost in the only 9 coaches making 3 million [source USA today]. This means we deserve BCS games.


With a brand new stadium, the #1 public and #2 overall university in the world, being in beautiful bay area with back to back to back (assuming this year) top 15 recruiting classes, a TOP OF THE LINE SAHPC which will be most definitely be tied for 1st in the pac-12 and in the top 15 in the nation, attracting a high profile coach should not be a problem especially if the boosters are willing to expend as much money (2.85 million) on a new HC.


So Tedford, it's your chance to show us that you can still get us to that Rose Bowl game, and beyond.

But in my eyes, you have one year.

---

At the beginning, you claim to be a Tedford supporter. But in paragraph 5 you say that if the team records less than 11 wins in 2012, "...things need to change." So, if Cal is 10-3 in 2012, you want Tedford gone?

You also unequivocally equate Tedford's salary with a BCS bowl berth. Which brings to mind the obvious follow-up question: if you pay coaches BCS money, does that mean you should be guaranteed a BCS bowl game?

Moreover, there's a problem with tone. Nowhere in the post is it explicitly stated that you think the 2011 season is a failure, but the implication hangs heavy in the air like a sweltering, muggy summer day somewhere not in the Bay Area.

With that kind of outlook, why wait until the end of the 2012 season to call for his firing?

I think JT is a great guy, and a coach ppl love playing for because he's great for the school and helping kids be good citizens.

That said, if we also expect him to take us to the promised land, we're just setting ourselves up for disappointment. I doubt he has what it takes to be a Harbaugh-type coach and he'll be good for around 7-8 wins a season. But that's it. I've always hoped for more, but it always ends in disappointment; so sadly, I've just gotten used to the fact that we are who we are. Expecting more is just insane, right? (repeating the same thing over and over again, expecting a diff result?)

I'll be a Cal supporter always, but for my own health and stress's sake, I'm not putting my emotions in the roller coaster ride. I'll enjoy the season if we do well and win, but also even if we manage to put on a show here and there.

Jeff82;592553 said:

---

OK, dirty is the wrong word. To be more specific, at the time he was fired, there was discussion of hiring him at Cal, and more than one poster said they would not want to have their kid playing for him, as I recall. I don't think the alumni would consider him a good representative of the school.

When I referred to assistants, I meant OCs and DCs. Wasn't Gilbertson a DC when he was hired? Mike Stoops was a coordinator for his brother. Coordinators can't always step up to be the head guy. That's why I'm torn.

---

Gilbertson was the OC for UW.

This is what gets me... you say you always hope for more (than a 7-8 win season) but it always ends in disappointments...

we are two years removed from a 9 win season.

two years before that was a 10 win season, with a share of the PAC 10 title.

two years before that was a 10 win season with a top 10 final ranking.

If you're always disappointed then I don't think you're being honest with yourself in what you expect.

calbear75;592766 said:

---

That said, if we also expect him to take us to the promised land, we're just setting ourselves up for disappointment. I doubt he has what it takes to be a Harbaugh-type coach and he'll be good for around 7-8 wins a season. But that's it. I've always hoped for more, but it always ends in disappointment; so sadly, I've just gotten used to the fact that we are who we are. Expecting more is just insane, right? (repeating the same thing over and over again, expecting a diff result?)

---

You're talking history....the poster you question is talking recent treand mirroring Cal football history.......get up to speed....

calumnus;592739 said:

---

As a new coach, if your arc is upward, there is excitement among the fans and the recruits. Tedford 2002, 2003 and 2004 was definitely on this path. If Rodgers stayed his senior year with Lynch and Jackson I am convinced we knock off SC and go to the Rose Bowl or better. The entire course of the program continues upward. We out recruit SC, we get top QB recruits. we become an established power. Oregon under Kelly is now on a similar path. Stanford would be if Harbaugh stayed, we will see what happens the next few years.

---

I agree in general, except for the out-recruiting USC part. There's way more that factors into this than beating them head-to-head and finishing ahead of them in the conference a few times.

Blueblood;592857 said:

---

You're talking history....the poster you question is talking recent treand mirroring Cal football history.......get up to speed....

---

no. the poster said "always." i think you would be well served spending a little more time digesting what people post instead of being in a hurry to pavlovianly snarkly respond to everything i post. Just a thought.

Oh I understand, bub, believe me as my bowel movements show me I do indeed spend a lot of time "digesting what people post", thanks for contributing, bub....

Oski87;592759 said:

---

I look at Bobby Bowden, Joe Paterno, Frank Beamer - all of who did not start out so dominant. The fact is that if you have a long term coach running a high quality decent program the program itself brings in better recruits. Change for Change sake is a destroyer of programs.

---

Not sure I agree. You bring up three examples of long term coaches that were able to bounce back after some down years. I can also highlight a number of coaches that stayed long after their expiration date. Also a number of examples of coaching changes (of pretty good coaches) that led to even better performances.

Of course, there are changes that led to disasters. My point is that we cannot compare THIS situation w/ JT to others. We (and more importantly Sandy) should look at the variables for THIS decision only.

JT has proven that Cal is certainly capable of getting to a Rose Bowl if not a NC game. If Makonnen doesn't slip...if DJ doesn't step out of bounds...if Longshore doesn't get injured. With the new stadium, facilities and being Cal (yes, I said it, being Cal), we absolutely have the potential to be an elite CFB program.

Fans at Cal are often times apathetic b/c Cal has not been very good for any sustained period of time. We are THE flagship university for CA (one of three top recruiting states, TX and FL being the other two).

I think JT's greatest accomplishment at Cal is getting "some" of the fanbase to believe that we can be an elite program. That's how we got the stadium renovations and the SAHPC. Our ceiling is not UW (back in the 90s), it's UT. I, for one (and my friends), am forking over ESP money b/c we believe Cal can be an elite program (and yes, elite programs have their down years, but the ceiling is a NC and you always know they will be back).

I don't have a minimum win figure in mind for JT, this year or next. It's more if I believe that he is the right HC to make Cal an elite program. I am 60-40 that Cal needs someone new to make that next step.

That second half at OR was brutal. It wasn't so much that UO had much better athletes (they don't), it was more the system and coaching at UO was dramatically better than Cal's. How can a team like UO (even w/ Nike's money) go to the RB, the NC game and just be at such a highler level than Cal?! Chip Freaking Kelly?! That guy is coaching circles around JT. That's nuts, but it's happening.

I am not saying we should follow the Quacks lead (that would go against the whole point of my post). What I am saying is that (even as a big JT fan), I am starting to feel (grudgingly) that he is not "Bobby Bowden, Joe Paterno, Frank Beamer." I am only looking at JT/Cal's situation and it's beginning to feel that he is not the one to lead Cal to an elite level. I have never hoped to be wrong more.

GO BEARS!

KoreAmBear;592499 said:

---

Say that we continue to underachieve the next two seasons, would it be about time for Urban Meyer to come out of retirement?

---

It would be crazy NOT to give Urban Meyer (health permitting) or Chris Peterson a phone call at the end of 2012 if necessary....especially a guy with deep California roots like Peterson. As a UC Davis grad, he would be perfect at Cal.

KoreAmBear;592499 said:

---

...That said, I want JT to quash all these thoughts and go on a run the rest of this season and for seasons ahead. I think we all want that. Go Bears!

---

Yeah, ditto. Let's hope for the best in the meantime.

TorBear;592871 said:

---

I agree in general, except for the out-recruiting USC part. There's way more that factors into this than beating them head-to-head and finishing ahead of them in the conference a few times.

---

Well, yes I may have overstated that, but I do think the victory over SC in 2003 and close loss in 2004 helped us beat them out for 5 star receiver Desean Jackson, for example.

Moreover, if Rodgers comes back for his senior year we beat them in 2005, no doubt in my mind, we do even better than we did in recruiting, and then we beat them again in 2006 (or at least beat Arizona), now we have beat them 3 out of 4 with the only loss being the 2004 game? We are going to the Rose Bowl or even the National Championship game two years in a row?

Think about it--in that 2006 Rose Bowl/National Championship Game, with Rodgers at the helm we get revenge against Mack Brown and Texas and the world sees how great Rodgers, Jackson, Hawkins, Lynch etc. are? Aaron Rodgers is then the #1 pick in the 2006 draft? Just think of the QBs beating down Tedford's door! We would have been THE hottest program in the country.

So while I can't say for sure that we out recruit SC, I can say with confidence that our recruiting improves, rather than declines and we continue with our positive momentum.

According to the negs, recruiting went down because 2007 and 2008 showed that Tedford "sucked" and therefore recruits dumped him. According to the non-negs, recruiting went down because of the controversy of the SAHPC construction and the resulting delays, which meant the facilities were no good, and recruits dumped us.

I have no idea which side is correct, I just point out that this is a major point of disagreement as to what is to blame for the recent slide.

Essentially, the negs more or less believe the coach is to blame for everything that happens, and provide little or no leeway for any extenuating circumstances, which makes them great fans with high expectations, or jerks, depending on how you look at it. The non-negs are either more charitable, or just soft, also depending on how you look at it.

SeymoreBear;592302 said:

---

I wanna see what you guys think, and any HC that you would like to see if Tedford can't pull it around.

---

Great thread and great responses by all. Here's my take.

SeymoreBear, I agree with most of what you say, however, before 'expecting' to win 11 games perhaps you should consider the capabilities of our opponents. Before I bust out the 2012 schedule, I will simply say that the 2004 team had a FAR easier road to 11 wins than the 2012 Bears will have -- and they had one of the greatest QB's to ever play the game. The 2012 team will not have that luxury but I digress.

While the 2012 Schedule has yet to be released, here is what we do know.

At Ohio State -- This is going to be an extremely tough game. The Ohio State we will see in 2012 will be vastly different from the team they have now. They are still loaded with talent and not many people can win @ the Horseshoe.

At USC - Never an easy game. Barkley will probably be gone but Woods will be a Junior, Marquise Lee a Sophomore, and who knows what else they will have in store for us when we play them. Not an easy game to say the least.

vs Stanford - They will still be very tough. Stanford still has 500 TE's who can catch and sell the play-action. We still don't have Linebackers or Safeties who can cover and I hope we develop some soon. McCain has tremendous potential in coverage.

vs Oregon - They will still be loaded and likely still have DT as their starting QB. DAT will be a sophomore and he already looks amazing.

vs Washington - Fortunately, most of our tough games are at home but Washington will be very tough next year. Price is already playing extremely well and he will be a Junior next year. Kasan Williams will be a sophomore as will ASJ, their humongous TE. Bishop Sankey looks like a very good RB for them -- he will also be a sophomore.

at Washington State - Their offense is really coming along and Tuel will be a senior. Stud WR Marques Wilson will be a junior. I really hope our secondary plans on improving drastically by next year.

We will probably play another conference road game against a team from the South. It will be against Utah, Arizona, or Arizona State. I really hope we avoid Arizona State because they've got a solid team with a solid QB. Brock Osweiler will be a Junior next year.

The Pac 12 will be stacked next year and I didn't even mention UCLA -- who could end up being tough themselves once they replace Slick Rick.
Looking at this schedule, 11 wins would mean Cal would be worthy of National Championship consideration. While I like the young talent on our team, I just can't fathom an improvement drastic enough to EXPECT 11 wins from this schedule. IMO, 10 wins against this schedule will be a tremendous accomplishment with 9 being very acceptable. I will be expecting 8-9 wins because like many other Pac 12 teams next year, we will be very good.

Ahhhhh....a damn good post holmoephobic....I unfortunately agree with your post which empohasizes aspects of next season most bear fans will ignore while predicting
Maynard taking Cal to the Rose Bowl or even better.......however, your reasoned position seems to ignore the effect of Cal's facilities helping Cal get 11 wins next year......

Blueblood;593270 said:

---

Ahhhhh....a damn good post holmoephobic....I unfortunately agree with your post which empohasizes aspects of next season most bear fans will ignore while predicting
Maynard taking Cal to the Rose Bowl or even better.......however, your reasoned position seems to ignore the effect of Cal's facilities helping Cal get 11 wins next year......

---

Thank you Blueblood.

Next year schedule will have the following games at home:

Oregon
Washington
Stanford
Arizona State
UCLA
Nevada

And the following games on the road:

@Washington State
@ Oregon State
@ USC
@ Ohio State
@ Utah

With one game to be determined (probably at home vs a cupcake). Thats only 5 road games with the hardest pac12 venues eliminated (@Oregon, @ Washington). We'll be playing 2 tough venues still though (@USC, @Ohio State) and another game at altitude (@Utah). All our biggest in conference opponents are at a newly renovated stadium, Arizona State Stanford Washington and Oregon.

It won't get much easier than this (in conference) scheduling wise when we see a repeat subbing @ colorado for @ utah, with Arizona coming into town instead of Arizona state in 2014. 2013 has us vs Ohio State and @ Oregon Washington and Stanford again.

~MrGPAC

When will the Ohio State game be in the schedule? Early or late?

Edit: Ah, I'm seeing 9/15 on various sites.

MrGPAC;593354 said:

---

Next year schedule will have the following games at home:

Oregon
Washington
Stanford
Arizona State
UCLA
Nevada

And the following games on the road:

@Washington State
@ Oregon State
@ USC
@ Ohio State
@ Utah

With one game to be determined (probably at home vs a cupcake). Thats only 5 road games with the hardest pac12 venues eliminated (@Oregon, @ Washington). We'll be playing 2 tough venues still though (@USC, @Ohio State) and another game at altitude (@Utah). All our biggest in conference opponents are at a newly renovated stadium, Arizona State Stanford Washington and Oregon.

It won't get much easier than this (in conference) scheduling wise when we see a repeat subbing @ colorado for @ utah, with Arizona coming into town instead of Arizona state in 2014. 2013 has us vs Ohio State and @ Oregon Washington and Stanford again.

~MrGPAC

---

Can you please provide the link for our 2012 schedule? I can't find it anywhere.

MrGPAC;593354 said:

---

Next year schedule will have the following games at home:

Oregon
Washington
Stanford
Arizona State
UCLA
Nevada

And the following games on the road:

@Washington State
@ Oregon State
@ USC
@ Ohio State
@ Utah

With one game to be determined (probably at home vs a cupcake). Thats only 5 road games with the hardest pac12 venues eliminated (@Oregon, @ Washington). We'll be playing 2 tough venues still though (@USC, @Ohio State) and another game at altitude (@Utah). All our biggest in conference opponents are at a newly renovated stadium, Arizona State Stanford Washington and Oregon.

It won't get much easier than this (in conference) scheduling wise when we see a repeat subbing @ colorado for @ utah, with Arizona coming into town instead of Arizona state in 2014. 2013 has us vs Ohio State and @ Oregon Washington and Stanford again.

~MrGPAC

---

Since we play ASU and Utah this year won't we be playing UofA and Colorado next year? I thought we'd get UofA at home and be back at Colorado.

dajo9;593379 said:

---

Since we play ASU and Utah this year won't we be playing UofA and Colorado next year? I thought we'd get UofA at home and be back at Colorado.

---

For all of the California schools, the inter-divisional games against non-California schools is a 4-year cycle.

For Cal, what this means is:

Year 1 (2011)
vs Utah
at Arizona State

Year 2 (2012)
at Utah
vs Arizona State

Year 3 (2013)
vs Colorado
at Arizona

Year 4 (2014)
at Colorado
vs Arizona

It's possible I've reversed where the Colorado and Arizona games are played in Year 3 (2013) and Year 4 (2014). Even so, you get a sense of how the schedule is arranged. Years 5 through 8 are a repeat of Years 1 through 4 (assuming no further Pac-12 expansion).

FiatSlug;593394 said:

---

For all of the California schools, the inter-divisional games against non-California schools is a 4-year cycle.

For Cal, what this means is:

Year 1 (2011)
vs Utah
at Arizona State

Year 2 (2012)
at Utah
vs Arizona State

Year 3 (2013)
vs Colorado
at Arizona

Year 4 (2014)
at Colorado
vs Arizona

It's possible I've reversed where the Colorado and Arizona games are played in Year 3 (2013) and Year 4 (2014). Even so, you get a sense of how the schedule is arranged. Years 5 through 8 are a repeat of Years 1 through 4 (assuming no further Pac-12 expansion).

---

Thanks for the info. That blows that we miss UofA and Colorado twice while they are bottom feeders.