Maybe Tedford can't coach like Hairball, but I don't blame him for all the problems just yet. There are many other factors involved:

- Athletic facility - we all know how it has affected recruiting over the years.

- Practice facility - Spring and Summer practices had to move from place to place, limited area for ST practice, travel time, extra logistic - they must have affected the team somehow. Even now during the season do they have convenient lockers right by practice field? Student athletes are fighting for time just like we all do, if not more.

- Home field - the advantage isn't quite there because it's really not "home". It must have added some distraction.

- One more thing - I've been wondering about our academic load and especially our "semester" system vs the "quarter" system most other PAC-12 schools have. Our athletes have to begin a rigorous academic load end of August while most other schools still enjoy another month of just practicing and playing ball. It must have affect how our team loses their stamina toward the end of the season. Sure USC has the semester system too ... but do they really study anything down there :-)

There's nothing we can do about the semester / quarter thing, but the other factors will be gone after this year. After a couple years, the playing field will be more leveled compared to the other schools. Then we can really judge Tedford. After all, he did "discover" AR, and and you can't expect to recruit a superstar like Rodgers or Luck every 3-4 years or so. Except when you have a football tradition like USC.

Go Bears!

While you can't expect to recruit a superstar like Rodgers every time out, you certainly can develop the other 4-star or 5-star QBs that have come to campus since he left.

(All star rankings are from a "Rival" site)

2004
Longshore - 4 stars/Elite 11

2005
Ayoob - 5 stars/JuCo 1st Team All-American
Reed - 4 stars/Elite 11

2006
Riley - 4 stars/Elite 11

2007
Mansion - 4 stars/Elite 11

2008
Sweeney - 3 stars

2009
Bridgford - 4 stars/Elite 11/U.S. Army All-American

2010
Hinder - 4 stars/Elite 11/U.S. Army All-American

2011
Boehm - 4 stars

2012 (Incoming)
Kline - 4 stars/Elite 11/U.S. Army All-American

TOTAL
5-star recruits: 1
4-star recruits: 7 (8 counting Kline)
3-star recruits: 1
Elite 11: 6 (7 counting Kline)
U.S. Army/Under Armour/JuCo All-Americans: 2 (3 counting Kline)
Average Stars: 4.0

So has the cupboard really been bare? Either Tedford's had an 8-year string of bad luck picking recruits, or he has just not developed them.

Compare this with the Top 25 programs right now, and I doubt most will average 4.0 stars per recruit over an 8-year span.

Draw your own conclusion.

Compare to Oregon and Stanfrod, the two programs we now look up at in the standings:

OREGON (Under Kelly as OC and HC)

2007
None

2008
Masoli - Unranked
Thomas - 4 stars/U.S. Army All-American

2009
Hawkins - 2 stars

2010
Bennett - 4 stars

2011
Mariota - 3 stars

2012 (Incoming)
Rodrigues - 4 stars
Lockie - 3 stars

5-star recruits: 0
4-star recruits: 3 (including Rodrigues)
3-star recruits: 2 (including Lockie)
2-star recruits: 1
Unranked recruits: 1
Elite 11: 0
U.S. Army/Under Armour/JuCo All-Americans: 1
Average Stars: 2.5

Yes, Oregon and Cal have two different systems, but so what? The coach evaluates and then recruits the QB because he thinks he will be productive in his respective system. Now Furd is next...

STANFROD (Under Harbaugh and Shaw)

2007
Kiillsgaard - 4 stars

2008
Luck - 4 stars/Elite 11/U.S. Army All-American

2009
Nunes - 4 stars/Under Armour All-American

2010
Nottingham - 4 stars/Under Armour All-American

2011
Hogan - 3 stars

2012 (Incoming)
Crower - 3 stars/Elite 11

5-star recruits: 0
4-star recruits: 4
3-star recruits: 2 (including Crower)
Elite 11: 2
U.S. Army/Under Armour/JuCo All-Americans: 3
Average Stars: 3.7

FWIW, I expect Stanford to come crashing back to earth once Luck leaves. Nottingham may look like a solid player, but he's nowhere near the talent Luck is, and Hogan/Crower look far from impressive in my absolutely subjective opinion. Still, you have to admit Harbaugh did a great job beating USC with a limited QB like Pritchard in his first year.

Longshore was a quality choice and proved it until his injury. Ayoob suffered from dyslexia (presumably unknown to Tedford) and wasn't prepared to step in when Nate was injured. Riley was "sold" to Tedford by Riley and his father at an offseason camp. Apparently, they were quite persuasive (and maybe manipulative). As it turns out, it was as disruptive a recruitment as we've experienced which even today we feel the effects of. (Kind of reminds me of how the Supreme Court intervened in Bush-Gore. That didn't work out too well, either.)

ZM disappointed a lot of people this week, including me. However, the jury is still out on him, although reports from the jury room are for conviction by a wide margin.

CGB2813;598255 said:

---

Yes, Oregon and Cal have two different systems, but so what?

---

That is a huge difference and it does matter! Until very recently, spread-type QB's generally did not rate the big * numbers because they weren't the typical QB and ran boutique offenses. These are not generally QB's who are going to the next level with any success without a lot of work. Even now, it's the pro-style pocket-passer QB who rate the big numbers. What type of offense does Cal run? It's a pro/wet coast-style offense last I looked. BTW, I hate the rating system since it doesn't always indicate future success regardless of the system the player plays in. Hell, Rodgers wasn't even known coming out of HS and was barely noticed at his JC, and yet he rates as a 5* in my book even back then. There was a thread here a couple weeks ago companing him and Maynard. Are you kidding? Rodgers could read defenses even coming out of HS. Maynard is still at square one trying to do that now. It didn't take long for Rodgers to get up to speed in '03 and finish quite nicely that year.

As far as Stanford, it's really been all "Luck", so to speak. Without him, exactly how good would they be. Haven't really seen anyone else play for them so the jury is still out.

Longshore had a very good career going until the final leg injury. You can't say the '06 team wasn't pretty damn good with him leading them. Ayobe and Reed may have had the numbers, but didn't fit into this system at all. That might be on Tedford for even recruiting them. Sweeney? Give me a break! 1 star if any. His last name gave him some cred. Riley is a mystery since he played so well as a freshman. Maybe it was the receivers who made him look good, and they disappeared after his freshman year. Can't say that their replacements gave him much confidence. Mansion is another mystery, but may have worked out with more reps. Bridgford looks very promising and needs the reps. Wouldn't midn seeing him the rest of the year to see what he's got. Maybe Kline is the ultimate answer.

6bear6;598390 said:

---

Longshore was a quality choice and proved it until his injury. Ayoob suffered from dyslexia (presumably unknown to Tedford) and wasn't prepared to step in when Nate was injured. Riley was "sold" to Tedford by Riley and his father at an offseason camp. Apparently, they were quite persuasive (and maybe manipulative). As it turns out, it was as disruptive a recruitment as we've experienced which even today we feel the effects of. (Kind of reminds me of how the Supreme Court intervened in Bush-Gore. That didn't work out too well, either.)

ZM disappointed a lot of people this week, including me. However, the jury is still out on him, although reports from the jury room are for conviction by a wide margin.

---

WTF? :rollinglaugh:

C6Bear;598414 said:

---

That is a huge difference and it does matter! Until very recently, spread-type QB's generally did not rate the big * numbers because they weren't the typical QB and ran boutique offenses. These are not generally QB's who are going to the next level with any success without a lot of work. Even now, it's the pro-style pocket-passer QB who rate the big numbers. What type of offense does Cal run? It's a pro/wet coast-style offense last I looked. BTW, I hate the rating system since it doesn't always indicate future success regardless of the system the player plays in. Hell, Rodgers wasn't even known coming out of HS and was barely noticed at his JC, and yet he rates as a 5* in my book even back then. There was a thread here a couple weeks ago companing him and Maynard. Are you kidding? Rodgers could read defenses even coming out of HS. Maynard is still at square one trying to do that now. It didn't take long for Rodgers to get up to speed in '03 and finish quite nicely that year.

As far as Stanford, it's really been all "Luck", so to speak. Without him, exactly how good would they be. Haven't really seen anyone else play for them so the jury is still out.

Longshore had a very good career going until the final leg injury. You can't say the '06 team wasn't pretty damn good with him leading them. Ayobe and Reed may have had the numbers, but didn't fit into this system at all. That might be on Tedford for even recruiting them. Sweeney? Give me a break! 1 star if any. His last name gave him some cred. Riley is a mystery since he played so well as a freshman. Maybe it was the receivers who made him look good, and they disappeared after his freshman year. Can't say that their replacements gave him much confidence. Mansion is another mystery, but may have worked out with more reps. Bridgford looks very promising and needs the reps. Wouldn't midn seeing him the rest of the year to see what he's got. Maybe Kline is the ultimate answer.

---

Bridgford should be starting. No question.

C6Bear;598414 said:

---

That is a huge difference and it does matter! Until very recently, spread-type QB's generally did not rate the big * numbers because they weren't the typical QB and ran boutique offenses. These are not generally QB's who are going to the next level with any success without a lot of work. Even now, it's the pro-style pocket-passer QB who rate the big numbers. What type of offense does Cal run? It's a pro/wet coast-style offense last I looked. BTW, I hate the rating system since it doesn't always indicate future success regardless of the system the player plays in. Hell, Rodgers wasn't even known coming out of HS and was barely noticed at his JC, and yet he rates as a 5* in my book even back then. There was a thread here a couple weeks ago companing him and Maynard. Are you kidding? Rodgers could read defenses even coming out of HS. Maynard is still at square one trying to do that now. It didn't take long for Rodgers to get up to speed in '03 and finish quite nicely that year.

As far as Stanford, it's really been all "Luck", so to speak. Without him, exactly how good would they be. Haven't really seen anyone else play for them so the jury is still out.

Longshore had a very good career going until the final leg injury. You can't say the '06 team wasn't pretty damn good with him leading them. Ayobe and Reed may have had the numbers, but didn't fit into this system at all. That might be on Tedford for even recruiting them. Sweeney? Give me a break! 1 star if any. His last name gave him some cred. Riley is a mystery since he played so well as a freshman. Maybe it was the receivers who made him look good, and they disappeared after his freshman year. Can't say that their replacements gave him much confidence. Mansion is another mystery, but may have worked out with more reps. Bridgford looks very promising and needs the reps. Wouldn't midn seeing him the rest of the year to see what he's got. Maybe Kline is the ultimate answer.

---

IIRC the first time Hairball beat $C Pritchard was the QB.

I don't know how long it will last because the new coach had no track record but if you watch Stanfurd you'll see that they are more than Luck. Just like we were more than Rodgers in 2004. They have a lot of future NFLers on that team as did we.

pingpong2;598441 said:

---

IIRC the first time Hairball beat $C Pritchard was the QB.

---

He was. But that embarrassment is totally on Carroll and $C for phoning it in that day. There was no excuse for $C's loss. Luck supplanted Pritchard almost immediately after arriving on campus.

C6Bear;598509 said:

---

He was. But that embarrassment is totally on Carroll and $C for phoning it in that day. There was no excuse for $C's loss. Luck supplanted Pritchard almost immediately after arriving on campus.

---

Are you sure?...I think Luck red shirted the first year on campus.

Pritchard beat SC the first time in 07. Luck came in 08, and was a redshirt frosh in 09 when he threw the pick to Mohamed to lose Big Game.

C6Bear;598414 said:

---

That is a huge difference and it does matter! Until very recently, spread-type QB's generally did not rate the big * numbers because they weren't the typical QB and ran boutique offenses. These are not generally QB's who are going to the next level with any success without a lot of work. Even now, it's the pro-style pocket-passer QB who rate the big numbers. What type of offense does Cal run? It's a pro/wet coast-style offense last I looked. BTW, I hate the rating system since it doesn't always indicate future success regardless of the system the player plays in. Hell, Rodgers wasn't even known coming out of HS and was barely noticed at his JC, and yet he rates as a 5* in my book even back then. There was a thread here a couple weeks ago companing him and Maynard. Are you kidding? Rodgers could read defenses even coming out of HS. Maynard is still at square one trying to do that now. It didn't take long for Rodgers to get up to speed in '03 and finish quite nicely that year.

As far as Stanford, it's really been all "Luck", so to speak. Without him, exactly how good would they be. Haven't really seen anyone else play for them so the jury is still out.

Longshore had a very good career going until the final leg injury. You can't say the '06 team wasn't pretty damn good with him leading them. Ayobe and Reed may have had the numbers, but didn't fit into this system at all. That might be on Tedford for even recruiting them. Sweeney? Give me a break! 1 star if any. His last name gave him some cred. Riley is a mystery since he played so well as a freshman. Maybe it was the receivers who made him look good, and they disappeared after his freshman year. Can't say that their replacements gave him much confidence. Mansion is another mystery, but may have worked out with more reps. Bridgford looks very promising and needs the reps. Wouldn't midn seeing him the rest of the year to see what he's got. Maybe Kline is the ultimate answer.

---

You're missing my point, which is that Oregon has developed their QBs in recent years to fit their system (Masoli, Thomas). Tedford has not. So who's fault it is that Ayoob and Reed didn't fit into his system, or that Mansion didn't work out, or that Sweeney was a reach? You know the answer.

How do you guys flip a thread so easily without any thought whatsoever?

This is not a thread about JT's quarterback development.

The OP expressed a thought regarding some of the reasons why Cal football has fared so poorly recently.

Not one of you addressed any of the OP's points.

If CGB2813 wants to compile data (and post it in an innacurate fashion, btw) about the star rankings of Cal, UO, and Snotfurd qb's, then maybe he should start his own thread.

The one track mindedness of the posters on this board boggles me.

6bear6;598390 said:

---

ZM disappointed a lot of people this week, including me. However, the jury is still out on him, although reports from the jury room are for conviction by a wide margin.

---

And OJ wasn't guilty and the real murderer is still at large?????

SchadenBear;598737 said:

---

How do you guys flip a thread so easily without any thought whatsoever?

This is not a thread about JT's quarterback development.

The OP expressed a thought regarding some of the reasons why Cal football has fared so poorly recently.

Not one of you addressed any of the OP's points.

If CGB2813 wants to compile data (and post it in an innacurate fashion, btw) about the star rankings of Cal, UO, and Snotfurd qb's, then maybe he should start his own thread.

The one track mindedness of the posters on this board boggles me.

---

Surprise, Surprise. And the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West.

IIRC, SC qb broke a finger during the game, PC played him anyway (seems like something coaches other than JT do) but he threw a couple of bad interceptions that made that decison, in retrospect, the wrong one. Not the only factor, but certainly as significant as Maynard having a contused quad during U of O game that limited him and hurt the offense. - not an exact parallel either, since our D collapsed in 2nd half at U of O, just - like so many things- the situations are more complex that simplistic conclusions suggest.

Everyone wants more wins and better play. how to get there may involve more than just "fire the coach."

6bear6;598390 said:

---

Riley was "sold" to Tedford by Riley and his father at an offseason camp. Apparently, they were quite persuasive (and maybe manipulative). As it turns out, it was as disruptive a recruitment as we've experienced which even today we feel the effects of.

---

ELABORATE, please.

CGB2813;598255 said:

---

Yes, Oregon and Cal have two different systems, but so what? The coach evaluates and then recruits the QB because he thinks he will be productive in his respective system.

---

CGB2813;598724 said:

---

You're missing my point, which is that Oregon has developed their QBs in recent years to fit their system (Masoli, Thomas). Tedford has not. So who's fault it is that Ayoob and Reed didn't fit into his system, or that Mansion didn't work out, or that Sweeney was a reach? You know the answer.

---

Are you blaming it more on scouting or development? Both have been weak, but the former has been more problematic (he cannot develop what he doesn't have in the first place).

[FONT=Impact][SIZE=3][COLOR=Black]"He can make all the throws."[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT] In the last few years, JT has been quoted as surreally making that same (unsolicited) statement when referring to Riley, Mansion, and now Maynard. Think about how ridiculously off that is. He signed Sweeney, Ayoob, and Reed concluding they would fit his system. With very few recent exceptions (Bridgford, Kline), accuracy looks to be a tertiary factor in scouting passers instead of by far the most important factor. As absentee as he has been in QB talent development (dumping his young QBs on Ludwig for 2 years? Really???), his biggest failure has been as a QB talent evaluator of hs, jc, and of his own scholarship passers (whom he sees first-hand almost on a daily basis).

If Tedford was "snookered" by Rileys pere et fils, that is a greater indictment of him as a HC than his recent W-L record. It's 1 thing to err in an assessment of an athlete; another altogether to continue to rest your program on such a shaky foundation for the better part of 4 years. We're not the only school to blow some scholies on recruits who don't pan out; he ground is littered with Elite Eleven QBs who don't do squat. We may, however, have the fewest wins per QB scholarship (5 per season for most of the past few years) in the PAC.

59bear;598895 said:

---

If Tedford was "snookered" by Rileys pere et fils, that is a greater indictment of him as a HC than his recent W-L record. It's 1 thing to err in an assessment of an athlete; another altogether to continue to rest your program on such a shaky foundation for the better part of 4 years. We're not the only school to blow some scholies on recruits who don't pan out; he ground is littered with Elite Eleven QBs who don't do squat. We may, however, have the fewest wins per QB scholarship (5 per season for most of the past few years) in the PAC.

---

And if he was "snookered" he did not have to elevate Riley above the guy ahead of him in the class (Reed) or play him at all and could have recruited right over him. Riley was a 4 star QB on Scout: LINK

Quote:

---

Strengths: Accuracy and Consistency, Arm Strength, Relase

"Riley has really moved up the charts this off-season, and why not? He has a cannon for an arm and is accurate to boot. He may have the quickest release on the west coast. Not the biggest or quickest QB around."

---

If Riley had gone to Boise State (they offered), I wonder how he would have done?

If people could find a way to defend Tedford without attacking the players, I would be far more sympathetic to their arguments. Tedford is not a victim of players, their parents, or the fans. He is paid millions of dollars to find the best players for Cal, develop their talent and put them in the best possible situations to succeed.

SchadenBear;598737 said:

---

How do you guys flip a thread so easily without any thought whatsoever?

This is not a thread about JT's quarterback development.

The OP expressed a thought regarding some of the reasons why Cal football has fared so poorly recently.

Not one of you addressed any of the OP's points.

If CGB2813 wants to compile data (and post it in an innacurate fashion, btw) about the star rankings of Cal, UO, and Snotfurd qb's, then maybe he should start his own thread.

The one track mindedness of the posters on this board boggles me.

---

ha ha ha thanks SchadenBear ... I rest my case :-)

Seriously, if someone cares to address - how much do you think the semester / quarter difference affects the performance of a team? I notice that Cal always starts strong in the season but then runs out of steam in October November. And what about the heavier academic load compared to other Pac-12 schools? You don't just cruise through classes that easily at the best university in the world. (OK so Stanford is probably equally heavy, but they don't start school until late September)

HungryCalBear;598956 said:

---

ha ha ha thanks SchadenBear ... I rest my case :-)

Seriously, if someone cares to address - how much do you think the semester / quarter difference affects the performance of a team? I notice that Cal always starts strong in the season but then runs out of steam in October November. And what about the heavier academic load compared to other Pac-12 schools? You don't just cruise through classes that easily at the best university in the world. (OK so Stanford is probably equally heavy, but they don't start school until late September)

---

It don't think it affects the performance at all. The strong starts are due to the garbage competition that is generally scheduled. In addition, one thing that seems to be JT's strength is preparing the team when he has months to gameplan... Tenn, Mich St., Maryland home openers.

Maybe during game weeks Tedford can't prioritize what he needs to work, tries to cram everything and at the end, master of none weekly.

Yep, it's one thing (and totally appropriate) to put the onus on the players to perform but the coach has ultimate responibility....he picks 'em, he coaches 'em.

Nasal Mucus Goldenbear;598881 said:

---

Are you blaming it more on scouting or development? Both have been weak, but the former has been more problematic (he cannot develop what he doesn't have in the first place).

[FONT=Impact][SIZE=3][COLOR=Black]"He can make all the throws."[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT] In the last few years, JT has been quoted as surreally making that same (unsolicited) statement when referring to Riley, Mansion, and now Maynard. Think about how ridiculously off that is. He signed Sweeney, Ayoob, and Reed concluding they would fit his system. With very few recent exceptions (Bridgford, Kline), accuracy looks to be a tertiary factor in scouting passers instead of by far the most important factor. As absentee as he has been in QB talent development (dumping his young QBs on Ludwig for 2 years? Really???), his biggest failure has been as a QB talent evaluator of hs, jc, and of his own scholarship passers (whom he sees first-hand almost on a daily basis).

---

This. Well-said.

alarsuel;599003 said:

---

It don't think it affects the performance at all. The strong starts are due to the garbage competition that is generally scheduled. In addition, one thing that seems to be JT's strength is preparing the team when he has months to gameplan... Tenn, Mich St., Maryland home openers.

---

I don't see how you could not view the late instructional start and early final exam schedule a quarter system provides as being advantageous or affirmatively affecting "performance at all," when compared to the Semester system.

Cal begins Semester Instruction on: August 25, 2011.
Cal ends Semester with Final Examinations on: December 16, 2011.

Most Quarter Semester Instruction begins on: September 22, 2011.
Most Quarter Final Examination ends on: December 9, 2011.

That results in 5 more weeks of non-instructional football practice for teams like Stanford, which by the way studies under the quarter system.

HungryCalBear;598956 said:

---

ha ha ha thanks SchadenBear ... I rest my case :-)

Seriously, if someone cares to address - how much do you think the semester / quarter difference affects the performance of a team? I notice that Cal always starts strong in the season but then runs out of steam in October November. And what about the heavier academic load compared to other Pac-12 schools? You don't just cruise through classes that easily at the best university in the world. (OK so Stanford is probably equally heavy, but they don't start school until late September)

---

Other schools complain that we have an advantage in our early games because we have the students in attendance. Then having finals well after the season ends gives players some time to cram. Compare with UCLA (quarters):

First day of instruction:

Cal: Aug. 25
UCLA: Sept. 22

Finals begin:

Cal: Dec. 12
UCLA: Dec. 5

The same could be said about Stanford, USC etc. I think the biggest disadvantage for Cal players is they are taking classes in those first weeks instead of just focusing on football and in the quarter system, you could take a light Fall quarter and more easily make it up in Winter and Spring, as compared to taking a light Fall semester and making it all up in Spring Semester (One-third versus one-half of your academic load is during football season).

So it is somewhat of a mixed bag. I think it is tougher for Cal players, and an overall disadvantage during the season, but there is an advantage in early home games (and disadvantage in early away games).

calumnus;599376 said:

---

Other schools complain that we have an advantage in our early games because we have the students in attendance. Then having finals well after the season ends gives players some time to cram. Compare with UCLA (quarters):

First day of instruction:

Cal: Aug. 25
UCLA: Sept. 22

Finals begin:

Cal: Dec. 12
UCLA: Dec. 5

The same could be said about Stanford, USC etc. I think the biggest disadvantage for Cal players is they are taking classes in those first weeks instead of just focusing on football and in the quarter system, you could take a light Fall quarter and more easily make it up in Winter and Spring, as compared to taking a light Fall semester and making it all up in Spring Semester (One-third versus one-half of your academic load is during football season).

So it is somewhat of a mixed bag. I think it is tougher for Cal players, and an overall disadvantage during the season, but there is an advantage in early home games (and disadvantage in early away games).

---

And yes, "the biggest disadvantage for Cal players is they are taking classes in those first [four] weeks instead of just focusing on football."

There is little to no advantage at Cal to having early games simply because we have the students in attendance. No other Pac-12 program, aside from Stanford, has problems filling the student section or seats in general because the students are off visiting Na Na in order to make sure their tuition checks go through. Those seats are filled and the fans are pumped up.

SchadenBear;599363 said:

---

I don't see how you could not view the late instructional start and early final exam schedule a quarter system provides as being advantageous or affirmatively affecting "performance at all," when compared to the Semester system.

Cal begins Semester Instruction on: August 25, 2011.
Cal ends Semester with Final Examinations on: December 16, 2011.

Most Quarter Semester Instruction begins on: September 22, 2011.
Most Quarter Final Examination ends on: December 9, 2011.

That results in 5 more weeks of non-instructional football practice for teams like Stanford, which by the way studies under the quarter system.

---

Do you realise that the NCAA has extremely strict limits on the number of practices per week and the allowable time a team can practice. Cal practices the exact same amount per week as all of those teams on the quarter system. No team is going to go over that level. It's too easy to be caught and it would be one of the few things a coach could do that would find no other coach in the NCAA defending. They know that violating that limit would open them up to far too much criticism. Think about the kid killed trying to film practices in a wind storm for Notre Dame. The coach nearly lost his job for that. And that was legal, extremely stupid, but legal. Extending practices would be a career death for a coach.

Now you can argue that players have more time to spend on strength & conditioning and/or film study, but that is not what you posted. You tried to argue that teams on the quarter system have mroe practice time, which is one thing they don't have.

the academic calendar is not the reason that Cal looks terrible. If it was, we would ahve sucked in 2004 and 2006 as well. The problem lies elsewhere. Its nice to see you try to deflect the blame from the real issues, but this one I'd definitely call a obvious "red herring."