<blockquote><div class="name-said">pappysghost;649674 said:</div><hr>Next year could be ours if Oregon gets put on probation. USC is banned for another year and Luck will be gone. We'll play Arizona or UCLA for the Rose Bowl.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />USC will be off probation and will be very hard to beat. I think<br />they'll compete for the NT even without Barkley. In the meantime<br />we will have a drop-off at ILB even if Wilkerson moves inside, Barton emerges<br />early and Forbes steps up. Unfortunatley that position is critical for the entire Pendergast defense. However, I think we can compete for the North<br />division since we have all our top competion coming to Berkeley next year.<br />Just the Oregon, Washington and Stanford games alone, should be worth the price of a season ticket. Even the away games to WSU and Utah could be very close games. Plus UCLA comes to visit and will be much improved if they have Hundley at QB. All in all, it should be one of the more exciting years to be a bear fan, even without the new stadium and great recruiting class.

Nice, I was hoping USC had another year of probation. Well, if you want to be the best, you have to beat the best I guess.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">drunkoski;649618 said:</div><hr>7 win season and you are pulling this card? You act like people are complaining about 10-2.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I think the coach should take some blame for losses and some credit for wins. It wasn't with regard to this year that i said that but rather next year's potential for success or failure. If someone complains how tedford has produced medicocre wins and will continue to do so next year but hey "he recruits well," it seems either meant to say we lose but silver lining we have good players (um, ok) or we will continue to do so next year but I wouldn't be surprised if we pull some good wins because tedford surprisingly brings in good players despite our shortcomings. Either way, I think we should wait and see a little longer before we make predictions and subsequently pass blame or give praise on those predictions.

Until Tedford gets Cal to the promise land of BCS bowls and or Rose Bowls the questions/depression will linger....just the way it is...<br /><br />A seven win season would be fine if there was a 10 win season sandwiched in the past 2-4 years...

We did better this year than we did last year. Great! Now will (not can) we do better next year than we did this year? So on and so on.

Terrible original post. Most fans on this board are neither nega bears nor sunshine pumpers. The "window has shut" for JT haters?! What does that even mean? B/c the Bears are 7-5 (4-5 in conference or 5-5 if you count Colorado) w/ losses to all the teams ahead of us in the Pac and the crappy a** Ruins. That's just dumb.<br /><br />After the $C debacle, I officially moved from the I think JT can turn it around and get us to a RB to the I don't think JT can do it. It took me a while to get there, but I did. Now, I am just going to root for the Bears and hope that JT can indeed get Cal to the RB.<br /><br />The one thing I couldn't stand about "nega bears" is the glee they seemed to get in JT (and thus Cal) failing. On the other side, don't be a douche if JT turns it around. Be happy for the program you support and follow. Not at other fans being "wrong."

In recent years, I've been a pumper from signing day through the first three games (or whenever we suffer our first loss), and a negabear the rest of the season.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">bearblast;649462 said:</div><hr>is it the 7 wins, now possibly 8?<br /><br />Or was it the development of a qb by the 'guru' some considered as dead as tiger woods? <br /><br />Was it the grand opening of the taj mahal a.k.a sahpc ?<br /><b><br />or is it the news of another multi-star ditching usc so he could go push and elbow another multi-star out of the way to get that coveted cal football scholarship?</b><br /><br />probably all the above.<br /><br />Go bears<hr></blockquote><br /> <br />lmao...

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Aggie Bear;649668 said:</div><hr>The "sunshine pumper" vs. "negabear" mentalities confuse me. Those positions are so black and white. What about the proverbial grey area. Tedford has done some wonderful things for the program which I hope I don't have to explicitly list out. His teams have also disappointed at times, and really at some of the most important times in big games. <br />Anyways, I'll go back to relishing in the recruiting success,<b> and hoping that Tedford can get back some of his magic on the field</b>.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Although I have sometimes critcized JT on this board I think that this year he put together a good game plan and good play selection; and he now has a good collection of assistant coaches.<br />This year I thought that the failings were on the players (QB?) (yes I know that the coaches are responsible for the players).<br />I strongly believe that with a strong recruiting class last year and this year, we should be in the 9+ or 10+ win territory next year and the year after.<br />RB -- I am not so sure about.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">SnoozerBear;649737 said:</div><hr>In recent years, I've been a pumper from signing day through the first three games (or whenever we suffer our first loss), and a negabear the rest of the season.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I would imagine you're not alone.

Like anything, there will be some ups and some downs. Don't worry, the negabears will once again be able to claim the sky is falling in the near future. Just as the sunshine pumpers will be able to claim victory. The nega/pumpers tug of war is like the yin and yang of Cal FB.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Cal84;649757 said:</div><hr>Like anything, there will be some ups and some downs. Don't worry, the negabears will once again be able to claim the sky is falling in the near future. Just as the sunshine pumpers will be able to claim victory. The nega/pumpers tug of war is like the yin and yang of Cal FB.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />7 win regular season beating the teams we beat and having our asses handed to us a few times...<br /><br />Not an up IMHO.<br /><br />10+ wins would be an up.<br /><br /><br /><br />It is odd that pumpers are so desperate that they are claiming 7 wins is proof/reason to keep Tedford.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Phantomfan;649853 said:</div><hr>7 win regular season beating the teams we beat and having our asses handed to us a few times...<br /><br />Not an up IMHO.<br /><br />10+ wins would be an up.<br /><br />It is odd that pumpers are so desperate that they are claiming 7 wins is proof/reason to keep Tedford.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />It is odd that negas are so desperate that they would claim 9 wins is a down.<br /><br />Everything is relative to expectations. Most rational people expected 6 wins from this team. Instead there was a slight bump from that and perhaps more importantly some off field milestones were met. According to your logic of absolute performance, if Cal won 10 games in 2012 and then only matched that and failed to go to a BCS game in 2013, that too would be an "up". It wouldn't be in my book.

Lots of talk about 7 wins this year. Evidently nobody counts the bowl game or has conceded the Texas game as an L. 8 wins are still possible.<br /><br />This year was what was necessary, which was a step in the right direction. Despite some horrific games, I am encouraged by the progress the team showed during the year. As long as the recruiting momentum holds, we are well placed to have success in new Memorial.<br /><br />Further steps are possible and necessary; Tedford needs to prove he can compete for the Pac12 championship again. As others have noted we have not had what many resonable folks would deem sufficient success over the last few years. "Close" isn't good enough, at some point.

Tedford haters? I never have hated the guy, though I do have a strong disliking for mediocrity.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Cal84;649874 said:</div><hr>It is odd that negas are so desperate that they would claim 9 wins is a down.<br /><br />Everything is relative to expectations. Most rational people expected 6 wins from this team. Instead there was a slight bump from that and perhaps more importantly some off field milestones were met. According to your logic of absolute performance, if Cal won 10 games in 2012 and then only matched that and failed to go to a BCS game in 2013, that too would be an "up". It wouldn't be in my book.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />There is a big difference between <i>expecting</i> a certain record and <i> being happy</i> with that same record. Just because you expect something to happen doesn't mean you are happy when those expectations are met; it only means that you accurately gauged to some extent the abilities of the team before the season. If you expect something to suck and it merely does mediocre instead of flat-out sucking, the fact of the matter is that it was still mediocre, a below-average standard of performance by just about any measure.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">elpbear;649885 said:</div><hr>Lots of talk about 7 wins this year. Evidently nobody counts the bowl game or has conceded the Texas game as an L. 8 wins are still possible.<br /><br />This year was what was necessary, which was a step in the right direction. Despite some horrific games, I am encouraged by the progress the team showed during the year. As long as the recruiting momentum holds, we are well placed to have success in new Memorial.<br /><br />Further steps are possible and necessary; Tedford needs to prove he can compete for the Pac12 championship again. As others have noted we have not had what many resonable folks would deem sufficient success over the last few years. "Close" isn't good enough, at some point.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Exactly this. I HOPE the "Tedford Haters" time is over . . . I really do. Because it would mean our football team is really good next year, and the year after that.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">sycasey;649921 said:</div><hr>Exactly this. I HOPE the "Tedford Haters" time is over . . . I really do. Because it would mean our football team is really good next year, and the year after that.<hr></blockquote><br />and after that and after that and so on and so on ......

I don't think any of the so-called "Tedford Haters" hate Tedford....that term is just a hate mongering description used to invoke hate just for the sake of perpertuating hate on this Board. Such individuals that may be ascribed to this hate mongering term just hate embracing mediocrity as a triumphant attainment that must be defended in order to preserve one's identity with Cal.......

<blockquote><div class="name-said">LessMilesMoreTedford;649573 said:</div><hr>This thread is a bad idea. Its sole aim is to divide the fanbase.<br /><br />Tedford can land Shaq, Arik, Aziz, Ishmael, Payton and every one of our targets. Hell, he could lay the smackdown and put up 50 on Tex-ass. It'd be the best we've felt about Cal football in three years. <br /><br />It doesn't change the fact that if Tedford doesn't have Cal in the Rose Bowl in the next two years (or at the very least win 9-10 games and put us right at the footsteps), there will be a change in leadership. <br /><br />Cal has won nine games once in the past five years. Oregon State has done it twice, Oregon has won ten+ games three years in a row. Furd, freaking Furd has two 11+ win seasons two years in a row. That surpasses anything Tedford has ever done in his tenure.<br /><br />He has to do better. He knows has to do better. And the Pac-12 will be more formidable than ever, new recruits or not. I hope he can do it.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />I don't really agree completely with your comparisons. Oregon St has won 9 games once more than Cal in the past year, but Cal also hasn't missed a bowl two consecutive years or had a 3 win season. Would you rather be where they are right now? Would you really feel any better if Cal had their record instead of ours the last 5 years? As for Stanford, I'd put what JT accomplished in the early years on the same level. Expanded seasons + extra BCS bowl game being the main difference - that and Stanford getting lucky against USC two years in a row (and blown out by Oregon two years in a row). Anyways, 1, 2 point games are, for the most part, close to coin flips. A little bit of luck goes a long way in those games. Eventually Cal is going to end up on the winning side of a few of them when it really matters.<br /><br />Anyways, moving on to the general theme of the thread....things are looking up. Hopefully this positive trend will continue with more improvement in the standings over the next couple seasons, and ideally with a bowl win over Texas to boot. I like the direction the team appears headed, but it remains to be seen if they continue on that course. Regardless of all of the disagreements we all have, I think ultimately we're all hoping for better results.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">LafayetteBear;650025 said:</div><hr>Snoozer: Precisely my thought. Some folks (such as the OP) say NOTHING in defense of JT when things are going bad, but then suddenly pop up out of nowhere when the recruiting is going well, and in a paroxysm of sanctimonious glee, decide it is time to smite anyone who dared criticize JT with a big "I told you so." In fact, they never told us anything.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />and of course vice versa. both are ridiculous and achieve nothing.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">JeffBear07;649901 said:</div><hr> If you expect something to suck and it merely does mediocre instead of flat-out sucking, the fact of the matter is that it was still mediocre, a below-average standard of performance by just about any measure.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Actually mediocre is about average, not below average. By my measure. <img src="<img src="<img src="<img src="<img src="" />" />" />" />">

<blockquote><div class="name-said">bearblast;649462 said:</div><hr>Is it the 7 wins, now possibly 8?<br /><br />Or was it the DEVELOPMENT of a QB by the 'Guru' some considered as dead as Tiger Woods? <br /><br />Was it the grand opening of the TAJ MAHAL a.k.a SAHPC ?<br /><b><br />Or is it the news of another multi-star ditching USC so he could go push and elbow another multi-star out of the way to get that coveted Cal football scholarship?</b><br /><br />Probably all the above.<br /><br />GO BEARS<hr></blockquote><br /><br />humm... someone got up on a soap box today. Seems to be a bit enthusiastic too.<br /><br />But I'm not sure what he is enthusiastic about. And its pretty clear he doesn't understand most of the "negabears" So in the interest of adding a few logs on the fire, I'll join this debate.<br /><br />First, I don't "hate" Tedford. I admire him on several levels, especially when you consider the emphasis he puts on education and making sure his players are also successful students at Cal. He's done a lot of things right during his time at the University and deserves credit for the building of the new SAHPC and upgraded stadium.<br /><br />So we got that out of the way. Now I'm probably one of BearBlasts "haters". And its for a simple reason. While I think Tedford did a lot for the program, I no longer consider him a top level coach. For me a 7-5 (4-5) regular season will always be considered a failure. If the team can't be at least 6-3 in conference its not performing to what I consider to be the minimum to be considered "good." I'd give the team one bad season, but Cal has not been even 5-4 in conference since 2006.<br /><br />But lets go over Bearblast's points.<br /><br /><b>1) Cal has just had a 7 win season with a bowl to possibly make it an 8 win season.</b><br /><br />OK, nice. Wonderful. And back in 1983 we'd have been thrilled, but this isn't 1983, and Cal should be able to win more games. Even some of those supporting Cal have pointed out that the losses to UW and UCLA were frustrating at best and near criminal bad coaching at worst. So while its nice to have a winning season, its not enough. Especially since we went 4-5 in conference.<br /><br /><br /><b>2) that Tedford appears to have raised the level of Maynard's play he should be considered a QB "guru" again.</b><br /><br />What's funny is that Maynard started to look good when Cal started putting the ball into the hands of Sofele and running for 8-10 yards a pop against some of the Pac-12's worst defenses. With the running game going well Maynard had more time to run the passing game. So how much of the improvement was Tedford's coaching and how much was getting to face weak defenses (and quieter stadiums) is uncertain. There is no question that Maynard improved, but I don't think anyone is going to label him "elite" which would really be gold standard for QB coaching.<br /><br /><b>3) The opening of the SAHPC.</b><br /><br />Well, we all know that withoud the success in 2002-2006 the donations for the SAHPC might never have come, but the fact that its opened doesn't change the fact that Tedford has to prove his ability by coaching the team to victory on the field. His will definitely help, but it guarantees 0 wins. Tedford still has to coach the players.<br /><br /><b>4) That we might have stolen a 5-star recruit from USC</b><br /><br /><br />Well, recruiting is a huge part of college football, but I can't think of many nega-bears who knocked Tedford for his recruiting. The knock on Tedford has been the development of players once they are recruited, not for his ability or inability to attract top level talent to the program.<br /><br />----<br />So Bearblast I don't see that anything you posted proves anything or even indicates a real change in the position of most of the posters here. Those taht worry that Tedford peaked back in 2004 and that he cannot get the team to the Rose Bowl will remain skeptical until the team stops getting crushed by Oregon and USC every season. They will be unwilling to say "In Tedford we Trust" until the team stops having 1-2 away games a year where they fall behind early and then appear to sleepwalk through the rest of the game. Changing that will be the proof that Tedford really has turned things around.<br /><br />Next season will likely be the one that decides if Tedford gets more seasons. He now has his SAHPC and a new stadium to play in. His recruit class last season was one of the best Cal has ever had, and this season looks to be equally good. THe truth is that he has no more excuses for failing to put a team ont he field that doesn't get blown out and is in games until the end every week. If we are 7-5, but all loses are like the Big Game where the team was fighting until the end and nearly pulled it off, I won't complain, but if we have more games like UW and Colorado where the defense can't stop the pass and then lay an egg like we did against UCLA, I will be completely unsurprised. Tedford was a great coach when he was facing the cavilcade of losers who were coaching in the Pac-10 back in 2003, Against the coaches taht replaced them, he's proven to be no better than equal with most of them.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Blueblood;649944 said:</div><hr>I don't think any of the so-called "Tedford Haters" hate Tedford....that term is just a hate mongering description used to invoke hate just for the sake of perpertuating hate on this Board. Such individuals that may be ascribed to this hate mongering term just hate embracing mediocrity as a triumphant attainment that must be defended in order to preserve one's identity with Cal.......<hr></blockquote><br /><br />Mediocrity is what we were for 50 years (save a season or two) before Tedford came. He reshaped a half century of losing (save a good season or two). Plus he did take us to Rose Bowl, only to be cheated out by a systemic slight of hand

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Cal84;650040 said:</div><hr>Actually mediocre is about average, not below average. By my measure. <img src="<img src="<img src="<img src="<img src="" />" />" />" />"><hr></blockquote><br /><br />Good point, I stand corrected. I let my personal hopes and expectations get away from me there. "Mediocre" has such a negative connotation...

<blockquote><div class="name-said">Quote:</div><hr>humm... someone got up on a soap box today. Seems to be a bit enthusiastic too.<br /><br />But I'm not sure what he is enthusiastic about. And its pretty clear he doesn't understand most of the "negabears" So in the interest of adding a few logs on the fire, I'll join this debate.<hr></blockquote><br /><br />You know, I actually think it's a funny thing - it seems to me like most posters on the nega/sunshine sides actually agree with each other for the most part, and it's threads like this that make it seem like they don't. As you said, the thread started with a complete misevaluation of the opposite sides point - and the way I see it, that's the root for most of the disagreements on here. Both sides mostly miss the other sides point and have this idea of the other side that just isn't true. For example, I tend to fall on the "sunshine pumping" side of things, yet I agree with almost everything you said. Results haven't been good enough lately. That's the main point the "nega" side reacts to, and they're right, and almost everyone agrees what we've had the last few seasons are not what we're striving for. To paint the people who keep bringing up that point as "haters" just subtracts from the conversation (and makes everything more bitterly divided).<br /><br />On the other side of things, the point I try to bring up as often as possible is it looks like the program is headed back to where it should be, and that's the basis of my Tedford support - future expectations. I can get frustrated with posts from the "nega" side because that often gets ignored, and instead the focus is often on whether the recent performance was good enough, or that support for JT is on the basis of "it could be worse", but those aren't very relevant points to my argument. This frustration/misunderstanding clearly happens to both sides, as your post illustrates.<br /><br />So anyways, there might be disagreements on exactly where the program should be at, and how positive our outlook should be...but they strike me as mostly minor disagreements. Most people can agree we want better results, that a 7-5 season (4-5 in conference) isn't anywhere close to the ultimate goal, and is below the standard for what a typical season should be. I think a lot of the bigger disagreements come from simply mis-evaluating the other sides points. Inflammatory posts like this one just make things worse and serve to divide people into two ideological camps hellbent on beating the other. End result of that? We all lose...

Well said, BTUR. I'm an on-the-record critic of Tedford's but see no reason for the vitriol that sometimes characterizes these debates. I'd add one thing to what you said: it's really frustrating to have someone on the other side refuse to acknowledge even obvious points. For example, I brought up the fact that Tedford did not have CJ Anderson in the game on the final drive of the Washington game when we were on the 2 yard line and the fact that Tedford admitted afterward that he never even thought about it. That was quite disturbing given that it probably occurred to most of us fans. In response to my post, a Tedford advocate said that it wasn't clear that having CJ in there would have been a good move because of how few yards he had on the day. Since the question was who would be better at getting 2 yards, not 10, the comment seemed like a knee-jerk defense of JT, and such comments prevent an honest discussion. Indeed, in the same interview after the game, JT <b>himself</b> acknowledged that it probably would have been a good idea to have CJ in the game! To practice what I'm preaching, let me acknowledge that JT did a good job this year in improving the level of play as the season progressed. I hope it continues in the bowl game. There are other longstanding issues that I hope will also get addressed (i.e., special teams play, especially PAT's), but those have been discussed already elsewhere. I'd just like to say here that I appreciate both the content and the spirit of your post.

Agree with BTUR's point here, even though I tend to be in the opposite camp, whatever it's called (nega).

<img src="<a href="<a href="<a href="<a href="http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPUzZ8r9RD7I9oLcplZtraXdJyX5JE2oBcLaHvDlyGUzjNrtD0""""" class="postlink " target="_blank">http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPUzZ8r9RD7I9oLcplZtraXdJyX5JE2oBcLaHvDlyGUzjNrtD0""""</a> class="postlink " target="_blank"><a href="http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPUzZ8r9RD7I9oLcplZtraXdJyX5JE2oBcLaHvDlyGUzjNrtD0"""</a>" class="postlink " target="_blank">http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPUzZ8r9RD7I9oLcplZtraXdJyX5JE2oBcLaHvDlyGUzjNrtD0"""</a></a> class="postlink " target="_blank"><a href="<a href="http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPUzZ8r9RD7I9oLcplZtraXdJyX5JE2oBcLaHvDlyGUzjNrtD0""</a>"" class="postlink " target="_blank">http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPUzZ8r9RD7I9oLcplZtraXdJyX5JE2oBcLaHvDlyGUzjNrtD0""</a>"</a> class="postlink " target="_blank"><a href="http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPUzZ8r9RD7I9oLcplZtraXdJyX5JE2oBcLaHvDlyGUzjNrtD0""</a></a>" class="postlink " target="_blank">http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPUzZ8r9RD7I9oLcplZtraXdJyX5JE2oBcLaHvDlyGUzjNrtD0""</a></a></a> class="postlink " target="_blank"><a href="<a href="<a href="http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPUzZ8r9RD7I9oLcplZtraXdJyX5JE2oBcLaHvDlyGUzjNrtD0"</a>""" class="postlink " target="_blank">http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPUzZ8r9RD7I9oLcplZtraXdJyX5JE2oBcLaHvDlyGUzjNrtD0"</a>""</a> class="postlink " target="_blank"><a href="http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPUzZ8r9RD7I9oLcplZtraXdJyX5JE2oBcLaHvDlyGUzjNrtD0"</a>"</a>" class="postlink " target="_blank">http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPUzZ8r9RD7I9oLcplZtraXdJyX5JE2oBcLaHvDlyGUzjNrtD0"</a>"</a></a> class="postlink " target="_blank"><a href="<a href="http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPUzZ8r9RD7I9oLcplZtraXdJyX5JE2oBcLaHvDlyGUzjNrtD0"</a></a>"" class="postlink " target="_blank">http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPUzZ8r9RD7I9oLcplZtraXdJyX5JE2oBcLaHvDlyGUzjNrtD0"</a></a>"</a> class="postlink " target="_blank"><a href="http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPUzZ8r9RD7I9oLcplZtraXdJyX5JE2oBcLaHvDlyGUzjNrtD0"</a></a></a>" class="postlink " target="_blank">http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPUzZ8r9RD7I9oLcplZtraXdJyX5JE2oBcLaHvDlyGUzjNrtD0"</a></a></a></a> /><br /><b>Tedford's been close but he's made no ringer yet!</b><br /><br />Hmmmm.....My view differs from yours <i>bearblast</i> in that I don't agree that Tedford, after [SIZE="5"]ten[/SIZE] football seasons, has dispelled the notion (as your observation could also be construed to support) of the Cal football program's <i>continued</i> mediocrity....

So you're happy with our finishes in the middle of the PAC-10 and blowout losses to the top teams in the conference? FYI, do you think its a coincidence that Maynard had good games only against the teams in the bottom half of the conference. His worst games were the ones against the top teams (and UCLA!). You're happy with this?

Huh? I assumed that posters that have Oski in their handle used to be Oski's at Cal.

Haters = Racists? Either one agrees with the author or he/she is a bad name. Tired rhetorical ploy...beneath the level of this crowd. There are legit criticisms of JT's past decisions and management. He has the opportunity to improve, just as each of us do, if we will only work at it and learn from our mistakes. Lead poster: NB.

<blockquote><div class="name-said">MiZery;650266 said:</div><hr>So you're happy with our finishes in the middle of the PAC-10 and blowout losses to the top teams in the conference? FYI, do you think its a coincidence that Maynard had good games only against the teams in the bottom half of the conference. His worst games were the ones against the top teams (and UCLA!). You're happy with this?<hr></blockquote><br /><br />You know, I don't really understand the focus on blowout losses, and why that gets brought up over and over like it's such a big deal. Arkansas is #6 in the BCS standings, and they got blown out by LSU and Alabama. Stanford is #4 and got blown out by Oregon. Kansas State is #8 and they got blown out by Oklahoma. These are Top 10 teams (by one measure), you know? You can go down the list to find other examples (teams like VTech and Baylor) of good teams that got blown out. It's kind of the nature of college football. It happens. It's not that big of a deal. I completely understand where you're coming from when with your complaint about middle of the Pac not being something to brag about, but I don't really understand the blowout thing. When the team starts to do better, the blowouts should happen less frequently...but the truth is, they're just a part of college football and something that's gonna happen from time to time. I'm completely on board with the idea of cutting down on them, and mixing in more quality wins with them...but I think we'd all be happy to have the kind of season Stanford just had, right?

Mined this thread for my two favorite claims from the delusional Tedford crowd:<br /><br />1) 5-5 Pac 12 record. Check. Anywhere else on planet earth is the CO game being counted?<br /><br />2) Since we "expected" seven wins, we met our goals. Check. Wake me when Chip Kelly expects 7 wins.<br /><br /><br />Tedford's primary reputation outside of the Board is as an underachieving coach. He has a lot of work to do to get us to the top tier of the conference. Hope this 2012 class is step one.

I love how the OP started this thread, in essence throwing a grenade in a crowded waiting room. He has not been back since to defend his position.